E18 - Kenya Dixon – Information Governance U.S. Government and Private Sector
Data Diva Kenya Dixon
39:32
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
people, data, privacy, government, facial recognition software, software, organization, create, person, workflow, collect, life, white house, information, sold, technology, state, protect, consumer, privacy act
SPEAKERS
Debbie Reynolds, Kenya Dixon
Debbie Reynolds 00:00
The personal views and opinions expressed by our podcast guests are their own and are not legal advice or official statements by their organizations. Hello, my name is Debbie Reynolds, they call me "The Data Diva." Today on "The Data Diva Talks Privacy" podcast, I have an extraordinarily special guest. I have Kenya Dixon, who is the General Counsel and Chief Operating Officer of Empire Technologies, who works on risk management, coming out of this to give me your sort of background, or what Kenya has been up to for many, many years. She's a lawyer, she's a technologist, she's worked a lot with data. Some of her previous teeny, weeny jobs that she's had in the past have been things like being the Director of the White House information governance in the Executive Office of The President, the Assistant Director of the Division of Litigation technology for the Federal Trade Commission. And also, she's worked at records management for the FDIC, which is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. So is there anything that I left out about you, Kenya?
Kenya Dixon 01:17
Well, first of all, thank you for having me, Debbie. It's so great to do this with you. Before I entered government, I had a whole life as a litigator. But that, you know, that was boring in comparison.
Debbie Reynolds 01:29
So I will talk about the time when we met in person. This is actually a pretty good story. So I think it was 2019, probably so we were both attending a conference. So that's International Legal Technology Association Conference in Florida. And we were on a segment to speak. So I think it was kind of like an Oprah-style interview, or a couple of us were interviewed by David Horrigan, who I absolutely adore, from Relativity. And you were there, and you and I had never met before in person. And you, when you came in, people sort of swarmed around you. And I sort of got in line with everybody else, I went to introduce myself, and I reached out my hand to you. And I said, you know, I'm Debbie Reynolds, and you stopped me and said, I know who you are! And I was like, What? I couldn't believe it.
Kenya Dixon 02:35
I know who "The Data Diva" is. You'd better believe that! You made my day that day. It was so funny.
Well you know Debbie, I get a lot of my information. In the government, you have this thing when you're going to acquire goods and services, and you have to do market research. And that market research can take months, and it can take over a year, in some instances, depending on how much you're going to spend and how large the project is. And so, in order to keep up to speed on the marketplace, outside of the government, I have to follow experts like yourself. I follow a lot of experts. I've read a lot of your blog posts. I had followed you for years. So yes, I knew exactly who you are. And I agree with you about David Horrigan has marshaled me in ways throughout this industry and introduced me to some fabulous people who have expanded my knowledge and who have also assisted me and with my market research. And so yeah, so of course, I knew who you were.
Debbie Reynolds 03:33
Oh, my goodness, that's so sweet. That's very, very sweet. You know so much about the government. I feel like a lot of people don't understand how the government is very different, especially as it relates to privacy. So the government has its own privacy laws that are very different, right? And a lot of, for me, the way I think of it, and maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way, is that a lot of privacy regulations and things are very purpose-built. So you know, you have to have a purpose, right? Before you decide, do you want to collect data? Or how you're going to collect it? Or you know, what rights that you want to be able to protect? Or what things about the government you're trying to protect? Is that the right way to think about it?
Kenya Dixon 04:16
Yeah, I think of the government's regulations as explaining to the public how it manages the American public's resources if you will, how it protects the public, and how it uses the public's data. And so before you start gathering data into a repository, you have to write up reasons for why you're creating a repository of American citizens data and a lot of the laws like the Privacy Act and FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, and a lot of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the exceptions that apply to government. A lot of the rules have to do with how the government behaves with data. What design long before we got into this age, where data was leveraged the way it is, before social media, before email, before we had all these electronic versions of data. And so managing data for 400 million people is not easy. And making sure that you're doing it for the right reasons is what a lot of these laws were created for. Although I think there's a lot of debate around whether or not the government, particularly the Federal government has is keeping up with those requirements. I am aware that I think yesterday or the day before yesterday on the 17th, 40 civil rights organizations wrote an open letter to President Biden, asking him to marshal Facial Recognition software, to pass a Federal law about how that can be used, mostly just asking them to stop using it because the software can be so detrimental to people's lives, the impact on people when it's used incorrectly, given that the software is incomplete and does not work. In the same way for different segments of society creates a disparate impact for people. People want to want to know what you are going to do about the software, and we see how the software is not just used to catch to destroy, you know, people's lives. It was also used facial recognition software was used on foot in the January six riders. But it wasn't even necessary because social media could provide almost as much video if not more than any social, you know, any street cameras with Facial Recognition software on them could have ever supplied. So maybe some of these technologies that the government has are not necessary to be used the way that they're using.
