Thank you for the question. It's such a good question.
I think, even in the question that was posed by Ms. Dancho, one thing that jumped out at me was how many different pieces of information there are, how many different players there would be in any given scam scenario. Google would have a piece of the puzzle, a financial institution would have another piece of the puzzle, but we'd be unable to knit together the full picture without having an opportunity to bring that together. When people talk about the need for information exchange, it is because of this: If you do not aggregate this data in a way that can be meaningful, you have only noise.
The Global Signal Exchange is something that we created just over a year ago. It's still relatively new, but countries like the United Kingdom and Poland are members. What that has enabled is.... Most recently, there was a new case in which the U.K. version of the FBI ingested some content into that system. Google was able to take that, expand our understanding of the threat landscape with that particular case and, under appropriate lawful authorities, share that back with the U.K. As a result, through cross-border collaboration with authorities in west Africa, they were able to take down a major scam operation with tens of thousands of associated accounts. That kind of cross-border collaboration and cross-stakeholder collaboration are essential if we're going to see these types of results.
I would encourage Canada to explore joining the Global Signal Exchange. We certainly want there to be an opportunity for either law enforcement or government to join. I can talk about more areas for partnership and public education, but that's just one example of how it has real results.