I'll add one element. I believe judges absolutely do understand privacy. That is their primary responsibility in weighing the needs of police to utilize such techniques.
Going back, in one of the previous questions the Delisle case was raised. If you look at the Delisle case, you will see in the news coverage that the RCMP, as part of our disclosure package, did present some of the material that was collected using the ODIT. This included screenshots of some of the communications between the accused in that case and what are believed to be the foreign actors he was engaged with.
When we speak about the technology, we hear “spyware”; we hear “malware”. I'll be frank. I don't believe it is either one of those. We are using tools and techniques that are designed to enable us to perform the duties that are expected to be performed by us in gathering evidence about criminal behaviour. You can see from the stats provided solely for 2017 onward that this involves serious cases with serious criminality.