To go back to a point that was made earlier, the notion of transparency is an incredibly important one, because people aren't necessarily aware that the piece of data that they give consent to in one context—or that they've given a certain consent to but may not have realized the scope of that consent.... They may not realize the nature of the bargain between themselves and the free company. A lot of people don't realize that Gmail is scanned to extract personal information and that this is part of the bargain with Gmail. So there's a lack of transparency at that end.
There's also a lack of transparency at the other end, when you go on a website. Professor Steeves has described a number of contexts where you're presented with advertisements when you go to read the paper, go to MSN, or wherever. I think there's a lack of transparency. People don't necessarily realize that what they're seeing is different from what other people see, and that there is a reason for that.
I don't know if that's partly a norm setting. We've also talked about setting boundaries, not just letting everything be carried by the consent model, but actually setting some norms or boundaries, which I think is a positive thing.
Then there's the increasing transparency dimension of the problem and whether that's greater public awareness or obligation on companies to do more to be more transparent.