That has been a great obstacle for us in investigating Internet-facilitated child exploitation. This is the number one issue for us, that interpretation of “lawful authority” and the interpretation of “may”. It is being interpreted by service providers as permissive rather than optional. “May” was written to allow or encourage cooperation, but in fact it's being interpreted as though refusing to help is a viable option.
In our line of work, 35% to 40% of the requests that we make to Internet service providers are refused on the basis of PIPEDA. So we have some cases.... We have four recent cases in this country where getting us to the door, starting with a little bit of information from an Internet service provider, building upon it with a search warrant later on to get into the residence, has rescued four children. If we can't get this little bit of information we can't start an investigation and it leaves children at risk, and I think we're failing in our obligation to investigate these cases and try to rescue these children.
So it has had a huge impact for us. After consulting with the other OICs of vice units, I can say that this is the single largest impediment to our efforts today, this current legislation.