Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Power Politics

PA's Dept. of Homeland Security Shared Oil-Shale Protester Info With Companies 293

Posted by timothy
from the nothing-dirty-or-suspicious-here dept.
Western Pennsylvania's shale oil deposits have lately attracted interest not only from companies who have been extracting some of that oil, but from locals who object to what they perceive as sharp dealing by the companies involved, favorable treatment by the state government, and environmental degradation as a result of the extraction. Some of the most visible of those protesters, it turns out, have been tracked (including "Web traffic") by Pennsylvania's own Homeland Security department, and that information about them has been shared not only within the department, but with the oil companies themselves. Homeland Security director James Powers defended the information shared with the oil companies as part of a triweekly bulletin, saying "We want to continue providing this support to the Marcellus Shale Formation natural gas stakeholders while not feeding those groups fomenting dissent against those same companies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PA's Dept. of Homeland Security Shared Oil-Shale Protester Info With Companies

Comments Filter:
  • Tell me again... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jcr (53032) <jcr@NOsPAM.mac.com> on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:24PM (#33581880) Journal

    I hear all the time about how government protects people from corporations, and that's why we have to keep giving government more and more power. Holy shit, you mean they actually don't?

    -jcr

  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:25PM (#33581892)

    Who knew...
    I bet the trains run on time though.

     

  • by StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:25PM (#33581894)

    This is terribly interesting, the worst nightmare posible. The entrenched law inforcement and investigatory agency, tax payer funded being used to unabashedly help business over the general welfare. Someone should be going to jail here.

  • by russotto (537200) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:27PM (#33581914) Journal

    Who knew...

    Not me. I thought it was a classic kleptocracy.

    I bet the trains run on time though.

    Most definitely not.

  • by ugen (93902) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:27PM (#33581918)

    I had to re-read this a few times. Are these guys taking their cues from North Korea newspapers? Whoever this guy is he should be 1) reminded of what the 1st amendment is about 2) fired.

  • Problem? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BradleyUffner (103496) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:28PM (#33581928) Homepage

    State Homeland Security Director James Powers explained that he has been including anti-gas drilling activist information in his triweekly intelligence briefings for about a month because there have been “five to 10” incidents of vandalism around the state related to the natural gas industry, which is one of the sectors he is charged with monitoring.

    One of those incidents, he said, involved someone shooting a natural gas container tank with a shotgun in Venango County.

    If someone is shooting at my stuff, especially if it's the large, exploding kinda stuff, like a gas storage tank. I'd expect to be told about it. This doesn't sound so sinister.

  • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:28PM (#33581932)

    Cos they are working for the companies. Not for you. Think directorship, member of the board. that kind of thing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture [wikipedia.org]

    hth.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:30PM (#33581958)

    3. Sued by every person whose information was "shared."
    4. Prosecuted by the attorney general of the state.(and if he refuses to prosecute, by the US Attorney General.)

  • by schmidt349 (690948) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:40PM (#33581976)

    When you create the legal fiction that an intangible conglomeration of people, united solely in their desire to exploit other people for monetary gain, counts as a human being under the law, weird shit starts happening.

    If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.

  • by conspirator57 (1123519) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @07:46PM (#33581992)

    and to think those of us who objected to PATRIOT, state fusion centers, and the rest of the expansion of the surveillance / police state were called wingnuts: after all, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear, and so what's the harm in letting the government spy on you? oh wait. and to think that this is merely the tip of the police state iceberg. i foresee far darker days ahead on our society's current path.

  • Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColdWetDog (752185) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:21PM (#33582036) Homepage

    If someone is shooting at my stuff, especially if it's the large, exploding kinda stuff, like a gas storage tank. I'd expect to be told about it. This doesn't sound so sinister.

    No, you expect the appropriate authorities to be told about it. You might rightfully expect some information on the general nature of the threat (if any) but you should not expect to be told about specific persons which seems to be what is happening here.

    That would be vigilantism.

  • Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:28PM (#33582046)

    If someone were to ruin your water supply, especially with poisonous, exploding kinda stuff, by drilling at an adjacent property, wouldn't you also expect to be told about it? Keep in mind that the locals depend heavily on well water. This is a serious issue.

  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:29PM (#33582052)

    They could...

    If the people actually cared about ethics in government and business...

    Instead everyone wants to get rich by any means necessary, including cheating and reality tv shows.

    What is the government? Its you... Its me... Its the people. Its our country. If we cant trust the government, we cant trust each other or our country.

