That's a very good example. We have these mechanisms in place, which are the sorts of things that people can't look at under the hood of these very complex questions, but here's someone who has been nominated precisely because we think that's their job. When they're sidelined, it tends to raise suspicion that there is something to hide, whereas—and I insist on this point—there might not be anything to hide.
It becomes increasingly paradoxical that the government chooses to sideline a trust-building institution when, in fact, it could very well have been that had he looked under the hood at this data collection process, he would have found that everything was entirely ethically appropriate, from a privacy point of view.