Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Security Transportation Technology

Denials Aside, Feds Storing Body Scan Images 560

Posted by timothy
from the we-are-neither-amused-nor-surprised dept.
The new generation of body scanners employed at airports (and many other places) can record detailed, anatomically revealing pictures of each person scanned, which is one reason they've raised the hackles of privacy advocates as well as ordinary travelers. Now, AHuxley writes "The US Transportation Security Administration claimed last summer that 'scanned images cannot be stored or recorded.' It turns out that some police agencies are storing the controversial images. The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse. The images were stored on a Brijot Gen2 machine. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Denials Aside, Feds Storing Body Scan Images

Comments Filter:
  • Of course they can (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrisexualPuppy (976893) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:38PM (#33139186)
    All that needs to be said here is that we are dealing with a software-driven platform.
    • by dgatwood (11270) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:00PM (#33139494) Journal

      And as such, this was inevitable. Did anyone honestly think that our government could have any technology without eventually using it to its maximum potential? First, they say that it doesn't really look like they're seeing you nude. Then upon proof that they're lying, they say that it can't store the pictures. Now that there's proof that this isn't true, either, they'll say that the images are only being stored for diagnostic and training purposes.

      Then, when the "Girls Gone Wild JFK Airport Style" video comes out, they'll say that all those people signed release forms. Then, when someone sues because she didn't, they'll pay her off to sweep it under the rug.

      This is one of those cases where the slippery slope is almost inevitable. You have a technology that invades the privacy of people so completely that its abuse is almost unavoidable. Abuse was practically designed into the system. Trying to keep such a system from being abused is like trying to teach a jaguar to be a house cat. Doubly so when that system is in the hands of government agencies that are rarely held accountable by the general public. Triply so when even a cell phone camera is sufficient to abuse the system to horrifying ends. Quadruply so when you're talking about nudie pics.

      Inevitable.

      • by shadowfaxcrx (1736978) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:23PM (#33139878)

        Abuse wasn't practically built into the system. It WAS built into the system. You don't need to take a picture of my penis to find out if I'm smuggling a grenade into the courthouse. It, and the rest of me, are non-metallic, and are not composed of explosive compounds. Sniff for explosives, and use a metal detector, just like they've been doing for decades, and you'll be perfectly safe. And the worst part is, TSA, US Marshalls, and the other agencies using these machines KNOW this. They know getting nudie shots of people isn't going to enhance security. It's all security theater, to keep the public believing that they're "protecting" us against a "threat," when really they're grabbing all the authorization for everything they can think of now, while people are still being scared and stupid rather than monitoring the abuses of the government. In short, they want to take naked pictures of you because they can, and because no one is telling them "no."

        • by Shivetya (243324) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:47PM (#33140386) Homepage Journal

          they cannot use software to make the display be like those displayed in Arnold's Running Man movie.

          It cannot be hard to remove the human part of the picture and leave the rest... and just "animate the human"

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by EdIII (1114411)

          You don't need to take a picture of my penis to find out if I'm smuggling a grenade into the courthouse.

          DUH.

          They take a picture of your penis to find out if your smuggling a .22 caliber sub-compact or a 44 Magnum pistol. They take a picture of your balls to find out if your smuggling a grenade.

          Sheesh.

        • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @02:11PM (#33140890) Journal

          >>>You don't need to take a picture of my penis to find out if I'm smuggling a grenade

          Precisely. And I find this part of the article funny: "The TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional." The actual constitution says the People shall not be subject to unreasonable searches unless a warrant is obtained. No warrant was obtained, so the next question is: Are virtual strip searches that reveal a man's ballsac and woman's breasts/nipples/vaginal lips a reasonable search?

          Not in my book.

          I would be alright if the private airline wanted to run these scans, since it's their plane, but to allow the government to record these strippings and share them with other agencies that might wish to arrest me ("Oh look - he snuck Seventeen back from europe," says the new pedophile czar) is not acceptable. And it sure as hell isn't constitutional/legal.

      • by Shakrai (717556) * on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:26PM (#33139942) Journal

        Did anyone honestly think that our government could have any technology without eventually using it to its maximum potential?

        I'd like to know what the point of the damn things are, since every post 9/11 attack on an airline has been negated by the efforts of the passengers. It seems to me that metal detectors are all you really need -- keep guns off the plane and there's no way that any would-be terrorist is going to overpower dozens of passengers. Heck, even with a gun it would be tough to overpower everybody on an airplane......

