Naavi's Podcast
An Introduction to the raise of the new Profession "Independent Data Auditor"
Naavi's Podcast
FDPPI Intervention Petition in Supreme Court
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
FDPPI has filed an intervention petition in the challenge on DPDPA filed in the Supreme Court of India. Here is a synopsis of the intervention petition.
So I want you to picture a house built entirely out of glass.
SPEAKER_02Okay, the glass house.
SPEAKER_01Right. Like for decades, citizens just fought tooth and nail to build this thing, demanding that the government conduct all its business inside it.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, because you want to see exactly where the tax money goes.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. You want to see who is making the decisions and, you know, how the power is actually being wielded. That is essentially the essence of your fundamental right to transparency. Right. But then in the modern world, there's this huge competing demand. You also want a black box.
SPEAKER_02A black box.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. A totally impenetrable, personalized safe where your digital footprint, your health history, all your family details are locked away from everyone, especially the government.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, you want to be left alone.
SPEAKER_01Right. So the modern paradox we are diving into today is well, what happens when someone uses the rules of the glasshouse to demand the combination to your personal black box?
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Oh, that is a great way to put it. And that tension, it's honestly driving one of the most consequential legal battles of our era right now. It's all playing out over the constitutional validity of India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell or the DPDP Act.
SPEAKER_02Right.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. This legislation is basically attempting to referee this massive collision between the fundamental right to information and the fundamental right to privacy.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus And to understand the mechanics of this showdown, we are cracking open a really specific, highly fascinating legal document today.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Oh, it's dense, but it's so good.
SPEAKER_02It really is. It's a set of written submissions filed in the Supreme Court of India by an intervener group. They're called the Foundation of Data Protection Professionals in India, or the FTPPI.
SPEAKER_01Right. And they are this uh coalition of technologists, scholars, and practitioners who actually help shape India's data framework.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and they submitted this massive brief to defend the 2023 Act against a whole ways of constitutional challenges. But um, just a quick gret roll before we dive in.
SPEAKER_01Always good to set the stage. Exactly. We are absolutely not playing judge or jury today. Like we're not endorsing the petitioners who are trying to strike down the law, and we're not endorsing the FDPPI's defense either. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Right. We're just laying out the arguments.
SPEAKER_01Trevor Burrus, Jr.: We're purely unpacking the profound constitutional ideas presented in this source material just to help you grasp the gravity of what's being debated. So, okay, let's unpack this.
SPEAKER_02Let's do it.
SPEAKER_01Because the stakes here, I mean, they could not be higher.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus, Jr.: No. They really touch on the fundamental architecture of what a digital democracy even is.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Ross Powell Right. And to start, the FDPPI's defense basically argues that the petitioners are looking at this all wrong, like they're relying heavily on legal precedents from back in the early 2000s.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, specifically the jurisprudence that built the Landmark Right to Information Act in 2005, the RTI Act.
SPEAKER_01Trevor Burrus, Jr. Which was a huge deal, right? Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Oh, absolutely. That transparency law was a monumental achievement for civil rights in India.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell But the defense is saying that applying a 2005 legal mindset to a post-2017 world is well, it's like trying to regulate electric vehicles using laws written for horse-drawn carriages.
SPEAKER_02I love that analogy. Because the ground beneath Indian constitutional law completely fractured and reset in 2017.
SPEAKER_01The earthquake.
SPEAKER_02The earthquake, exactly. That reset was the historic Putaswamy judgment.
SPEAKER_00Right. We have to talk about Putaswamy.
SPEAKER_02We have to. It was a unanimous nine-judge bench at the Supreme Court. And they unequivocally declared that privacy is a fundamental right. Wow.
SPEAKER_00Unanimous.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, completely woven into the irreducible core of personal liberty. So those transparency laws from the early 2000s, they operated in the world where privacy was, you know, a nice concept. Like a nice to have. Exactly. But it didn't have that supreme explicit constitutional shield yet. So the 2023 data protection law, the DPDP Act, it was drafted as a direct, necessary response to that brand new constitutional reality.
