I hate to keep talking—actually I don't—but remember I am also speaking instead of Mr. Norlock in some cases. My observation is this: there's already a mechanism in the bill for a human source to instigate the disclosure of his or her own identity. Why would this amendment be necessary? The human source can already say they want to be identified. I don't know why they'd want to, but they can bring in a friend of the court or some other lawyer to do that. When the source can already do it themselves and can hire a lawyer if he or she wants to do that—and being a lawyer I'm sure he would want to do that—I don't see why this amendment is necessary.
On December 1st, 2014. See this statement in context.