Debbie Reynolds 07:04
Right? Yeah, Facial Recognition. Last year, I, I was asked out got some asked every day to privacy day in January, what I think is going to be a big issue. And last year, I said it was going to be Facial Recognition, but I didn't know all this other stuff was going to happen. But it is something that's very much a concern, especially for people of color where the accuracy rates are not very, very good. And also, you know, a lot of times when people say, Well, you know, technology is 70% accurate, that's not good enough. So does that mean every 30 people will go to jail just because it's incorrect?
Kenya Dixon 07:43
70% accurate for people of color. And I think for what I think if it has the lowest accuracy for Black women, but it is nearly 100% accurate for White men. So that's an algorithm problem. And the algorithm shouldn't be it. There are multiple issues here, right. One is privacy. The other is the accuracy of the software. And I think both are valid concerns and probably need to be litigated to the highest court of the land. But of course, as we all know, finding the right plaintiffs to take it to the highest court in the land is the real issue. Because if you say that, you know, a Black guy that's got a long rap sheet was violated by Facial Recognition software, they plucked him out as they did with Willie Lynch plucked him out. He wasn't in the city. He couldn't drive. It wasn't, you know, I'm not sure I know. I have all the facts that are multiples of these cases that I've looked at. And then he's put in jail, even though he's not the right person, and the only thing they use is facial recognition software, then that person doesn't gather or garner the sympathy in the lower courts or the Supreme Court, because the reality is you have to be the right kind of plaintiff in order to get the justice that we all deserve. And so I think they're waiting for the right kind of plaintiff. I know the ACLU has been very aggressive with regards to almost every state ACLU has filed something many states have outlawed it on a state level, but the FBI and ICE use it regularly. ICE has been using Facial Recognition software across license plates in many jurisdictions in order to gather a database full of faces. I can tell you right now my face my photographs are very old. To ever get a new photo. I try to get a facelift before I go take a DMV photo.
Debbie Reynolds 09:53
Yeah, though, those are all concerns and into the evidence right. So evidence should be accurate, but there are so many different layers or phases you have to go through even before you get to the authentication of evidence can't authenticate something truly, if it was not correct in the first place.
Kenya Dixon 10:12
I think that that, you know, safeguards even trying to put safeguards in place, but the individuals that have to manage the safe part are flawed as well, you know, some of the safeguards are well, you have to have a human being verify the results of the Facial Well, okay, well, if you're using, you know, White people looking at Asian people, well, that's that they, their understanding of the nuances of an Asian face are just as poor as the software if not worse, you know, or if you look, you're having, again, White people look at Black women, the ability to, to determine whether or not we are the different women is very difficult. For people who don't know us personally, I have been mistaken for you believe it or not,
Debbie Reynolds 10:58
You know what, I was mistaken for you too. And we don't look anything like anything alike. And yet, and still, people mistake us for one another routinely. And this is, so having a person identify someone else's face or verify that software that's incorrect is, in fact, correct when the person is incapable of making the distinction themselves is not a check. Right? And it's, you know, and it's not supposed to be the only evidence that is used, but still, police departments often use it and say, this is the, and you don't even have any visual way of even knowing if Facial Recognition software was used. Right. Once, you know, once you've been arrested and charged, if that's how they decided to arrest you and charge you. There are no rules around that. Yeah, that's a huge, huge issue, huge issue. I would love to talk about, you know, you're an expert in information governance. And I love information governance, folks, because you all know all those tricks, so you understand where the data is, you have to take the time, a lot of times to the finish line, and a lot of kind of finding out about data and where it is and where it's stored. That's something that Data Privacy professionals go through. But I feel like we need to really lean on the expertise of information governance people because you guys have been through this many times before. But I want to talk about kind of a personal element. In terms of trying to get the cooperation of people, I had someone ask me a question about what I think is most important for a Data Privacy person. And I say you have to be able to talk with people at different levels of the organization and get their you know, be compassionate, right and understanding and also get their, their buy-in and their cooperation. And that's not always easy. So even if you have the authority, being able to sort of have those conversations and create those relationships is difficult. So give me your thoughts. You have done this at a high level, obviously, you know, in all your executive positions. So what are your thoughts about that?
