Thank you for that question.
Mr. Chair, I will address it in three subparts.
The first was a question as to whether or not we are confident that Google will be implementing the recommendations. We have not received any official response from Google. We have read the newspapers, as all of you have, in terms of the statements they have made to the press indicating that they have already undertaken major steps to remedy the problem, but we await Google's official response.
The reason the commissioner issued a preliminary letter of findings is that she doesn't want just undertakings: before concluding the matter and determining whether it is fully resolved or not, she wants proof and evidence that the recommendations have actually been implemented. She is waiting for actual implementation, and not just undertakings. That's the first question.
The second question was on whether we're worried about the data that has been improperly collected. I believe that in the course of the investigation, that was one of the elements that was investigated. The security measures that Google has taken to protect and segregate the data that were improperly collected have been found to be adequate. They have secured the data. They have limited the number of copies. They have secured the information in a secure location, and I think the investigation concluded at that point that it is sufficiently safeguarded pending and awaiting its ultimate destruction.
The third question was on more stringent actions being taken in Europe. I'll answer with respect to two things. The first is in respect of the improper collection of Wi-Fi data, which is the outstanding issue right now.
All data protection commissioners around the world, as you know, have different powers. Some have powers to impose and levy fines or impose criminal sanctions. They all have different powers. In terms of the different reactions, in large measure I would say they're not reflective of interpreting the situation at different levels of severity, but that they vary because of the different powers commissioners have under their respective jurisdictions.
Our commissioner has exercised all of her powers under PIPEDA in order to complete the investigation and in order to bring Google, through her ombudsman role, to implement its recommendations before she concludes the matter and further explores other avenues available to her under the act.
Those are my comments in terms of different reactions in Europe and elsewhere around the world to the Google Wi-Fi matter and the improper collection of payload data.
In respect of its street-level imaging technology and the deployment of that technology generally, I'd say there has been more coalescence and harmony around accepted practices. You're absolutely right to indicate that our best practices, issued in conjunction with our provincial counterparts, indicate that one best practice for the deployment of this technology is to notify neighbourhoods before you come through with your Google cars or any other cars. That notification can either be by way of a public means of announcement or by having cars properly labelled, etc. There are best practices that have been recommended and followed.