SPEAKER_01And the source material makes a really crucial point here about how Parliament actually designed this response because they didn't just write some lofty philosophical poetry book about the concept of privacy.
SPEAKER_02No, not at all.
SPEAKER_01They built an operational utilitarian tool specifically for processing digital data. And they did it using what they call a fiduciary model.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Right. And that fiduciary model, it fundamentally rewires the relationship between you and the entities hoarding your data.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell How so? Like what was the old model?
SPEAKER_02Well, historically, the global internet basically relied on a really thin illusion of consent.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Oh, right. The classic terms of service.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Exactly. A company hands you a 50-page terms of service agreement. You blindly click I accept because I mean you just want to use the app. Guilty. We all do it. Right. And suddenly that company can legally just exploit your data. But under a fiduciary model, that click is no longer a blank check.
SPEAKER_01Okay, that's a big shift.
SPEAKER_02Huge. Entities processing your information are legally designated as data fiduciaries, meaning they aren't just service providers anymore.
SPEAKER_01They are guardians.
SPEAKER_02Yes. They owe you duties of transparency and good faith. In law, a seduciary duty is literally the highest standard of care imaginable.
SPEAKER_01Like a doctor or a lawyer.
SPEAKER_02Precisely. It's the same unwritten ironclad loyalty a doctor owes a patient. A doctor can't just sell your medical history to a pharmaceutical company just because you signed a waiver in the waiting room. Wow. The data protection law applies that exact same logic to tech companies and government agencies handling your digital life.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell That makes so much sense. And uh the FDPPI points out another radical departure from global norms here, too. The Indian law treats all personal data uniformly.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Yes, which is fascinating.
SPEAKER_01Right. Because if you look at Europe's famous data laws like the GDPR, they spend a massive amount of energy categorizing data into buckets.
SPEAKER_02Trevor Burrus Right, like sensitive buckets for health or biometric data.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and non-sensitive buckets for like your name or email address. But the Indian law abandons that divide entirely.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell, which is such a modern way to look at it.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. It assumes that in the age of artificial intelligence and machine learning, honestly, any data point can be weaponized.
SPEAKER_02Oh, absolutely. Your seemingly harmless shopping habits can be compiled to reveal deeply sensitive psychological profiles.
SPEAKER_01Right. So the law just throws a blanket of high-level protection over everything. So going back to our analogy, what does this all mean?
SPEAKER_02Right, back to the glasshouse.
SPEAKER_01Think back to the glasshouse. The 2005 transparency law threw open the doors of a previously secretive government structure, massive win for democracy. But then the 2017 privacy ruling suddenly installed a massive, heavy, highly secure vault right in the middle of that open house.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell And the 2023 data protection law is just the instruction manual for who gets the combination to that vault.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. And you know, if we connect this to the bigger picture, the FDPPI is really emphasizing that this instruction manual is a uniquely Indian legislative response to a uniquely Indian constitutional evolution. Right. Because the petitioners, they often point to foreign jurisdictions. They argue that India should have just copy-pasted the European model. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, like why didn't we just do what they did? Right. But the defense vehemently rejects that. They say the Supreme Court's mandate is to assess if the chosen law is constitutionally permissible within the Indian framework, not to grade it against European theoretical preferences. Aaron Powell Okay.
SPEAKER_01So that brings us to the actual collision point, like the real-world problem. Aaron Powell The messy part. Yeah. What happens when, say, an investigative journalist files a public records request under the RTI Act to audit a massive government welfare scheme?
SPEAKER_02A super vital democratic exercise.
SPEAKER_01Totally vital. We need to know what the funds are reaching the right people or if they're just disappearing into corrupt pockets. Right. But to prove the money went to the right place, those government records inevitably contain the names, the identification numbers, the home addresses, the underlying health conditions of thousands of innocent citizens.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Yeah. And this is exactly what the defense terms, the collateral third-party data problem. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01That's a great term for it.
