Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Your Rights Online

Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned 670

Posted by samzenpus
from the let-me-see-what-you-got-there dept.
schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned

Comments Filter:
  • I am shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:09PM (#30232042)

    That it's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iamacat (583406)

      So, just because there is one are on which two administrations agree and you don't, does it mean that there are no meaningful differences between G.W.Bush and Obama at all?

      • Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:25PM (#30232168) Journal

        There are certainly meaningful differences, but at the end of the day the top prosecutors in the United States still want those X-Ray glasses so they can watch the citizens for criminal conduct.

        • Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:27PM (#30232196)

          i am pretty sure we are all potential criminals, no such thing as a citizen anymore

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sycodon (149926)

          How's that Hopey Changey thing going for ya?

        • Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:48PM (#30233268)

          Which is pretty much the opposite of what the founders of the country had in mind. They wanted the people to have the x-ray glasses. You know Jefferson's saying about who fears whom and how the difference is that between liberty and tyranny...

          • Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @11:17PM (#30233438) Journal

            They also warned us against foreign entanglements but we stopped listening to that particular piece of advice a long time ago. Now we have a standing army and military-industrial complex that sucks up a large portion of our GDP while giving a large percentage of the world ample reason to hate us.

            • Re:I am shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)

              by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @02:06AM (#30234262) Journal

              It was much easier, relatively speaking, for the United States to conceive of avoiding foreign entanglements at the end of the 18th century than it was to become even by the time of the Civil War. By WWI, the US's economic interests were so broad that the notion of avoiding entanglements became practically meaningless (the US entered WWI because of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, which was a direct threat to US interests). By WWII, the notion that the US could hold itself above the ever-growing fray become utterly untenable. Does anybody for a moment believe that the US national interest would have been served by a fascist alliance of powers that covered much of the Old World? How long would the US as it stood have survived such a thing? Then came the Soviets, which were a direct threat in every possible way to the United States.

              To be honest, I'm not even really all that sure that Washington's warning meant all that much in the 18th century. I understand where he was coming from, to be sure, and I think everyone sort of had this vision of the United States as a peaceful trading power, a sort of politically liberalized version of Great Britain. But it was simply an untenable notion in a world rapidly shrinking and with empires falling and being formed and the old order collapsing.

      • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:53PM (#30232904) Homepage
        I suppose, just for completeness, somebody ought to point out that the headline says "Obama" wants the ruling overturned, whereas the actual text states, correctly, that it is Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, who wants the ruling overturned. While it is true that Kagan was appointed by Obama, nevertheless I expect that Obama himself probably has never actually given an opinion on the subject.
        • by Chaos Incarnate (772793) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:12PM (#30233038) Homepage
          By not contradicting his appointee's position, he's supporting it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by reilwin (1303589)

            By not contradicting his appointee's position, he's supporting it.

            That depends on whether he's even aware of what's happening. He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.

            • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @11:18PM (#30233446) Journal

              He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.

              Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by twiddlingbits (707452)
              That's an poor excuse. Policy decisions orginate in the Oval Office from the President and his inner council such as Chief of Staff. Then the various departments are charged to execute the policy in the areas they are responsible for. Obama may not know the details of the methods but he does know that his policies are being followed. If he doesn't know what is going on in his Government in context of his policies then he's even dumber than the "dumb" GWB everyone made fun of for years. If this had been GWB
      • Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jcr (53032) <jcr&mac,com> on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:43PM (#30233222) Journal

        That depends on what you call "meaningful". Barack Obama has done precisely squat to reverse Bush's mistakes. He put a different script on the teleprompter, but he still claims that he can violate the right of habeus corpus, commit acts of war against a US ally, send troops into harm's way without a declaration of war, imprison innocent people on the pretext of the unconstitutional "war on drugs"... You get the idea.

        I'll never be disappointed by him, though. It was clear to me long before he was elected that he's basically Mitt Romney with a better speechwriter.

        -jcr

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by hedwards (940851)
          The President is the President, but there's a huge number of people pressuring congress to do things that aren't wise. The same idiots that thought that these policies were a good idea in the general populace are still there. And they're still fighting tooth and nail against any effort to make the country a better place, even against their own self interest. Sure that doesn't make it OK, but it's overly simplistic to assume that the people that were putting pressure on candidates to keep up these unwise pol
      • Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Toonol (1057698) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:51PM (#30233286)
        Does it really matter WHO a slave's master is?

