Very good.
Welcome, and thanks for being here with us today.
A lot of us have asked you questions arising from the Stinchcombe decision, and I'm going to go down a similar path, because it's something we've had a lot of discussion about as we've travelled across the country.
A number of police organizations have represented to us that the disclosure requirements of Stinchcombe have actually in many cases resulted in their investigative techniques being compromised and that they feel some criminal organizations are actually using the disclosure to learn more about police investigative techniques so that they can then change their practices to avoid detection in the future.
Earlier this morning we heard from the federal prosecutors that there are some exceptions to Stinchcombe for privileged information, one of which is information about investigative techniques. I didn't have a chance to ask them the question about how far that privilege can go in terms of protecting investigative techniques used by the police, but I was wondering if you had ever run across that issue, and what your thoughts on that issue might be in terms of how far does the privilege go as it currently exists with Stinchcombe, and what, if anything, might we do as legislators to better protect the privilege that police have in terms of their investigative techniques? And it's not just the personnel they employ, but also the types of technology they employ these days, because, as you pointed out, it's a very sophisticated world these days.
I wonder if you have a view on that.