Kenya Dixon 13:17
Well, I think you're absolutely correct. You have to get buy-in from upper management in any organization in order to have the authority to carry out the project of gathering the data. Right. So you someone in authority has to be able to say to the entire organization, give the information governance, professional access, they're not reading your email, they're just trying to find the repository, we don't have time to read 8000 people's emails, we just want to know, are their emails, and where do they sit. And so the other thing is, as you go through your organizations and speak to people, there has to be a level of emotional intelligence attached to that, you have to be able to have a conversation with people about something other than the data, so that they will open up and talk to you about their workflow. You know, the workflow determines where the data ends up. And so a lot of people will tell you their workflow. They have no idea where their data ends up. And there's software that can help you, you know, call a network or call an organization and find data or whatever. But you have to be able to speak to people and assure them that you're not a nefarious being that you're just trying to determine what their workflow is. And in that process, as you determine what the workflow of that individual or that department, or that bureau or that agency or corporation is. You have to be able to find efficiencies for them so that they find the time that they spent with you was valuable. And so, a lot of times, the workflow is crazy. I'll give you an example. In the White House, for your attorneys use Adobe, still to do redactions before data is released. It's like, why are you doing incredible work the document redacted PDF document. At the time you finished doing all of that, you could have had a baby. Why don't you use this? There is now auto redaction software. And you know, there's a lot of time you can save a person, like an Information Governance person, a person like myself can make recommendations for you, and help you use technology and alter your workflow to make your life easier to make your job more efficient. And to keep you from pulling your hair out on a day-to-day basis. That's what I did for the FDIC. And for the FTC. And at the White House, I really tried to say these workflows, you know, aren't efficient, let's find a combination of new process and new technology and training. So that you can, you can actually do your job without committing suicide. That's, that's my goal.
Debbie Reynolds 16:29
I used to tell lawyers, do you want to go home at five o'clock? Right. So it's like, you're gonna stay here all night trying to figure this out. Or we can work together and come up with something that makes sense that can be done more quickly and more efficiently, and you can have a life. And that's something I definitely bring up. I want to talk to you about FOIA. So Freedom of Information Act, people obviously know, I hope they know that this is a law, that means that certain things can be released to the public. But FOIA also has rules about, you know, redacting information and deciding what needs to be put out into the public. And the reason why I bring it up for you is that we're finding now in all these new Data Privacy laws are coming out. Sometimes they have, you know, different states in the US, especially, they have different criteria for combinations of data that are now being personally identifiable information that may not have been sold in the past. What are your thoughts about it?
Kenya Dixon 17:36
First caveat, I am not a fleet expert. However, my work takes me into General Counsel's offices, and I deal with FOIA people and their workflows all the time. So the Freedom of Information Act with regards to Federal data has this formula in it. For instance, my name is releasable. You know my name and my salary in the Federal government; you're allowed to have that. But once you add another piece of information in it, like my home telephone number, it becomes PII. And the reason that these formulas exist is that the government doesn't just have a collection and preservation duty. It has a consumer protection or a public protection duty. And so now with the Internet, and with social media, if you have two pieces of information about me, you have my address, my name, you have my name, my phone number, you have a credit card number, and you know, it's a MasterCard number, as opposed to an American Express number, and you have my name, you can go you can create a whole new profile, and steal a person's identity. And that's what the Dark Web is designed for. And so if you release information that the government has protected under this home of trust, you release it, and you don't protect the public. People will be harmed, and people are harmed by data releases every day. Again, that's why the Dark Web is so powerful, is because it's where our data is bought and sold and traded and used for blackmail and, and use to shame people and destroy companies and to kidnap and sell human beings and all sorts of really dark, nefarious things. So that's the reason why these formulas exist on the Federal level—not being an expert at the state and the local level. I would imagine that states and local organizations are following very similar rules, and they have the ability to tighten up and expand those rules by jurisdiction, and they're trying to do that because the Federal government has not kept up with the technology, right? I have a relative whose entire based on his Facebook, something on Facebook, they completely created a whole new person and completely blocked him out of his whole life. He lost his email, phone, all his social media, he lost all his contacts, credit card, he couldn't have a credit card, he lost everything. And he had to physically visit, you know, every single place that he had to reconnect with. And the police don't help you rebuild your life. No, the FBI doesn't know they don't help you. The bank doesn't help you rebuild your life. You have to do that step by step. So what is the government's obligation for data they have collected to one inform the public about why they're going to collect this data before they collect it. And I don't think the government is doing a very good job of that right now. Especially when you look at what's happening with Facial Recognition software, but from a FOIA standpoint, your attorneys are very careful. They just are not enough of them. Right? Because the way FOIA has been used in the last decade, or maybe a little less time, maybe about the last decade really has put a huge burden on FOIA on agencies and for your attorneys and for your shops.