        There are obvious ways in which Bush and Obama differ. But I think the difference is only substantial if you think the reason you're being stripped of your rights is more important than the fact that you are being stripped of your rights.

        In the ways that matter, Obama is no change for the better.
    • What the current government want so far:

      • Increased government regulation of health care.
      • Increased government regulation of internet traffic.
      • Increased government regulation of aired political opinion through the Fairness Doctrine.
      • Wiretaps without warrants, a Bush policy.
      • Increased search-and-seizure powers.

      The current government is so power-crazy that it's become suicidal in its attempts to speed through legislation over half the country opposes, regardless of how it's going to affect the 2010 elections. You'

    • by macraig (621737) <mark.a.craig@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:10PM (#30232558)

      ... but only for a while until the money-changers sneak back into the temple. That's why you have to have them periodically, like defragging and virus-scanning your hard drive. We seem to have fallen behind on the schedule... we haven't had a decent game-changing revolution in a while, have we? Now we have a bunch of people muttering "let them eat cake" again. Does anyone still know how to make guillotines? We'll need quite a few this time.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417)

        Well, let's look at two of the biggest revolutions in the (more or less) recent history, the French one from 1789 and the Russian one from 1917. In both cases you see that you need two things for such a feat to work: People who are willing to fight and if necessary die for their conviction, actually not just "some" people but a sizable portion of the population. And second, you need the support of the army, or at the very least you need them to hold still and ignore orders to shoot you.

        I doubt we'll get to

  • by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:10PM (#30232054)

    and as such is just like pretty much all of the others. The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by grasshoppa (657393)

      We don't vote FOR politicians in this country; we vote AGAINST "the other guy", and are left to deal with the results.

      Could anyone here have honestly voted for McCain with Palin on the ticket as well?

      • by moz25 (262020)

        In response to your sig: yes, I noticed! We are not the only ones! :-)

      • Ever notice how people remember posters by their sigs and not their names?

        What? You have names?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by FooAtWFU (699187)
        I voted McCain. Palin's a bit of a goofball and McCain's ... even more so, but at least he's been in the legislature. But Obama is a thug. Sure, he's done a few decent things, and a few partisan things which you'll either love or hate, but I can't respect an administration that thinks that they're "speaking truth to power" when they diss their political opponents in the media (Fox). Sorry, you are the power, and you're speaking power, even if Fox is a bunch of doofuses. Honestly, what is this, the Ministry
      • by reboot246 (623534) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:04PM (#30232524) Homepage
        Yeah, I voted for McCain because of Palin.

        What about it?
      • by khallow (566160) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:50PM (#30232880)

        Could anyone here have honestly voted for McCain with Palin on the ticket as well?

        I did. While I'm sure this locks in my nomination for the Slashdotter special needs award, it remains that McCain and Palin, while they talk scary, were more consistent and trustworthy than the Democrat team. Obama had already backtracked on promises ("positions" he calls them) particularly FISA and was throwing out promises that simply didn't make sense (we'll reduce health care costs by increasing costs through adding universal health care), hung around associates that made the Republican team look like a paragon of sanity, and had some Big Plans that would involve gutting the US economy for some sort of nebulous socialist gain.

        Well, all I can say is that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have not disappointed me. We may be in the "death spiral" of US history, but at least we're protected from the perils of incandescent light bulbs.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:20PM (#30232118)

      A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by iceborer (684929)
        That's why I voted for Cthulhu. Why vote for the lesser evil?
    • by vux984 (928602) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:33PM (#30232254)

      The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.

      Not really. The question HERE is whether the article writer has a shred of journalistic integrity at all.

      Seriously, first read the article and then post. I doubt Obama is even slightly involved beyond appointing key person who is involved to a broad role of which 'computer privacy law' is a drop in the bucket. This headline is as absurd as printing 'Obama wants to banish ketchup based on an incident where the secretary of defense complained there was too much ketchup on their McDonalds cheeseburger.

      Second, the dispute here is pretty benign. Federal investigators had a WARRANT to search a PC for evidence of steriod use for a handful of players, and uncovered evidence of some hundred other players using steroids in the same folder and files as the information for the players in question. The dispute is whether they should be allowed to use the additional evidence of the additional crime.