    If we want a better government, elect better people and be a better person yourself. Be vigilant

  • by Whammy666 (589169) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:30PM (#33582054) Homepage
    Fascism: When govt and corporations actively work together to the detriment of the general population.
  • by osgeek (239988) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:31PM (#33582062) Homepage Journal

    I'm sure they would too, but it's one of those issues where it really points out the hypocrisy of the party. It's like when a Republican violates family values and has a homosexual affair. It invokes a Nelson "ha ha" response.

  • Re:why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amiga3D (567632) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:33PM (#33582078)

    If we put every politico that did this in jail for bribery then virtually all of them would be there......hmmm.........

  • by couchslug (175151) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:35PM (#33582094)

    People only tend to appreciate the evils of government when the party they dislike is in power.

  • by dangitman (862676) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @08:59PM (#33582150)

    Is James Powers a Democrat? Seems more like he is a bureaucrat. When a new government is elected, all the existing people in various departments aren't fired and replaced with people from the new party.

  • by M. Baranczak (726671) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @09:01PM (#33582162)

    The Marcellus Shale Formation is a geological feature. It's not in any position to be buying politicians. The companies extracting gas from the shale - that's a different story.

  • by hellop2 (1271166) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @09:21PM (#33582216)
    I disagree with this. At least I think I do, since your use of "appreciate" is confusing. However, back at the University of Oregon, all the hippies protested Clinton, and the Kosovo war.

    Show me a sane person who likes evil.

    Do you think all the War protesters suddenly A-OKed the war after Obama was elected?
  • by ExploHD (888637) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @09:26PM (#33582244)

    I hear all the time about how government protects people from corporations

    Corporations are people too!

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." -George Orwell, Animal Farm

  • Should be Fired (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JackSpratts (660957) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @09:30PM (#33582264) Homepage
    and pronto. Hydraulic fracturing of shale is an absolutely legitimate health and environmental concern. There is no place for his behavior in Penn or any other state. The Justice Dept should get on this and him.
  • by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @09:40PM (#33582312)

    No, but a lot of them stopped talking about it.

  • by sumdumass (711423) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @09:44PM (#33582328) Journal

    Do you think all the War protesters suddenly A-OKed the war after Obama was elected?

    A lot of them did. It's for two reasons, one the biggest protesting point was that Bush was involved and anything to rail on Bush seemed to be acceptable. Another reason is that once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything. (fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.)

  • by jenningsthecat (1525947) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @09:57PM (#33582372)
    For many years now I've been calling the agency in question 'DFS', for 'Department of Fatherland Security'. I guess it was only a matter of time before they demonstrated their fascism in a public, step-on-your-own-dick manner. Now their pretense of righteousness has fallen away; DFS is obviously all about money and power, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the safety and security of America and her citizens. These clowns are simply organized criminals with a government mandate, and they run the biggest protection and extortion rackets in the whole country. Given a choice, I'd rather deal with the Mafia - they seem more honorable and more competent, and at least they don't pretend to hold the moral high ground.
  • by Xaositecte (897197) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @10:01PM (#33582382) Journal

    Eh? Both Republics and Democrats have been pushing this shit. Who the hell is standing against it?

  • by blind biker (1066130) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @10:19PM (#33582460) Journal

    If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.

    No, because the psychopaths responsible for the decisions, will find a way out, leaving their customary trail of destruction and misery after them: they will manipulate their way out of the to-be-killed corporation that they corrupted and abused, and into a leading position in another company. Which is, btw. what they do today already, even without your proposed "death penalty for unruly corporations".

    Instead, we should introduce death penalties for unruly executives, and start recognizing corporate psychopathy for the that it is.

  • by Ryanrule (1657199) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @10:26PM (#33582500)
    imho, any govt worker who accepts any gift or job from a corporation that they have legislative influence over, should be tried for treason in a military court, and fuckin shot.
  • Re:Gasland (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 10101001 10101001 (732688) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @10:46PM (#33582622) Journal

    Oil naturally leaks into the oceans. That doesn't mean all oil leaking into the oceans is natural. Lightning naturally starts forest fires. That doesn't mean all forest fires are natural.

    Yes, it can happen naturally that a well might be contaminated with oil or natural gas. But, when it's the case that a well wasn't contaminated then suddenly becomes contaminated after recently drilling near or on your property, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about it being natural. Nor, really, would I find it "beyond a reasonable doubt" simply that it was contaminated from recent drilling.