        They are also useless from a practical point of view, since they can't scan body cavities. If you are willing to die for your cause it doesn't seem like a huge leap of faith to assume that you are also willing to shove explosives or a weapon up your ass......

      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:27PM (#33139982) Journal

        +1 for you

        I for one can't wait 'til we get this clown Bush and his Republicans out of office, and a new Democrat administration in place, so they can stop this spying stuff.

        • by EdIII (1114411) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:47PM (#33140388)

          I for one can't wait 'til we get this clown Bush and his Republicans out of office, and a new Democrat administration in place, so they can stop this spying stuff.

          I see what you did there... and I like it. A lot.

          Too bad, Obama is a million times worse than Bush on this matter. Bush made it clear that he did not care about your rights at all. Obama said he would bring change and lied.

          A lot of people voted for Obama because they thought he would hold true to his word and try to restore a lot of what we had lost, shut down Gbay, etc. Betrayal hurts a lot more than suffering incompetence and abuse.

          • by ebuck (585470) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @02:41PM (#33141462)

            Obama has called on people to actually track and rate the honesty of his platform. That's a first amongst presidents (to my knowledge). You can track the results.

            Out of 254 evaluated statements, 208 have been found to be true, in varying degrees. 208 are know to be true, 44 are known to be false. That's a truthfulness rating of about 80%. I don't know about you, but in my book (for a politician) that's incredibly high. Even if you count the "barely true" category as being false, which technically it isn't, then your still left with 176 true to 76 false.

            Out of the 500+ campaign promises, he's only broken 19. Certainly not all promises are weighted equally, but again we are talking about breaking less than 5% of his promises. By scientific testing standards, that's an acceptably low enough number to prove he's keeping his promises.

            He has compromised on 39 of the 500+ campaign promises, which shows that the United States still has a President, and not a Dictator. Even with the compromises added to the broken promises, he's kept or working on keeping 90%+ of his promises.

            Of course, this is the USA, where we ignore facts and vote on the latest smear campaign. At the rate we are going, we will vote in office Sarah Palin. Her numbers are sobering. 27 true items to 13 false items, or about 67% true. Counting the barely true against her (as we did previously) brings the numbers to 22 true to 18 false, a mere 55% truthfulness.

            A more important issue, do you really want your president to be 100% truthful? How fast do you think the economic recovery would progress if the President of the United States motivated the entire nation with, "Well we are totally fucked, and hundreds of millions of people will probably lose their jobs." How do you think we would fare in trade agreements if we said, "We're going to use our status and military power to bully you into giving us a better cut of the pie."? Both of these statements are true, but they much better told in half-truths, ie. "We are working on a plan which will increase our financial stability at home and abroad." and "We feel we could assist you with your problems more if you removed a few trade barriers."

            Blaming Obama for lying is like blaming Obama for being a good negotiator. The fact that he has managed to not lie on 90% of his campaign promises is not just remarkable, it's incredible. In fact, it is so good that Republicans have voted against bills they sponsored to try to decrease his approval rating. They then use that "evidence" as a weakness of the Presidency, knowing full well that the public doesn't associate the passage of laws with Congress, they "feel" the President does it all.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by ebuck (585470)

              Hate to reply to my own post, but some dummy will ask for sources instead of using google to expand their consciousness.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by kevinNCSU (1531307)
              Too be fair I'd like to point out that your source considers "Closing Guantanamo Bay" as just one tick below a fully kept campaign promise and fixing the Patriot Act as merely "stalled" rather than a broken promise. Meanwhile Palin is ticked off as "barely true" (the only level above "liar liar pants on fire!") for quoting a list of countries military spending as a portion of GDP directly from the CIA World Factbook with the argument of "sure, if you count really small countries as well as countries in the
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              The problem is that he has kept the promises that the voters thought he didn't really mean and broken the ones that the voters really wanted him to keep (transparency, not raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year).
    • I'm waiting for somebody to "Strike A Pose" and do "Cheesecake Shots" on these scanners and its guaranteed to make the rounds on the net.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Blakey Rat (99501)

      Even more retarded, why wouldn't they store the images?

      What if someone slips a gun through security. We need to find out how that happened-- how are we going to find out if we can't review the image? What if there's a trial of a suspected terrorist, and we need evidence of his crime-- oh wait, we don't have the image, so we don't have the evidence.