      The court ruled no, citing that the investigators 'actively scrolled the excel spreadsheet past the names of the players in question'. Come on. Even I, a privacy advocate, don't see anything wrong with what the agents did. I don't even think its wrong to admit this as evidence. I'd argue against being able to search inside every document, hack encrypted files, ... but they found evidence of additional instances of the same crime in the same files and folders that their warrant covered.

      Clearly this ruling probably should be overturned. I don't think agents should be given carte blanche to search your entire PC and charge you with unrelated crimes. But there is probably some middle ground where if they are investing the PC for evidence you ripped off the Smiths with ScamX, and they find evidence in the same file you that also ripped off the Jones... that SHOULD be allowed.

      But bottom line, declaring that Obama "wants" anything at all with respect to this case is absurd.

      • by Kral_Blbec (1201285) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:47PM (#30232380)

        The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.

        Not really. The question HERE is whether the article writer has a shred of journalistic integrity at all.

        Seriously, first read the article and then post. I doubt Obama is even slightly involved beyond appointing key person who is involved to a broad role of which 'computer privacy law' is a drop in the bucket. This headline is as absurd as printing 'Obama wants to banish ketchup based on an incident where the secretary of defense complained there was too much ketchup on their McDonalds cheeseburger.

        Second, the dispute here is pretty benign. Federal investigators had a WARRANT to search a PC for evidence of steriod use for a handful of players, and uncovered evidence of some hundred other players using steroids in the same folder and files as the information for the players in question. The dispute is whether they should be allowed to use the additional evidence of the additional crime.

        The court ruled no, citing that the investigators 'actively scrolled the excel spreadsheet past the names of the players in question'. Come on. Even I, a privacy advocate, don't see anything wrong with what the agents did. I don't even think its wrong to admit this as evidence. I'd argue against being able to search inside every document, hack encrypted files, ... but they found evidence of additional instances of the same crime in the same files and folders that their warrant covered.

        Clearly this ruling probably should be overturned. I don't think agents should be given carte blanche to search your entire PC and charge you with unrelated crimes. But there is probably some middle ground where if they are investing the PC for evidence you ripped off the Smiths with ScamX, and they find evidence in the same file you that also ripped off the Jones... that SHOULD be allowed.

        But bottom line, declaring that Obama "wants" anything at all with respect to this case is absurd.

        Hmmm, using that logic we could also clear Bush of many of the accusations layed on him.Thus, it must be false logic.

        • by ktappe (747125) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:26PM (#30233128)

          Hmmm, using that logic we could also clear Bush of many of the accusations layed on him.Thus, it must be false logic.

          If you don't see a difference between Obama's team objecting to disallowing a mouse scroll and Bush going before the world claiming there were absolutely WMD's in Iraq, then there is no hope of anyone ever talking any shred of logic to or with you.

  • by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:10PM (#30232058)

    Pay attention closer next time. Obama wasn't saying "change", he was saying "chains."

  • Fr0st Pist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:13PM (#30232068)

    Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.

    Screw investing in gold - invest in lead and brass....

  • by Scutter (18425) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:15PM (#30232082) Journal

    Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by grasshoppa (657393)

      Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.

      • Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.

        Don't blame him, he voted for Kodos!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      We're not much of a two party system when lobbyists buy up both sides of the aisle. More of a one-party system that swings between the radical and not so radical wings.

    • 2 Party (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:30PM (#30232230) Homepage Journal

      Some would argue that since we get the same basic results from either party, we really have a one party system and its all smoke and mirrors between the 2.

    • by Fluffeh (1273756)

      Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.

      What amazes me is that people still think it's really a two party system.

    • by aplusjimages (939458) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:25PM (#30232672) Journal
      what upsets me more is that people defend politicians. When did this become okay? It sickens me when people talk politics and then it turns into a "your guy did this" "well he did it because". Fuck that. Never defend a politician. It's gross. And should be against the law. If the guy I voted for won, I would rag on his ass every day and I would call out all the dumb shit he did and totally ignore the good shit he did because it's his job. Let's get politicians scared of citizens.
      • by syousef (465911) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @02:17AM (#30234314) Journal

        If the guy I voted for won, I would rag on his ass every day and I would call out all the dumb shit he did and totally ignore the good shit he did because it's his job. Let's get politicians scared of citizens.

        If you had your way I imagine no one in their right mind would then go into politics. Under your solution - treat someone like dirt whether or not they do a good job - there is no longer an incentive to do a good job. Though it's hard to imagine, I think things would get much much worse. Only the scum of the earth would do the job and they'd find every possible way to benefit from the "ungrateful citizens". Even moreso than now.