Debbie Reynolds 21:27
I agree with that. I agree with that. Definitely, the difference in my mind about the government and the way that data is collected or amassed outside of government, like consumer areas are, in consumer areas, there's data collection without purpose, right? So there's so much data that's collected, and you don't necessarily know what the purpose is gonna be or what someone's gonna use it for where the government is very much purpose bound in terms of how they collect data and how it's, you know, being managed. Is that an accurate assessment?
Kenya Dixon 22:03
Well, I would say there is a purpose for the consumer collection of data. But I think that corporations and entities haven't done a good job of explaining what that purpose is. The public may not be aware of what the purpose is, but corporations exists for shareholders. And leveraging data often is a huge asset, any organization and leveraging that data, as we saw with the Facebook, Cambridge Analytica situation, that is, selling huge portions of your database to a third party, is a huge revenue source for organizations. So if I'm selling you lampshades, and I have to collect all this information, including your credit card number, your home, your name, your address, maybe I asked you your age range, I asked you whether or not you live in a condo or an apartment or a house or on an English estate unit. I asked you questions about yourself and sell that data to multiple parties; that data can end up being a larger asset than the sales from lampshades, right. So there is a purpose for the collection of that data. The problem is the public needs to be able to say. I don't want you to do this with my data. Because I may not be interested in lamps. Right? Right. I may not be interested in being sold cups. If I bought a lampshade, maybe I don't want to be sold anything, right? Maybe you're selling it to face my information to facial recognition software companies because now they know they have a face and a name. But they don't have all the information related. The Chinese do this very well. Yeah, the Chinese build a complete profile around who you are as an individual. And they just scour everything on the Internet and hack into everything and take all that data and create dossiers on every single American person and probably other people too. That they can create a dossier on, and you can go on the Internet and order your Internet file if you will. And see that it can be 1000s of pages right, and that should shock you to find out that so much of your life this is why I'm I'm always baffled by people that search nefarious things on the Internet. If it's in your file,
Debbie Reynolds 24:39
right, but yeah, totally.
Kenya Dixon 24:41
If you're looking for how to suffocate your child, it's in your folder that's true. Your enemy's computer to search how to kill people use your own computer in your file.
Debbie Reynolds 24:58
Absolutely, absolutely. Let's talk about the Privacy Act of 1974. So there has been some debate, I want your opinion on it. And I'll tell you what I think, where some people are thinking, you know, a lot of people are trying to figure out how we're going to get it like a Federal Data Privacy, consumer law, right. So some people are thinking, well, let's take this Federal law that was created for a different purpose and try to expand in a way so that it can, you know, encompass government and, you know, private sector, data collection, and consumer stuff. What are your thoughts about that?