      I mean, I completely understand the objections to installing these machines on every level from "it's an invasion of privacy" to "they're expensive and not worth

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bnenning (58349)

        The best fight would be fighting to not have them installed at all. If they are going to be installed, then don't fight storing images-- that just makes them *more* useless.

        A perfect example of the "enforcement need" slippery slope [ucla.edu].

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        If these work, they'd have found the weapon on the terrorist. They don't need a picture if they have the terrorist and the weapon. Cops don't take pictures of a suspect before they disarm them.

        we don't have the image, so we don't have the evidence.

        You need to look up what evidence actually is, because that statement shows you do not understand it at all. Evidence is not required to be photographic.

  • by oodaloop (1229816) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:41PM (#33139218)

    The Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction to stop the TSA's body scanning program.

    And when that doesn't work, EPIC failed!

    • by Defenestrar (1773808) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:02PM (#33139546)

      From the article:

      "For its part, the TSA says that body scanning is perfectly constitutional: 'The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events.'"

      Since when did the Fourth Amendment provide exemptions for "the end justifies the means" situations? (Which is a separate argument altogether).

      To claim that an effective strip search without probable cause, hot pursuit, or arrest is in any way not a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a bold and likely incorrect point of view. The issue of consent is probably a critical issue here. Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air; but when the issue may be to lose one's job for refusing to complete a business trip, perhaps then defaulting on a mortgage, & etc, or to "consent" to a millimeter wave search... That sounds more like extortion.

      Not to say that the Constitution has never been violated before, but let us not deceive ourselves as to what we are doing.

      • by russotto (537200) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:18PM (#33139786) Journal

        Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air

        It doesn't matter. When the government says "You must waive your rights to participate in any activity which you don't have the explicit constitutional right to participate in", it has violated your rights. The extent of the violation is more or less depending on how common or important the activities are; for air travel it's pretty darned high, though not as high as for surface travel.

      • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:31PM (#33140068)

        Perhaps one doesn't have to travel by air; but when the issue may be to lose one's job for refusing to complete a business trip, perhaps then defaulting on a mortgage, & etc,

        Or, in other words, dark skinned folks technically don't "have to" ride the bus, so its OK to make them sit in the back. Repeat for about one zillion other racial / ethnic discrimination situations.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Scrameustache (459504)

        Since when did the Fourth Amendment provide exemptions for "the end justifies the means" situations?

        9.11.2001

        Or October 26, 2001, if you want to get technical about it.

      • by Layth (1090489) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:35PM (#33140138)

        ...recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single ***Florida courthouse***
        Showing up in court is not a decision one makes. When you get a subpoena, you end up in court one way or another.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:41PM (#33139226)

    it had saved ~35,314 images recorded with a millimeter wave system

    It's all the young, beautiful 16 to 19 1/2 year-old females who are all alone and need protection from the strong DHS.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:41PM (#33139230)

    Get some enterprising hacker to release those 30k pics. If some schoolkids visited the courthouse, we'll see which is stronger: "think of the children!" or "think of the terrists!"

    • by AnonymousClown (1788472) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:03PM (#33139554)
      Add in "If you do nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about" and you have a new version of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".
    • by pz (113803) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:27PM (#33139980) Journal

      Get some enterprising hacker to release those 30k pics. If some schoolkids visited the courthouse, we'll see which is stronger: "think of the children!" or "think of the terrists!"

      If some school kids visited the courthouse and the pictures were saved, remember that child pornography laws are so strict that it's nearly guilty until proven innocent. I'd hate to be an operator of one of those machines if there is even a single image of a minor. Even just one.

      Come to think of it, that would be a good way for the ACLU to dismantle the entire program.

  • No Surprise at all (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LeepII (946831) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:41PM (#33139232)
    Since the original request for the system included "the ability to store and transmit" said images, this is no surprise. Any computer that has the "Print Screen" button on the keyboard can copy an image. Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?
    • by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:47PM (#33139304)

      Since the TSA scanned a 12 year old girl, why aren't child pornography charges being brought up on them?

      Despite me not agreeing with this program, the "think of the children" scream has no bearing here. Child pornography must be pornographic. Even nude stills that are considered artistic (ie, some of Lewis Caroll's photos he took) are not considered pornography and are perfectly legal. You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification". In this case, the purpose of the images will be for airport security. End of story. It's the same reason every pediatrician in the country isn't going to jail for molestation. As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HungryHobo (1314109)

        It would still be fun if the archive got leaked and we got to see a political cage match between those who see terrorists everywhere and the people who spend all their time thinking about the children.

