Well, I'm trying to dissociate, I think, the two parts of your question and what happened in that case, which had to do with the expectation of privacy and the interpretation of the Privacy Act and the Customs Act as it then was. I'm saying to you that my predecessor contested that case and lost, obviously, because people did not expect that.
However, it's legitimate, I think, for the government to track fraud. It's legitimate, then, to take reasonable means to track fraud. The question is whether you take excessive means and whether people know about this and expect it, which goes to principles of transparency and open governments.