SPEAKER_02It really gets to the heart of it. Now, the petitioners argue that the new data protection lie creates this terrifying blanket ban on releasing any information. They think the new law amended the transparency laws to basically weld the vault shut forever. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Just locked up tight, nobody gets in.
SPEAKER_02Right. But the FDPPI counters that this is just a complete misreading of the statutory scheme. The public interest overrides that mechanism that forces data into the light if it serves the greater good, it still absolutely exists in the transparency framework.
SPEAKER_01So the amendment didn't destroy the override, it just changed who is allowed to pull the lever.
SPEAKER_02Precisely. In the old system, a mid-level bureaucrat, known as a public information officer, was tasked with deciding whether to release that collateral data.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Just a regular administrative worker.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. But after the Supreme Court elevated privacy to a fundamental right, deciding whether to expose innocent people's data is no longer just a simple administrative checkbox.
SPEAKER_00I mean, that's an act of complex constitutional adjudication at that point.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. You are weighing the democratic necessity of an audit against the profound privacy harm to thousands of individuals. Individuals who never consented to public scrutiny and who aren't even in the room to defend themselves. The defense argues that a mid-level bureaucrat is simply not institutionally equipped to make that high wire constitutional judgment.
SPEAKER_01Okay, but the pushback here from the listener is probably obvious. Like I'm thinking if we seal the vault to protect the innocent collateral citizens, aren't we also handing corrupt officials the perfect invisibility cloak?
SPEAKER_02Oh, that is the million-dollar question.
SPEAKER_01Right. Like if I file a records request to find out which specific public works director signed off on a fraudulent bridge contract, can that director just deny the request by claiming their name and signature are personal data protected by their fundamental right to privacy?
SPEAKER_02The FDPPI anticipates that exact fear, and their solution relies on a legal doctrine known as reading down the law.
SPEAKER_00Reading down, what does that mean practically?
SPEAKER_02They're essentially asking the Supreme Court to issue an interpretive clarification, basically establishing a hard boundary called governance contact information.
SPEAKER_01The theory of diminished expectation of privacy.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. The moment you accept a government paycheck and you assume the discharge of public duties, your professional persona is separated from your private persona.
SPEAKER_00Makes total sense.
SPEAKER_02Your name on a contract, your official government email address, your public designation, none of that enjoys the vault's protection.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell So the defense is arguing that the law, when properly construed, is designed strictly to protect the private citizens caught in the crossfire of public records.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Yes, not the officials generating those records. A corrupt official cannot hide behind a law designed for data fiduciaries.
SPEAKER_01Okay, so we can force the vault open if an official is trying to hide. But you know, that logic swings both ways. Right. If the state is investigating me, how easily can they bust into my personal vault? Because the source document spends a massive amount of time addressing this huge fear of state surveillance.
SPEAKER_02It's a huge point of contention.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. The petitioners are sounding the alarm over specific clauses in the law, specifically section 17, which grants exemptions to law enforcement and state instrumentalities. They're a warning of this dystopian future of algorithmic predictive policing.
SPEAKER_02And honestly, it is a profound concern in any digital society. Totally. However, the FDPPI's defense is that these exemptions are not a blank check for indiscriminate surveillance. The carve outs are narrowly tailored specifically for the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of legal offenses.
SPEAKER_01So they can't just snoop for fun.
SPEAKER_02Right. Crucially, these exemptions are explicitly tethered to the overarching limits already drawn by the Indian Constitution. The Constitution only allows the state to restrict freedoms for grave issues like national sovereignty, state security, and public order.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell And the defense points out this incredible little detail about how those restrictions were drafted. If you look at the constitutional limits, the government actually has the power to restrict fundamental rights for reasons including decency or morality or defamation.
SPEAKER_02Right. And what's fascinating here is that Parliament deliberately chose not to use its full constitutional power. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Really?