      • by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:55PM (#33139426) Journal

        They claimed over and over that they were not storing the images. The fact that they were storing them clearly indicates that something deviant was occurring.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Neither the summary or the article say the TSA are storing images. This story is about the Marshal Service storing images. These two groups are distinct from each other.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by clone53421 (1310749)

            At their own admission the TSA has the capability in their machines. They just claim it isn’t “activated” in the airport scanners. Mhmm. Prove it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by blueg3 (192743)

          The TSA claimed they're not storing the images, and the U.S. Marshals (at one location) are storing the images. Those aren't the same organization.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by MarkusH (198450)

        What if some agent took the picture of a 12 year old girl home to "enjoy" in his free time? Could he be charged with possession of child pornography then? I'd say yes.

      • by dfghjk (711126) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:31PM (#33140078)

        "Child pornography must be pornographic."

        No it doesn't, it doesn't even need to be a child.

        "You simply have to prove that the purpose of the image is not for "deviant gratification"."

        The government has to prove its case against you, not the other way around.

        "As long as their contact is necessary and professional, then it's allowed."

        What you mean is that it matters WHO benefits from it.

      • by Jason Levine (196982) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:58PM (#33140600)

        When parents are accused on child porn for taking photos of their kids in the bath, saying "child porn must be pornographic" is completely untrue. It seems that all it takes is for one person to object to the amount of clothing on a child for the "child porn" label to be tossed around.

  • I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmauro (32523) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:41PM (#33139236)

    The TSA (part of DHS) says their not recording images of people entering the airport, but the US Marshalls (part of DoJ) are.

    So folks are suing the TSA? It seems to me that you'd actually want to sue the US Marshalls instead.

    • Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kevinNCSU (1531307) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:58PM (#33139468)
      In edition the article mentions the Brijot Gen2 machine. All of the TSA ones I've seen are the L-3 communications Provision machine. So DoJ using a different machine from a different company are storing images so they decide to sue a different department that's using different machines with different procedures? It makes no sense whatsoever.
    • by Hatta (162192)

      The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by blueg3 (192743)

        The TSA also uses a different machine.

      • Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:03PM (#33139560)

        The TSA claimed it was not possible to store the images. They lied.

        It isn't even an accidental lie either - their own procurement specifications require the ability to store and transmit copies in real time. Seems like the only thing keeping the machines doing from what the TSA said they "cannot" do is the flip of a switch. Why should we believe they aren't flipping that switch whenever they feel like it? After all they lied about the machines' capabilities, it ain't no big stretch of the imagination to expect them to lie about using that switch.

    • Slight correction: The TSA says they *cannot* store or record images. The U.S. Marshals, apparently using the same equipment, *are* storing images. Ergo, the TSA is lying about the capabilities of the machines, and a lawsuit is being filed to prevent them from being used since we clearly can't trust a word the TSA says. To be honest, the fact that the Marshals provided a case in point is somewhat irrelevant; the TSA claims they can't store images, but according to TFA, they require that they be able to stor
    • by oodaloop (1229816)
      Bad summary, separate lawsuit. FTFA:

      The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to grant an immediate injunction pulling the plug on TSA's body scanning program. In a separate lawsuit, EPIC obtained a letter (PDF) from the Marshals Service, part of the Justice Department, and released it on Tuesday afternoon.

  • by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:43PM (#33139258) Homepage Journal
    So, what kind of marker do I need to purchase to leave a few messages of what I think about the TSA on my special parts next time I go through the airport?
  • by zero_out (1705074) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:46PM (#33139294)
    How can I spot one of these machines? How does it differ in appearance from a metal detector?
  • Whose body were they storing when they scanned the images?

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:52PM (#33139364)

    ... they'll show up at porn sites real soon. You just need one perverted US Marshal with a USB memory stick, the Internet will do the rest.

    The US Marshals Service admitted that it had saved ~35,314 images

    Wow! That many cute chicks have walked through their scanners?