    However, if it's the case that the recent drilling involved pumping a trade secret mixture of chemicals into the ground and you can find it in your well, that's a pretty strong link. So, the situation becomes finding out, in some fashion, that trade secret mixture to perform a simply comparison. I think that's all that people who feel they are effected are really demanding. Of course, if they find that fingerprint mixture, I'm sure they'll want to file lawsuits, have passed regulation changes, and/or see criminal charges to be pressed. But, all of that's pretty reasonable.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:11PM (#33582752)
    Those two events seem very similar in a lack of respect of privacy/bounds of jurisdiction kind if way.
  • by quanticle (843097) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:23PM (#33582852) Homepage

    The state Department of Homeland Security is a "fusion center" serving to "facilitate" cooperation between state and federal authorities. Given that, I wouldn't rule out federal involvement.

  • by PRMan (959735) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:34PM (#33582916)
    The Tea Party. We're doomed.
  • Re:Gasland (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DeadCatX2 (950953) on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:38PM (#33582932) Journal

    lol, are you for real? Try reading the article you cite as evidence. Last time I checked, ultimatums are generally issued after significant resistance.

    The Obama administration urged gas companies to voluntarily disclose the toxic chemicals they inject in the ground in a type of natural gas exploration that uses hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

    If companies rebuff the request — a seemingly unlikely event — environmental regulators could get tough.

    I also find it absolutely hilarious that you're trying to use an article that was printed this week as evidence that these companies haven't been fighting to keep these chemicals secret for the past several years.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:38PM (#33582936)

    I keep hearing this, but I never hear why people should *lose* rights simply because they are pooling resources and acting as a group... Why should corporate contracts be treated as contracts between individuals? Well, because they are. What is wrong here is that a government is acting for one party and against another. It is rule by men instead of by law. Nothing to do with corporations, except that as representatives of wealthy interests they are better than individuals at corrupting the system.

  • by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdotNO@SPAMuberm00.net> on Tuesday September 14, 2010 @11:49PM (#33583022) Homepage Journal

    Vandalism is a crime. Protest is not. If the latter turns into the former, then by all means, prosecute, but we can't just make the assumption that it will.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @12:00AM (#33583098)

    It's especially bad considering PA has a 2nd term Democrat for governor, Rendell.

    Same guy pushed landfills from the cities onto farmland (he's from Philadelphia, you know, just over the river from NJ literally). While NJ was cutting down their use of landfills, he pushed PA into accepting the business. Where I am, we have an incinerator that was built in the county (before Rendell) that's rarely used on route 441. Instead, we've opened up yet another landfill outside of Elizabethtown, since it's cheaper to buy farmland and dump. We've got another a couple counties north of here adjoining state gameland/park.

    And a 3rd one county over, adjoining what was a wonderful state parker, done largely to kiss waste management business ass _and_ to ruin an old farmer who was selling lots adjoining the park...to private buyers who wanted to build high end homes. The farmer had the bright (imo, a good one) of selling lots at the edge of his farm adjoining the park; they sit on a crest and have a nice view of the park. I don't know the details on this one, but what I recall was the state had some disagreement with this practice of piecing out the edge of his farm that adjoined the park for some reason (I guess the local politicians didn't get their deserved cut)--I think the reason was that the farmer had planned to do this for quite awhile, then state decided they wanted to use eminent domain and expand the park. Fighting ensues--state wants to buy $11,000 an acre as farmland, farmer protests because he's selling 3 acre lots for $110,000. State gets pissed, picks land right next to homes already built to put a landfill, stop farmers plan, shorts farmers income, and essentially salts what was prime real estate land.

    Anyways, regardless of the details, some land (whether park or taken by the state from the farmer) is now landfill, upstream from the park, and you've got these people who thought they were buying nice homes next to state land and would get a view, a nice place to go home to, etc., that they bought in a private transaction and become private land in accordance with the local building zoning. Instead, they are staring down an open pit of landfill. Now covered, but with methane relievers coming out of the ground. Literally stinks.

    imo, rather spiteful and a petty move by the state government..

    Oh, did I mention there's a school up the road that can smell it and gets some of the truck traffic? The area around the landfill/park is dead. No one really wants to go there, and I've heard from a couple people (I'm a county over) that used to go to the park that they don't frequent it anymore. Strange how landfills are rarely if ever put on those empty vacant lots in the city, which Philly has a lot of.

    Anyways, PA accepts a huge amount of trash from other states. When citizens tried to take action, the state threatened them and there was some undertone in some of the comments that officials threatened the land of certain individuals that were protesting to help their neighbors (maybe the landfill would have to be expanded at a future time, so we'll "buy" your land).

    It's also pretty shitty that, for some reason, the landfills always seem to be near small communities. We have plenty of 100+ acre farms and wide open space, but it's always put near a small town of 10-15 people, who almost certainly use ground water. I realize there is suppsed to be no runoff, but come on. Even after the mandatory monitoring, there will still be some. Just an unnecessary risk. Stupid shit.

