I would say that whether or not we call it spyware, by definition—we could argue over the definition—it is technology that is infringing on our members' privacy rights. I think that's the basic line that was crossed here.
The proactive disclosure of the use of this technology, even though the Treasury Board directives state that this should have happened, did not happen. We learned about it after the fact.
I'll just speak to the issue of whether the fact that it's a government device means that it's able to suspend all members' privacy rights as such. The federal government is one of the biggest employers in this country. It needs to be setting a high bar and a high example for how we expect all employers to behave toward all Canadian citizens and their privacy rights as such. We feel that, in this case and in many other cases, it seems that we're slowly learning that basic policy wasn't followed.
The Privacy Commissioner was very clear that when new tools are developed that pose privacy risks, as we've seen here, this merits a privacy impact assessment and proactive disclosure. I think there are very easy ways to communicate proactive disclosure of these technologies in plain language that will make workers in a workplace, our members, federal public servants, much more able to not just abide by basic standards of what is to be shared on a government device but be aware of their privacy rights and the potential violations of them, so that this discussion can happen before these technologies are installed.