I just want to speak to it a bit, because although the realpolitik at the moment may mean that we have to accept part of this, I don't think it's a good idea.
Overall, when Frank first brought up the requirement for a warrant, it seemed to me like a good idea. However, especially with regard to cybersecurity, I think time is of the essence, and time is of the essence most of the time. There are other instances in life—I'm thinking of Matt Strauss, as well as myself—when you have to act quickly, and I think this is an area where, generally speaking, you have to act quickly. Therefore, the fallback position should not be that a warrant is required, because that's going to stall the process.
Cyber-attacks are part of modern warfare. We've seen Russia repeatedly attack Ukraine and its vital infrastructure. It seems to happen—and they want it to happen—quickly, in a matter of seconds. Certainly, we've been talking about why we need this law. It's in order to protect our power grids, nuclear power stations and communications, such as from air traffic controllers to airplanes. All that is controlled by computers, and all that could be shut down.
It seems to me that putting an extra layer of protection, a requirement for a warrant, just further stalls things. This is letting down the gates of the fort, and we're surrounded by enemies on all sides right now. I would say that this is not the time to let down the gates. If I were Putin and the Russians, I'd be applauding this amendment and saying, “Absolutely, put a requirement that they have to have a warrant beforehand. Let's add other protections to stall the process.” As I said, that's letting down our guard, and this isn't the time to let down our guard.