Hey sir. So I will touch base with you again on Wednesday. Thank you. I'm JP Fein from Coplock. You're statement on the bill about private conversation between public officials in an enclosed area. Are you opposed to that? Or are you just generally speaking, you just don't want video recording at all? No, no. It was hard to pinpoint what side of the line you were on. I mean there are certainly situations where video and audio recording are appropriate if it's in a public place. And if the people are aware of it. So what part of the bill you against? The criminality of a public official saying no, I don't want you to? No, it's the part that, I mean there are no limits at all. So as I said, you could go into the governor's office and put a tape recorder there. And say I'm going to record all of your conversations. Well, don't you think that should be available to the public? Now, the bad thing has happened when two private conversations happened. I mean we'd learn that from Watergate. Look at the history. If those things are hidden, how does the public know they can entrust the public official? If the public official say that I don't want you to tape that conversation? There are all kinds of conversations that go on in private with public officials. Whether it's the governor or whether it's the school teacher or the worker in the city hall. I mean, coming from a co-blocker, I'm not a freestead. I'm coming from a co-blocker and going specifically after police brutality, and I'm going to take the tactics and stuff like that. Looking from the outside in, because I'm not into politics hardly. This bill is just very important to my work. The only thing that I would see a problem with that is if there was something addressed in the bill that said a person actually has to be present, because you can actually plant a bug. And it would be lawful under the bill. Is that the stuff you're trying to avoid? Well, that's part of it. That would be the most egregious situation where plants are recording device. And as you say, the bill would allow that. But even, I'm a local, if I'm a local welfare officer, and I'm having a conversation with the client, the bill would allow that. No, it actually wouldn't, because the statutes, because I used to be my whole life through New York, my parents were involved in all that stuff. And I know through the mental health field here, the statutes protecting the confidential, the people that do get EBT and do get resources. There's already laws in place for that. The bill won't kill those protections and those state or federal protections, especially under HIPAA, because there's a lot of medical stuff that gets mentioned with all the stuff that goes on with DHHS. So those are protected. So I can't just tape the public official while they're talking to somebody, because they're right to specifically being the private person or the client. And a lot of parts they're talking about children, too, when it comes to DHHS. So the children have protections of being minors as well. So I don't think the bill's gonna end up doing that at all, but I don't see a lot of people going into DHHS from video gear as the tape and like, let's say Wendy Meizak. She's the manager of the keen office. I'm not gonna be following her around on a daily basis, because they're not doing something that affects me or the public that much. The thing is... Right, you may not be, but under the bill you could. Well, she's an interactive duty, but they're not gonna let me in the room to tape them. But the bill says you have that right. No, this law is protecting the clients. But if it's not that situation under the bill, you could just walk into their office and start recording. I don't know if you'd be allowed to... I mean, there's certain other protections, too, like private property. They could get no trespass order. This stuff locally and civilly they can do to actually protect... They still have a lot of protections, and the bill's not gonna kill those protections. Well, if it's... I mean, you're talking about... There's also harassment clause, too. You have a... You know, it's a gray area. A cop can be like, okay, this is harassment, you need to stop following. And that would be a lawful order, so they're covered by two. Right, but... But if you're talking about, say, City Hall. You have City Hall employees. You can't put a no trespassing sign in City Hall. That's true. So, under this bill, someone could just walk in and start recording whatever's... Any conversations going on in City Manager's office, the tax collector's office. Well, don't you think the public should know what the hex code on those offices? I think there's... Especially a king where the tax is insane. Especially property tax. Don't you think some guy that's been pocketing out all his money on a yearly basis? Don't you think he wants to know what the hex code on all of his money? You can already get the records. I do understand your point, because I'm objective on both sides. And this is coming from a cop locker, which is probably surprising you. But on the other hand, the eighth ought to quote the New Hampshire State Constitution says, all public officials that are oaths should be open at all times and accountable at all times. There's really no great area where that stops. If you make that oath, you basically give an up a certain amount of liberties and be like, okay, I can't have a private conversation with another public official ever. And when you take that oath, you're going in there with that knowledge. And if you want to do it upright with integrity, you want to understand that oath and you understand that, okay, a camera could be poking through that air vent and nothing's private, which is a good thing. You don't agree with that? No. Well, it's nice being you, man. Enjoy the cold weather. It could be Cabo. What's that? It could be Cabo. Yeah. Have a go, and next.