SPEAKER_02Yeah. When they drafted the data protection exemptions, they completely stripped out decency and morality. The state cannot exempt itself from data protection rules simply because a citizen's data offends someone's subjective sense of decency.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Oh, that is so interesting. The threshold for bypassing the privacy vault is kept intentionally high.
SPEAKER_02Exactly.
SPEAKER_01It's like okay, it's like issuing the police a master key.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_01But the engineers design the key so it physically only fits into three or four specific doors in the entire city.
SPEAKER_02I like that.
SPEAKER_01Right. It will turn the lock if the door is marked criminal investigation or sovereignty of the state. But if an officer tries to jam it into a door mark morality, the key simply will not turn.
SPEAKER_02That is a perfect way to visualize it. And even when they do open the correct door, they don't get to just dump your data in the street.
SPEAKER_01Right. They still have rules.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Ross Powell Exactly. Law enforcement agencies are still strictly bound by data security obligations. They might be exempt from getting your upfront consent to investigate you. Which makes logical sense. I mean you can't ask a cartel for consent to investigate their communications.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Uh yeah. Excuse me, sir. Can we look at your texts?
SPEAKER_02Right. It doesn't work. But they are legally mandated to secure the data they collect. They can't leave it vulnerable to hacks or internal leaks. That's a crucial distinction. Furthermore, the defense stresses that these exemptions are only for officially notified instrumentalities of the state. Private corporations or rogue agencies cannot claim these powers, and the notifications themselves are always subject to judicial review.
SPEAKER_01Okay, so the government gets a specific, highly regulated key, but what about the press?
SPEAKER_02Ah, the journalists.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. The petitioners point out that Europe's overarching data law has a specific categorical exemption for journalists. And they argue the Indian law is fundamentally flawed and hostile to a free press because it lacks a blanket clause stating journalists are exempt from these rules.
SPEAKER_02And the FDPPI pushes back on that comparison hard. They highlight a core philosophical difference in the legislation. The Indian law is purpose-based, whereas the European carve out is identity-based.
SPEAKER_01Okay, break that down for me.
SPEAKER_02The DPDP Act does not grant blanket immunity to anyone based on their job title. There are no categorical exemptions for doctors or charities or educational institutions or even lawyers.
SPEAKER_01So nobody gets a free pass just because of their business card?
SPEAKER_02Right. So the defense asks, why should journalism be the sole profession granted identity-based immunity? Instead, the law provides a robust exemption for research, archival, or statistical purposes.
SPEAKER_01And here's where it gets really interesting.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Because the law is basically forcing us to confront the reality of the modern media landscape.
SPEAKER_02It really is.
SPEAKER_01Like if you grant an identity-based exemption, you legally have to define what a journalist is.
SPEAKER_02Right. And good luck with that today.
SPEAKER_01In 2005, that was easy. It was someone with a press badge working for a major newspaper or a television network. But today, is a citizen filming police misconduct on their smartphone a journalist?
SPEAKER_02Exactly. Is an independent researcher publishing deep dive investigations on a Substack newsletter, a journalist.
SPEAKER_01What about a podcaster?
SPEAKER_02Exactly. If the Supreme Court were to demand an identity-based exemption, they would face an impossible dilemma. If they draw the definition too wide, every corporate data broker or malicious actor will simply slap the label of digital journalist on their website to bypass all privacy obligations.
SPEAKER_01Oh wow. Yeah. Just a loophole for everybody.
SPEAKER_02But if they draw the definition too narrow, restricted only to legacy media, they strip vital protections from the independent digital creators who are doing some of the most critical on-the-ground reporting today.
SPEAKER_01So a purpose-based exemption solves this. If you are conducting genuine investigative research, you are covered by the research exemption, regardless of whether you work for a massive network or out of your garage.
SPEAKER_02Right. The caveat being you cannot use that research to make automated decisions that harms specific individuals. And if a journalist uses their platform to publish sensitive data maliciously, the defense argues that a data protection framework was never meant to be the tool to police that anyway. We already have centuries of defamation law and civil liability to handle irresponsible publishing.
