I would not quite say it's apples to apples. If it were apples to apples, it would all be under a production order, because with the ones under a production order, we think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's not as high as reasonable grounds to believe; it's at the lower threshold.
You brought up Bykovets. In Bykovets, the unfortunate fact was that police obtained the transmission data without availing themselves of a production order. That's where the investigation went awry and we ended up with the Bykovets decision. I don't think Bykovets would have happened had police actually used the tools that were in the Criminal Code and available to them.
In the confirmation of service demand, we have to give the police some threshold in doing their police business. In terms of privacy expectations, for the things that are on the lowest end of the privacy spectrum, we attribute the reasonable suspicion standard when we have to attribute a standard.
In terms of the confirmation of service demand, the police have done a certain amount of work, so they might come into possession of an IP address through the investigation of a complaint, as I said, of a harassing email. Behind that email address there's an IP address through which it was sent. They've obtained this information in a legal manner. All they need to do is connect the dots. As the first step in that, they have to find out which service provider actually provides service to this IP address, because without that, they won't be able to serve the production order for subscriber information.
They are not apples to apples in that respect. The reason it's a demand is that, really, there's no core biographical information, as you mentioned, in the service provider your phone number is served by. However, that is the first indication for police to get the production order, so they can get that first bit of real evidence towards investigating a crime.