Thank you.
Derek, with all due respect, the digital devices.... Once again, I know we have lawyers here, and I'm not a lawyer, but I have sat for many hours watching many different cases, from sexual assaults to minor thefts, and I know about interpretation. But I recall, time and time again....
My question to Ms. Morency would be pursuant to her experience with regard to jurisprudence when it comes to interpretation and the actual judge looking at the law, or the appeal court, even better still, looking at the law, because I think.... My fear is that if we go down Mr. Lee's path, we become overly proscriptive, and by virtue of that, I think the courts would realize that a heart monitor, a pacemaker, a hearing aid cannot or would not be used in the transmission of sexually explicit pictures or sounds.
So I really get concerned about that. Honestly, I really don't mean to be insulting or anything else. I'm just so worried that we get into the minutiae, we lose sight of things. And I think courts have already looked at these issues. You mentioned voyeurism and some of the case law surrounding it. So I wonder if you could comment on being overly proscriptive vis-à-vis the effectiveness of the law. What is your experience or the case law that you've viewed with regard to judges being able to interpret or if a policeman became overzealous and laid a charge against someone who was on probation or who was on recognizance for being engaged in child pornography and he happened to have a hearing aid, so the court is going to zap his hearing aid?
That's number one. Could you comment on that? You might take a few moments for that.