Kenya Dixon 25:40
I think the 1974 Privacy Act was created before we had email and social media and artificial intelligence, and all these different things, and even a way to collect all of this data and hold on to it. And so as we look at, especially from our Federal records standpoint, the preservation the collection, the preservation of all of this data has become burdensome for the government and trying to find ways to deal with the data, whether or not it's necessary to keep the state of this long, whether it's necessary at all to keep the data whether how the data is used, and all these different these questions whether or not you can release it under FOIA or whether or not you can preserve it, hold it back under Privacy Act, or whether you know, it can be released during this time, if there's an exception to releasing it under requests for production and litigation. There are multiple laws regulations that overlap. So the Privacy Act doesn't live on its own. And so I think that this is not solvable easily. And I think that every piece of litigation that comes out to address something overlaps with the Privacy Act and Federal government. And it is an outdated act, it needs to be updated, and it gets updated periodically, but it just doesn't. It doesn't keep up with the technology. I think the Federal Trade Commission does a very good job of trying to protect people's privacy under the Bureau of Consumer Protection. And that has been one of their big pushes protecting the elderly, protecting children, then the Do Not Call list. There are a lot of different issues that the Federal Trade Commission has taken on to protect people's privacy. And they do a great job for being such a small agency. It's a small agency with a really big footprint. And so I think their mission is to kind of tackle some of this. But again, probably not enough attorneys to deal with it. Law needs to be updated. Congress needs to really get in and take a good look at all of these issues and how they impact people's privacy—knowing that the government is not really in favor of this country or protecting privacy after 9/11, privacy protection kind of went out the window. And you're going to have to look to states to really protect the privacy of their individual constituents.
Debbie Reynolds 28:20
You know, I feel like we need blanket privacy. Where all these other little bits and pieces of privacy legislation sort of getting plugged in, right, so you're not reinventing the wheel, you're just saying, here are the gaps. And this is the way we're sort of going to cover it. And I think the FTC has done a decent job, except they not for any fault of their own. They don't cover all industries. And then, you know, I think, whatever, if we ever get a Federal Data Privacy law, I think it should be something that covers all people, and not all consumers are humans, right? Not all the other way around. So just because you're a consumer doesn't mean you give up your privacy, right? And then there are people who like, let's say, for instance, you take a picture of your grandma, and you're on Facebook, she's not a consumer of Facebook, she's just on Facebook because you're on there. So she doesn't have the same rights that you do as a consumer of Facebook. So I think having laws that are human-based, as opposed to a smaller base, will cover more people. So hopefully, I don't know, what are your thoughts about that?
Kenya Dixon 29:39
Well, I've never thought about that. I mean, that's an excellent point that a lot of our privacy laws are consumer-based, but after 9/11, we kind of said, you go to the airport, we're gonna take a picture of your face. We're going to scan your face your fingerprints in the government. I've had to take, you know, urinalysis, fingerprint. I mean, I think I get fingerprinted every three to five years. I get fingerprinted a lot. You know, every aspect of my life has been examined, over examined, double examined, re-examined. And I think I think that there is no, there is no privacy in this country anymore. It's not valued because people believe two things. One, I've got nothing to hide, which is a really strange way of looking at crime. The idea is not something to hide. It's that your life belongs to you. And it shouldn't be open to all prying eyes. Right. That's kind of the idea of privacy, not that you're hiding anything. Yeah. The second thing is we value in this country safety and security. More than we are, we believe we do more than we believe in the idea of privacy, right. So if you're going to take software and collect everything about a person and keep it someplace where you can figure out who the person is who committed who stole a watch, rather quickly, as opposed to doing real detective work, and preserving the privacy of all the people around an individual who may have stolen a watch. People choose to get to a thief rather quickly, even if they don't, even if you identify the wrong person, right. And so, there is a disconnect in the minds of Americans with regards to the value of privacy. And until Americans see it as something of value. Interestingly enough, corporations understand the value of leveraging data. I get hired frequently. I might have been in the past to help an organization marshal its data so that it can be leveraged. Right. And so entities understand the value of data and private individuals in this country do not.
Debbie Reynolds 32:04
Right. So based on that, do you think we'll ever have a Federal Data Privacy law?
Kenya Dixon 32:11
I don't know. I'm trying to see that we get a really good Federal Cybersecurity law. We don't; we've been getting these little, the little bits and bytes here and there. And I think that you know, Congress does, to some extent, I mean, I don't know, we get a lot here, and a law there and an update here and an update there, and they push us along a little bit. But overarching blanket laws are not the norm. And when you have one, that's when that happens. There's a huge pushback to it. Oh, so blanket Federal Privacy Act that says the government doesn't release any information to the public or us gather, collect, preserve our release, you know, all those terms. Any data that breaches an individual's privacy is probably never coming. Yeah. If you look at the UK, in email, where I email you is private. Write an email, here where I email you belongs to the corporation if I use the company's email and or their computer.
Debbie Reynolds 33:23
That's right,
Kenya Dixon 33:24
We believe here, but that's okay.
Debbie Reynolds 33:26
Yeah.
