Steve Saretsky

Right.

I mean, you could make the case that, well, I need it for 30.

Let's keep it for 30 days.

So I don't know what I don't know.

And in that 30 day period, perhaps something's happened.

I need that evidence.

I can then go to court and get a court order requiring a provider to continue to preserve that metadata for a longer period of time.

But the idea that you need to collect and retain everyone's metadata for a year, I just have yet to hear a single example of why that is proportionate or necessary.

Of course.

Of course.

And in fact, what has sparked some of this is that the Supreme Court of Canada has regularly affirmed that right.

in cases known as Spencer and Baikovits.

And so part of what has happened is law enforcement says they're concerned about people's privacy too.

But I think their conception about sort of how far that privacy extends differs from, well, at a minimum, the Supreme Court of Canada, because some of the systems they put into place have been struck down by the Supreme Court now repeatedly saying you haven't done enough to protect people's privacy.

And I should note, I think there's a real risk that we could see the same thing happen here.

Yeah, no, that's right.

The big players, the Googles and Apples and Metas of the world, they're not leaving, although...

You know, some of them have services that if confronted with this kind of legislation, they might well say that the service itself cannot continue to exist in Canada.

That's actually what happened with Apple and in the UK, where the UK tried to pass some similar stuff.

And Apple's response was some of the privacy protections that we've built into the product, we can't continue to offer here if this is what you're going to require.