To echo much of what was said, the other part for us is that there's reasonable belief that an offence has been created. It's not simply during an inspection or just to comb the area. We have a situation where we have reason to believe that an offence has been created. Now we're into the investigation stage of it, where we bring in a judicial authority. It's very clear at that stage. We have to present our case and we have a judge who says, yes, this is the type of information we're allowed to take and what is reasonable. At that stage, we execute.
In terms of your question on a PIA, again, the mechanics on evidence collection have not changed; the tools have. For our purposes, we're not focused on the tool. We're focused on the process. I think it is warranted at this stage to review those processes to ensure that we are protecting privacy. We feel that there are safeguards, significant safeguards, in place, but we have, ourselves, voluntarily agreed to go ahead with the PIA process. We have, ourselves, engaged with the Privacy Commissioner in December. We are executing that process as well, but on the process and not the tools.
The tools will change over time. They come out with new versions and new tools, and all of these tools are not the same. Some are designed to allow access to cellphones and technology. Others search deleted items and allow us to recover those files. There's a series of different tools for each of the different jobs, but again, they're strictly defined by a court order, or a warrant, in terms of what we're able to take.
Again, it's evidence. It's not the privacy part. Where there is private information, that is set aside, protected and destroyed once the investigation has concluded.