Kenya Dixon 33:28
We believe the corporation can own if I buy a lampshade on my break. The corporation believes that the information that I've used to purchase that lampshade belongs to the corporation. So we've given up privacy rights. This is why when people say I've got nothing to hide, I'm always surprised that that is a response that people have because you then give up all privacy.
Debbie Reynolds 33:53
Yeah, right. Yeah, I don't know. To me, I think my interest in privacy has been the idea that I want to be left, let alone right. So I would be able to do whatever it is that I want to do—and knowing that just having a phone in my pocket and walking down the corner is someone's recording that somewhere for Lord knows what is concerning to me. Definitely.
Kenya Dixon 34:19
And double-checking that with a camera that's using Facial Recognition software to verify that it is you carrying your phone and not someone else who's stolen your phone.
Debbie Reynolds 34:30
Right. Exactly, exactly. Well, I would love to talk about this briefly on the Presidential Records Act. So I know that you're an expert in it. An expert now.
Kenya Dixon 34:46
The Presidential Records act is it's only it's interesting because I was familiar with and had done a great deal of work with the Federal Records Act at other agencies and then got into the White House and realized, Oh, this is completely different. The Presidential Records Act is was signed by Clinton, not Clinton by Carter. And it didn't apply to Carter, which I think is the funniest. You know, the funniest piece of the Act is that it's designed to capture memorialize actions and policies, procedures, things that the President, you know, the President does. And the Act was created before all this stuff happens right before you could Tweet, the President could Tweet 24,7 right. I was up in the middle of the night. And I saw that, that Biden was was tweeting about Texas and helping Texas get through all of this. And I thought, well, that's interesting. Usually, you'd have a press conference a dozen years ago. And so maybe you know, the spokesperson would come out on the for the daily briefing and say the President has spoken to the Governor of Texas, and they are trying to do everything they can for the people from the great state of Texas. And they may not have given you any details. But now there's a Tweet. So the question under the Presidential Records Act is who collects all of those decisions? All of the things that memorialize decisions that impact the country? How much of it? Do you collect? You collect 100% of everything. The White House has been collecting pretty much everything. The question is, what does it do with that data? Does it send all of it to the National Archives? Do the National Archives have the resources to create a repository, preserve all of that data and information? And are they all Presidential Records? Or is it just noise? Right? 100 years or 200? years? Will we need to read every single tweet that President Trump or President Biden has put out? Are these ads? Do they have significant value? Are they memorializing something, particularly if they're if the tweet is misleading?
Debbie Reynolds 37:01
That's right.
37:01
Is that historic? Maybe it's historic, but lying Presidents is not new. I'm not certain where this is going to go. I know this. I know that none of the White House, the Executive Office of the President, and the National Archives, neither organization has enough resources to really marshal this well, right. And so I would say that Congress needs to take another look at helping determine what a presidential record is and how that data will be, you know, every now and then they send a subpoena to the White House demanding that Federal record, somebody appear to discuss how Federal Presidential Records are being managed. But that's if you don't give the White House the money to actually do the work. What's the point of having them come up to Congress and be reamed out? Only to go back and say, yeah, we would do it the way you want to do it. But we don't have the resources to do that. And NARS like, well, we're going to change repositories, every administration because the data is too big. The data is growing exponentially. Even for Presidential Records, forget the federal records. No, records are completely out of control. But the Presidential Records are growing because all of the avenues by which a president communicates and the staff of the President communicates is, you know, it's growing. Yeah,
Debbie Reynolds 38:27
That's true. Very true.
Kenya Dixon 38:29
It would be nice to see more resources for the organizations so that they can hire staff and contractors to get hardware and software to do the job. The way it should be done.
Debbie Reynolds 38:42
Yeah, exactly. Wow, this has been so great. I'm so happy that we were able to do this together. I don't know what you were saying before the show that I don't know why we need to collaborate more, I guess.
Kenya Dixon 38:56
I can't believe it is the first time that we've ever done anything together.
Debbie Reynolds 39:00
Yeah. We'll have to do it again. Definitely, well, thank you so much for being on the show. This is very illuminating. I learned so much. from you. So so great.
Kenya Dixon 39:10
Well, thank you for having me. And I learned something from you all the time, though, because I follow you. I follow you on social media.
39:17
Well, thank you so much. Yeah. Well, I'll talk to you soon.
Kenya Dixon 39:20
All righty. Great. Thank you.
