I think we need to do a couple of things. Earlier this year all the major telcos were asked in a letter sent out by many in the privacy community in Canada to disclose some of their practices. We need to recognize that they all declined to do so citing Solicitor General rules, and generally saying that if the government told them to make these kinds of transparency disclosures they would, but otherwise they felt inhibited from doing so even on an aggregate basis.
Their current position is that they are not moving forward with that. We could have the government say it thinks this kind of aggregated information is important even on an aggregate basis. I'd note that, even with respect to individuals, Mr. Dechert, in his last question suggested that somehow those seeking notification are looking for immediate notification as law enforcement is actively engaged in its investigation. I do not believe that's what I said or what many other people have said.
We have said that a customer ought to have the right at some point in time to be notified if their information has been disclosed—deciding when an appropriate time would be is, I think, a matter of some importance and some debate—but I haven't heard anybody suggest there should be a disclosure to that underlying customer if it would cause or imperil the investigation itself.