By analogy, you would like a three-year extension. We would like that very much because you have really done admirable work, particularly in recent months on two specific files: the one involving Google's Street View, and Facebook.
I think that you made recommendations on Street View, which had captured personal information using WiFi technology.
I see that your recommendations are of two kinds. First, you mention being able to delete information. You had given them a deadline of February 2011 to resolve the situation and delete data that they had collected. If they were unable to delete that information, it had to be kept more securely, with restricted access. Could you explain to me the second part of your recommendations? In that case, for example, would they be allowed to conserve data that had been collected illegally?
I want to mention that you have done admirable work with regard to Facebook and I want to congratulate you on your work and your leadership, both internationally and nationally. In all areas, you have really made headway on issues related to Facebook.
As soon as you resolve a problem, be it with regard to Facebook or Google, and people seem to be acting in good faith, a rule seems to exist: that of “not seen, not caught.” There is always something else that comes out. Now it's WiFi.
With regard to WiFi, they collected information illegally and you are saying that if they cannot delete it, it must be kept securely, or there must be restricted access to it. Under what circumstances are they unable to quite simply delete it?