  • Okay, that's enough. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adpe (805723) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:22PM (#30232146)
    I liked him when he ran for president. Then he failed closing gitmo, didn't manage to push healthcare through, and I kinda attribted that to "circumstances", like FOX "News". But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this. I'm utterly disappointed.
  • by epine (68316) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:26PM (#30232184)

    I would regard it as a credible difference if, when you asked Obama the reason, he gave an intelligible answer, regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.

    What I'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders, "OK, I see why you want this and I'll back you on it, but you're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to".

    That's what I hated most about Bush, how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows. From a leadership perspective, bad policy is often better than no policy. I accept mistakes. The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons. That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.

    It's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference.

  • He is with the federal government.

  • Asinine example (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whoever57 (658626) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:31PM (#30232240) Journal

    The government said the decision was already chilling at least one rape case in Washington State.

    "Federal agents received information from their counterparts in San Diego that two individuals had filmed themselves raping a 4-year-old girl and traded the images via the internet," the government wrote. "The agents did not obtain a warrant to search the suspects' computers, however, because of concerns that any evidence discovered about other potential victims could not be disclosed by the filter team. The agents therefore referred the case to state authorities."

    So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about? That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".

  • Eh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShooterNeo (555040) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:38PM (#30232316)

    The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched. If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone's house for something illegal, they aren't allowed to go search the cupboards. Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.

    This is very relevant. What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe, based on an anonymous tip, and don't find anything? Maybe they find you've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage, or maybe you've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house. If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns, and they get creative, they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with. Their perspective is "since you were accused, you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let's find what it is because I don't want to go back to the station empty handed"

    Well, now, if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax. If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone's credit record in order to prove illegal activity, they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in "plain sight" within the database! Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.

    And for those arguing "if we're soft on crime, we're letting teh criminals win". The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a % of population. Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent, just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave. (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)

  • from TFA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dnwq (910646) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:46PM (#30232374)

    The circuit’s ruling came in a case that dates to 2004, when federal prosecutors probing a Northern California steroid ring obtained warrants to seize the results of urine samples of 10 pro baseball players at a Long Beach, California drug-testing facility. The players had been tested as part of a voluntary drug-deterrence program implemented by Major League Baseball.

    Federal agents serving the search warrant on the Comprehensive Drug Testing lab wound up making a copy of a directory containing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with results of every player that was tested in the program. Then, back in the office, they scrolled freely through the spreadsheet, ultimately noting the names of all 104 players who tested positive.

    The government argued that the information was lawfully found in “plain sight,” just like marijuana being discovered on a dining room table during a court-authorized weapons search of a home. But the court noted that the agents actively scrolled to the right side of the spreadsheet to peek at all the players test results, when they could easily have selected, copied and pasted only the rows listing the players named in the search warrant.

    This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable. Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?

  • by hort_wort (1401963) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:56PM (#30232462)

    Hasn't he been saying that he's into transparency this whole time? What? Did you guys think it was a one way street? We're lucky there aren't webcams in all our bathrooms.

  • Hope/Change? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jwiegley (520444) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @08:56PM (#30232470)

    Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.

    Well, you all voted for change...

    Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.

    When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.

    • Re:Hope/Change? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Atario (673917) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @10:00PM (#30232966) Homepage

      When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.

      Why the backpedal? If government is inherently bad, then it can't be needed at all.

      Unless, that is, somewhere deep down, you do realize that statement is ludicrous. If we can use government to maintain civilization, then we can use it to improve daily life, prevent injustice, and all the other stuff that would make things better.

      In short, when your computer is infected with malware, the solution is not to just stop using computers, it's to clean the computer up.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:11PM (#30232572) Homepage

    They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission. For various reasons, both good and bad, they seek more power and expansion of current power. I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning. That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under. They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer. This is how the U.S. Revolution began!

    The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. They may have good intentions, but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists. And yes, I said it. Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists.

  • by KiahZero (610862) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:44PM (#30232824)

    Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.

    I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review. However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me. Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:

    http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml [volokh.com]

  • Misleading Story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by angelbunny (1501333) on Wednesday November 25, 2009 @09:49PM (#30232866)

    The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.

    It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?

    I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Thursday November 26, 2009 @01:45AM (#30234180) Homepage Journal

    im dropping my support for obama.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you're being miserable. -- C.B. Luce

Working...