As interesting as this is, I'll have to interrupt. You're well over time there, Paul. I think you set a new record for being over time, actually.
That concludes our first round of questioning. I'm going to take a liberty and ask one question from the chair. It's not along quite the same lines, although it does strike me that when a business calls for a credit check, you don't mail the response to them. You don't ask them to wait 48 hours for it to arrive in the mail.
Two of you mentioned that you support in a qualified way the duty of notification that's contemplated in the legislation pending. Under what circumstances would you think a consumer would not have the right to know that their identity had been compromised? Why is your support for the duty to notify qualified in any way?
Can either of you answer, just briefly?