I'm going to repeat this. As long as you understand that there's a huge, massive exception, get consent. All of this is permitted as long as you obtain consent. We are now only in that basket where someone hasn't actually obtained the person's consent in the first place. They don't really know whether the person wants to get this information. In every other instance where the person has actually given them consent, it's fair game, and they can do whatever they like. So we're only in that particular basket.
The question is whether in that basket this is more narrowly constructed than PIPEDA, and the answer is yes. I would argue that is an absolutely good thing. What we have seen not just here, but in other countries as well where you adopt what is effectively an opt-out approach--one where you can imply consent in a broad number of situations--is that doing so opens you up to a torrent of potential abuse and misuse of what is seen to be consent. Here's where the rubber hits the road. When we went to various enforcement agencies and said we wanted them to take on a case, they were only going to take on a case that they thought was a slam-dunk case. If there was any kind of doubt about this, they were worried about taking that kind of case on.
Leaving aside the fact that we have this big huge honking “express consent” that covers everything, if you expand that so that almost anything is “implied”, you're going to hamstring the regulators and enforcers who are going to look at this and say the other side is saying “we think we could have implied consent in that circumstance” and you're left with no action at all.