Okay.
You also mentioned the idea that this could go counter to personal rights and freedom. I feel that idea is very important. We are also starting from the presumption that people are potential fraudsters, and not from the presumption that you mentioned, that people are by nature honest. That clearly changes the nature and the analysis of the questions.
Nowhere in the act is there a definition of what is meant by “national security”. In your view, Mr. Bohbot, what danger does that omission represent for freedom of the person?