I don't have access to the database that the Information Commissioner speaks from. I object to the characterization. I don't know who those three individuals are. They could be a large law firm or a media organization. For all I know, it could be a pharmaceutical company, and they are known to be heavy users of the act.
My point is, who cares? If these requests are, for example, from a large law firm...and I wish it were me, because perhaps it would be effective from a monetary standpoint. But if a law firm represents an entire industry, they could have a number of requests. Years ago there was a lawyer specializing in fiscal law in Montreal who used to make quite a number of access requests in order to be up to date and to publish a fiscal bulletin on it. It's a legal way to have access to government records. What can I say? It's the only legal way. It's far superior to any other way I know of.
To me, instead of trying to dampen or reduce or eliminate what are referred to as—and I object to the term—data brokers or industrial users, let's not even go there. How can we better respond? There were 29,000 requests last year. This is a drop in the bucket. From the same commissioner who recommends to you to go worldwide, there would be 2 billion or 3 billion. Imagine if the Chinese—