Absolutely.
In terms of ideas for limiting use by social media companies, obviously, people are voluntarily putting information online on their profiles. The company should only use that data for the purposes that are clearly stated, and that's the whole principle of transparency.
If the company then wants to use the information for a new purpose, then it has to go back to the users and explain the new purpose and get their consent. A really good example is that if you're a Facebook user and then all of a sudden Facebook rolls out its facial recognition technology software. That's a new use of the data. It's a more precise use of the data. It can lead to all kinds of function creep. I think in that case the company needs to go back and explain the new uses, the shiny new toys that are available to users, and get their consent.
That's really important. If they have new partners, if there are more third-party applications that are using the data, again, let users know and make it easy for them to say no or to control the use of their data.
The second question you asked me is about the number of investigations we have done of social media sites versus investigations that involve social media. I gave you the example of our investigating, really, the employment situation and how employers or third parties are making use of social media. I wanted to draw that investigation to the attention of this committee because I think it's really important to look at how social media is used by litigants, by law enforcement, by employers, by post-secondary institutions, because I think that's part of your study as well.
We've done several of those investigations, and I will share our social media background check guidance with you. I'll send them to the clerk of the committee for your review.