Perhaps I could answer that first.
I think it's exactly as they said there. They see no upside in it for them. This potentially reveals information about them that they'd rather not know. Academics love to criticize, and it's always sort of going back to that fear of some information coming out that they're not comfortable with. The banks in Canada have created a system for consumers where we don't actually feel the impact directly on our pockets most of the time, because once they agree that it's not authorized by us, they will cover whatever the fraud is.
If you do the calculations, that's not a huge cost to the bank. The banks have been saying two things. One, they say, “Leave us alone and you're not going to get hurt.” I think that has sort of been their dual message in all of this. The question is, is this going to suffice going forward, especially with talks in banks and other countries of raising some kind of limit of personal accountability? Some people have been talking about $50 being their personal responsibility if their account is compromised. I think these are very important questions going forward.