I want to pick up on that notion that back in 2004 we couldn't or wouldn't have predicted necessarily the rise of social media and some of these other technologies. I think that's true. In fact, the committee recognized that there was a rapid pace of change taking place. Ironically, based on the recommendations we are hearing today, we were urged to adopt as much of a technologically neutral approach as possible. The idea was to not limit this just to this narrow band of what is seen as spam, but rather to ensure that the law can be effective as some of these technologies change, which is why there is that ability to be effective against spam, spyware, malware, and potentially even some of these new technologies.
One of the discouraging things that I'm hearing now is that the recommendations are, “No, don't do that. Get as specific and narrowly tailored as possible. We don't need to have that broad base on some of these issues. It's too broad in scope.”
That was seen by many as a feature, not a bug, back when we established this. I think one of the ways to ensure that the law is effective and relevant as things change is to ensure that it can be applied as some of these things change. I would certainly point again to things like IoT and those sorts of technologies. The idea that we would bring those technologies into our homes without effective protections against misuse of our information is a real problem.