SPEAKER_01Okay, so beyond the exemptions, a law is really only as strong as its enforcement mechanism, right?
SPEAKER_02Always.
SPEAKER_01And the petitioners take aim at the penalty structure here, specifically the power of the data protection board to levy massive financial fines, up to 250 crore rupees for severe breaches.
SPEAKER_02Which is a huge number.
SPEAKER_01It is. They argue that the law allows these fines for any significant breach, but fails to rigidly define what significant actually means. So they're warning that this hands the board unguided, tyrannical discretion to basically destroy businesses.
SPEAKER_02And I mean 250 crore rupees is an existential threat to almost any company. It is absolutely intended to be a severe deterrent. However, the FDPPI clarifies that the inclusion of the word significant is actually a protective shield for smaller entities.
SPEAKER_01A shield, how so?
SPEAKER_02It establishes a jurisdictional threshold. It explicitly prevents the board from weaponizing the law to bankrupt a local startup over a trivial technical administrative error.
SPEAKER_00Ah, I see.
SPEAKER_02The breach must cross a threshold of genuine significance before the massive penalties even enter the conversation.
SPEAKER_01And the discretion isn't totally unguided either. Like the law includes a strict statutory checklist.
SPEAKER_02Exactly. It relies on structured discretion, which is a bedrock concept in administrative law. The board can't simply pick a number out of thin air just because they are angry at a company.
SPEAKER_00They have rules they have to follow.
SPEAKER_02Right. They are legally mandated to evaluate the gravity of the breach, the duration of the exposure, the type of personal data compromised, and the immediate mitigation measures the company deployed.
SPEAKER_01And the defense also brings some really interesting global perspective to that terrifying 250 crore rupee figure.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, this part is eye-opening.
SPEAKER_01Because while it sounds massive domestically, it is actually quite restrained compared to international standards. Like Europe's data regulators can impose fines hitting 20 million euros or 4% of a company's total global turnover.
SPEAKER_024% of global turnover.
SPEAKER_01For a major multinational tech giant, 4% of global turnover equates to billions of dollars.
SPEAKER_02So the Indian penalty regime is really designed to ensure compliance, not to entirely suffocate the digital economy.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Right. Which brings us to the ultimate dilemma facing the Supreme Court right now. The petitioners want the law struck down, arguing it enables state surveillance and cripples transparency. The FDPPI defends the law as a carefully calibrated, perfectly constitutional balancing act.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell So how does the judiciary resolve this without breaking the digital infrastructure of a billion people?
SPEAKER_01That is the big question. And the FDPPI's most urgent plea to the court is to avoid wholesale invalidation.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Right. Because striking the entire act down would not return India to a state of perfect transparency. It would plunge the country into a massive regulatory vacuum. Total chaos. India is one of the largest digital economies on the planet. It is heavily reliant on complex cross-border data flows.
SPEAKER_01Annihilating the data protection framework would vaporize the legal basis for those international flows.
SPEAKER_02Yes. It would severely damage the economy and leave citizens completely exposed to corporate data harvesting while Parliament spends years trying to draft a replacement law.
SPEAKER_01You can't just turn it off and on again. So what's the alternative?
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell The alternative proposed by the defense is that doctrine we talked about, reading down.
SPEAKER_01Right. Fixing the plane while flying.
SPEAKER_02Basically, yeah. They urge the court to issue precise interpretive guidelines to resolve the operational frictions of the law while keeping the foundational machinery intact. And they offer some highly specific, pragmatic solutions to bridge the gap between transparency and privacy.
SPEAKER_01Give me an example of one of those solutions.
SPEAKER_02For instance, they suggest the court could mandate that when a public records request involves collateral citizen data, the default procedure must be to provide anonymized or pseudonymized information.
SPEAKER_01Oh, that makes perfect sense. Going back to our welfare audit example from earlier.
