One of the criticisms we heard was that because the scope was so broad, you're capturing a wide net; you're not only looking at malware, you're looking everywhere. Now, if you look at some of the others, such as the New Zealand spam act or the Australia spam act, the legislation applies to a defined list of commercial electronic messages that relate to direct marketing, for example. Could you comment on why you chose to do it, as you said, rather narrowly versus broadening it out? I'm sure when you listened to some of the witnesses who came before us, you gave some further consideration to that.
On October 7th, 2009. See this statement in context.