When you look at the broad scope, I'm sure one of the first reasons they probably would consider is we want to encourage people to come into the program. So they would try to restrict disclosure as much as possible.
Number two, I think they've recognized there have to be some exceptions to disclosure, but when you look at the act it appears it's when we have to be proactive. So if a person has committed a criminal act--the investigation's ongoing--perhaps that person's using an old identity or a new identity and they're trying to make it across the border, then we have the ability to disclose. If it's a national security type of case, then we have the ability. If it's a case where there may be a miscarriage of justice, yes, then we can step in and disclose.
I can't speak to exactly what the intent of the act was, but I don't think it's very clear right now that they've identified any types of categories where you can say “Okay, now that person has committed X, from this point on you can disclose their identity.” I think it's also something they would have to very carefully consider. If a person's name is revealed--and they may very well be found guilty--there have been several cases in this country where there has then been a review and they've been exonerated. Now they're out in the public; now we've exposed them to danger. Is that a risk the government would want to take as well?
It's a very, very complicated question. I don't have a direct answer as to why exactly they wouldn't want that, but I do know that at this point I don't believe we have the authority to do that.