SPEAKER_02Exactly.
SPEAKER_01You get the massive spreadsheet showing exactly where the government funds went, ensuring total financial transparency, but the specific names and identification numbers of the vulnerable citizens are scrubbed out before the file is handed over to you.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Right. You cure the corruption without violating the privacy vault.
SPEAKER_01I love that. What else do they propose?
SPEAKER_02They also propose requiring individuals filing public records requests to sign written indemnity declarations.
SPEAKER_00Ooh, an indemnity declaration.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. The requester would legally swear that they require the data for a genuine public interest. And crucially, they accept full legal liability if they subsequently misuse or leak that collateral data.
SPEAKER_01Oh, wow. So it shifts the burden of responsibility.
SPEAKER_02Entirely. It dramatically deters individuals from weaponizing transparency laws just to snoop on their neighbors or harass local officials.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Because suddenly they're on the hook. Now, this raises a really important question about how we expect rigid laws to govern incredibly fluid technologies because tech moves so fast.
SPEAKER_02Too fast for the law, usually.
SPEAKER_01But the defense points out a fascinating structural mechanism built directly into this legislation: a five-year transitional flexibility window.
SPEAKER_02Which is brilliant. Parliament explicitly recognized that it is impossible to perfectly predict how a complex, rapidly evolving. Digital ecosystem will react to a novel regulatory framework.
SPEAKER_01So they gave themselves a grace period.
SPEAKER_02Basically. This transitional window allows the government to grant limited temporary exemptions to specific sectors. They can observe the real-world operational friction and course correct before locking the ecosystem into permanent, rigid rules.
SPEAKER_01It is an acknowledgement that data protection is an iterative process. It's not just a static declaration.
SPEAKER_02No, it has to evolve.
SPEAKER_01Well, we have spent this entire deep dive examining the architecture of these two competing forces. You demand the glasshouse of transparency to hold power accountable, but you also demand the heavy vault of privacy to protect your own digital DNA.
SPEAKER_02And the source material really reveals a uniquely Indian attempt to build a system where both can coexist.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, using a fiduciary model of guardianship rather than just mimicking Western templates. But uh to close this out, I really want to leave you with a final, slightly haunting thought.
SPEAKER_02Uh-oh.
SPEAKER_01It's buried in a minor concession within the FDPPI document.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Right. Amidst their vigorous defense, the FDPPI actually casually agrees with the petitioners on one tiny thing.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell Yeah, they agree that one specific deletion from the old transparency law was probably a mistake.
SPEAKER_02So what was the rule?
SPEAKER_01There used to be a very specific rule that stated information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person.
SPEAKER_02Wow. Very powerful.
SPEAKER_01Right. But the new Data Protection Act erased that sentence. And the defense basically shrugs and tells the Supreme Court, yes, deleting that served no real data protection purpose, so feel free to reinstate it. But thinking about that deleted rule about the fundamental nature of what information a government holds and what it is compelled to share with its citizens, it leads to a much deeper paradox.
SPEAKER_02It really does. Because we are rapidly approaching a societal horizon of total digitization.
SPEAKER_01Total. Every welfare payment, every toll booth crossing, every medical prescription, every tax record.
SPEAKER_02It is all becoming a logged, cross-reference data point securely tied to an individual's biometric or digital identity.
SPEAKER_01And if every single piece of information generated by the machinery of the state is eventually fundamentally woven into someone's personal digital DNA?
SPEAKER_02Where does that leave us?
SPEAKER_01Will we ever reach a point where the very concept of a public record simply ceases to exist? If the data is all personal, it all belongs in the vault.
SPEAKER_02That is a wild thought.
SPEAKER_01We started by picturing the tension between the open glass house and the closed vault. But what happens when the vault becomes so massive, so deeply intertwined with the daily operation of society that it expands to consume the house entirely?
SPEAKER_02That is something to think about.
SPEAKER_01It's a thought that really lingers. Until next time, keep diving deep.