I'll speak generally on that topic, because it would be inclusive. We encounter five key themes as we try to investigate any crime taking place in cyberspace.
First is a reasonable law to allow timely access to basic subscriber information. That's the ability to at least get the information out of what used to be the phone book to tell us where to lead our investigation.
Second is the use of encryption that we're seeing. The perpetrators are hiding behind unbreakable communications encryption, and we cannot get evidence because of that.
Third is the lack of data-retention standards for our telecommunications service providers, which has direct application to this case and any other criminal offence for which we cannot rely on our telecommunications service providers to give us, even under lawful authority, the information that we would need to pursue the crime.
Fourth, which is the most relevant in the conversation so far, is the extraterritorial nature or the lack of geopolitical boundaries of the Internet. Under the current legislation, getting evidence from a foreign party that is a signatory to the MLAT process takes roughly 18 months. That is inadequate and insufficient.