From my perspective on having a more stringent test, we take the test of relevancy very seriously. If there were to be a more stringent test in terms of necessity, for example, it would be helpful for you to consider what that would do in terms of balance. There has been a lot of discussion at this table about balance. If it were a test of necessity, we would need to be convinced with a lot more information that were necessary, in fact, not simply relevant. And what would that mean in practice? I think that would mean that our national security agencies, the investigative bodies that were requesting information from us, would possibly have to give us a lot more national security information for us to make that determination and be satisfied that it was, in fact, necessary and not simply relevant.
Could we do that? Absolutely, but it's worth considering whether the benefit of having that higher standard is outweighed by having more sensitive national security information in circulation, in order for us to make that determination. More generally—and I think this is possibly the intent—it obviously would put a chilling effect on the amount of information we would disclose under SCISA. That would be a necessary outcome.