  • Not going far enough (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Psmylie (169236) * on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:55PM (#33139418) Homepage

    The problem is, we aren't going far enough to protect ourselves. These measures, while a considerable improvement over metal detectors, are still a far cry from what we need if we want to be secure. Here is what I propose:

    Upon entering any government building, or attempting to enter an airport terminal, all citizens will directed to secure rooms where they will be required to strip off all of their street clothes. These clothes will then be sent for analasys for any chemical agents, explosives, etc. and burned or disposed of if there are any suspicious substances on them. Visitors/travellers will then be issued a standard robe and slippers, after the invasive strip search and full body x-ray.
    At this point, if boarding an aircraft, passengers will be led to their seats and have an I.V. hooked into their arms. They will be kept sedated for the duration of the flight, and then wheeled out while still unconcious to recover in specially designated rooms. If there is a connecting flight, then of course staff will wheel them onto that flight, while still unconcious.
    Upon exiting the terminal or government building, citizens will have their personal effects returned to them, minus anything destroyed or detained due to suspicious chemical markers or anti-government slogans or anything else the government feels that it is in the citizen's best interest to remove from their possesion.

    I know all of this seems like it might be expensive, but hey, isn't it worth it to be safe?

    • by Psmylie (169236) *

      And now I realize that I have become far too reliant upon spell-checkers: *Analysis, *travelers, *unconscious, *possession. My sincere apologies to anyone who becomes excessively irritated upon seeing misspelled words.

  • I'm also confused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by confu2000 (245635) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @12:59PM (#33139474)

    The party involved seems to be the US Marshals at a court house.

    The TSA seems to be speaking only for themselves for airports.

    Is this Florida court house also an airport? Or located inside an airport?

    Am I having a problem with logic or is it the article?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hyades1 (1149581)

      Given the number of cops, lawyers and criminals typically found in a court house, it can safely be said that if assholes could fly, that court house would most certainly be classified as an airport.

  • Shouldn't the poster be GOrwell? Wouldn't it be even more appropriate!
  • by Necron69 (35644) <jscott.farrowNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:01PM (#33139522)

    I had my first millimeter wave radar scan at the Denver airport when traveling last weekend. I thought it was rather interesting, but wasn't impressed by their insistence that I had something in my pockets, until I turned them inside out to show they were empty.

    Necron69

    • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:36PM (#33140176)

      I had my first millimeter wave radar scan at the Denver airport when traveling last weekend. I thought it was rather interesting, but wasn't impressed by their insistence that I had something in my pockets, until I turned them inside out to show they were empty.

      Necron69

      Known bogus accusations are standard cop-tricks to get you to confess to something, throw you off guard or make you reveal something.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Jason Levine (196982)

        Kind of like when I was crossing from Canada back into the US once. We were traveling with my wife, kids, her brother and his wife. The border guard asked standard info: where we were going, where we were from, etc. Then he asked (in a very accusing tone) which one of us wasn't born in the US. We all kind of paused trying to think if we had said *anything* to lead him to that impression before answering (truthfully) that none of us were born outside the US. We got let on our way but it was still puzzli

  • Samples Required (Score:5, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:11PM (#33139696) Homepage Journal

    Seriously, make the perversion jokes if you must, but I don't think most Americans have any idea what's even being discussed here.

    The TSA should allow a small sample, say 5 each male and female, various ages, of un-filtered un-redacted (but anonymous) full-resolution images available for a trusted third party to post on their website. It could be a newspaper, a travel mag, Consumer Reports, whatever, but an unbiased supervisor needs to be responsible for the authenticity.

    There's not even enough information available here to have an informed debate, just a few down-sampled 'privacy filtered' press images.

  • by robi2106 (464558) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:28PM (#33140010) Homepage Journal

    We need an undershirt with metalic paint (or anythign that shows up as high contrast in those scanners) in big block letters that says "Fuck You TSA."

    I'd love to see a new market for Anti-TSA underwear.

  • Same old (Score:3, Informative)

    by NetNed (955141) on Wednesday August 04, 2010 @01:42PM (#33140286)
    Every time we get the old line "we won't do that because it will infringe on your rights" from politicians, government agencies, law enforcement and all the likes, it should be a red light to all that they will most certainly abuse whatever it is and overwhelming infringe on your rights. Why we continue to put up with politicians that don't represent us and sell us down the river is astounding. At least recently people have woken up to the fact that the government and the politicians in it love to gain power over the masses in some sort of control freak way for anything from making money off it to appeasing corporate campaign contributors all for their own gain.

    The government needs to be once again a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!

Working...