Well, it has more impact, I think, on the institutions themselves, which have to deal with those types of requests, and yes, they are real. We all have that one requester or two requesters who, for some reason, have a chip on their shoulder, and they decide to overwhelm with a number of requests or a request that is frivolous.
Unfortunately, before 2019, there was no way to deal with those types of requests—not requesters, but requests. Now that we do have the authority not to respond to those, with my authorization, I think it will help institutions, hopefully, because one of those unreasonable requests can have a huge impact on the operation of an ATIP unit or the operation of an institution.
We're hoping that with time, and with some jurisprudence, because I'm publishing those decisions as well.... I have to be careful, because under the act right now, which is another recommendation, by the way.... I want to publish more of those cases, but under the act, I can only publish reports on investigations. Those types of decisions are not supposed to be published, so what I do is summarize them so that we don't give the institution's name or too much of the facts, but at least we give some guidelines about what types of cases we see that are frivolous and in bad faith, and other cases where you're not there, at the threshold, so that institutions better understand those rules.