I agree, and that's why, when we look at this bill, we have to look at some of the concerns that are being raised, even if we don't necessarily think that those are likely to happen. We know that we have to provide for contingencies. We have to make sure that we avoid getting ourselves into a situation where pernicious effects could occur. I'm actually sympathizing with what you're saying, because whether it's in the bill or not, I think we want to provide for the concerns that are there.
Ms. Patell, I carefully read your submission as well. If we were able to limit the definition of “systemic vulnerability” and we were able to guarantee or make it clear that encryption was not to be broken, would those be the two major points that you would have with respect to the bill that would alleviate the concerns that Google has expressed?