    So I'm not exactly surprised that some state branch, under this administration, is kissing some energy company ass.

    Similarly, don't forget, PA is the home of Comcast, and Comcast got a lot of benefits while Rendell was mayor of Philadelphia (before he become governor)--this is suspected as to why a lot of broadband plans were delayed in PA, and why several years ago (2004 I think), the PUC plans that were to be approved for opening up all lines, was shut down (Verizon didn't want to share lines either, but Comcast didn't want Verizon to be forced too, since that was more competition for them too).

    Anyways, as a PA resident, I'm disappointed, but it's just another crappy thing on a long list.

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@ g m a i l.com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @01:15AM (#33583452) Journal

    1980? Where you been buddy, under a rock? You want to trace when the last vestiges of We, The People died a nasty death you can trace that back to the end of WWII and the formation of the eternal military industrial complex. Before that the USA, like its people, was largely isolationist and left other countries the hell alone. Since then the USA hasn't gone a whole 5 years without stirring up shit somewhere, usually giving a twofor by helping out both the MIC and big oil/gas/coal.

    I'd say the big difference is before around 1990 they actually pretended to give a fuck, now they don't. Just as others pointed out having the republicans stand up and refuse tax breaks for the middle class in a time of recession (I personally think it is the start of a depression myself) unless the top 2.5% (which have been making out like bandits for decades) get a tax break too? That takes a serious "fuck you peasants" attitude that they just didn't have the balls to show before. Now thanks to deregulation allowing all of the media outlets to be owned by a few megacorps they know they can say whatever they want and the media will spin away, since they own it.

    As for TFA, is anybody here really surprised the whole "fuck you peasant scum" attitude has filtered down to the states? After all the federal politicians are making out like bandits, why shouldn't the state boys join in on the fun? But mark my words, if it does turn into another depression the rich better have some serious firepower, as I don't see the peasants being all passive like they were back then. We got waaay too many poor, waaay too many guns, and a serious "fuck being nice" attitude building in this country. Just go to any of the numerous cities where homes and businesses lie empty and you can practically smell the powderkeg.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:09AM (#33583654)

    That problem predates fascism by a couple of centuries. Adam Smith knew it as "mercantilisim".

    And he detailed it as an inevitable danger of economic systems which necessitates actively (but carefully) regulating against. It's a pity Libertarians tend to excerpt Smith out of context rather than actually reading and understanding his work since he completely destroys their entire "philosophy".

  • by Kirijini (214824) <kirijini@y a h o o . com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:18AM (#33583694)

    the psychopaths responsible for the decisions, will find a way out, leaving their customary trail of destruction and misery after them: they will manipulate their way out of the to-be-killed corporation that they corrupted and abused, and into a leading position in another company.

    Imagine you're on the board of directors of company x. Suppose the CEO of company y, known to be ruthless and to dramatically increase profits, -

    but also known to have caused the "execution" of company y, i.e., caused the immediate liquidation of company y, meaning that all of company y's "going concern" value is lost and only the value of its liquid assets are recovered by shareholders,

    - wants to be the CEO of your company, company x. Would you want him to be your CEO?

    The imposition of an actual "death penalty" for criminal corporations would have an enormous impact on the way business is run in this country... because people would lose money as a result of criminal behavior by a company they have invested in.

  • by hab136 (30884) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @04:59AM (#33584250) Journal

    I don't think you're looking far back enough either. The civil war is when corporations went from time-limited, specific-purpose vehicles to "anything to make a buck" that last forever. Shortly thereafter in 1886 corporations gained personhood. It's been all downhill from there.

  • by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @06:17AM (#33584566)

    Would you want him to be your CEO?

    Sure, why not? He'll help me and my fellow directors loot the company and jump ship before it sinks. Then we'll help him get a new CEO position in whatever companies we've spread to, and repeat the process.

  • by Hognoxious (631665) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @07:30AM (#33584878) Homepage Journal

    For satisfied people they sure whine a lot!

  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @09:24AM (#33585876)
    You make two errors. The first is that you think the wealthy are Republicans, check the voting stats for the 20 counties with the highest per captia income. All but one of them is a safe Democratic district. The second is that you didn't look very closely at how the head of the PA Department of Homeland Security gets his job. He is appointed by the Governor of PA. The current head was appointed in 2006. In 2006, the Governor of Pennsylvania was Ed Rendell, who is as partisan a Democrat as there is. Therefore, James Powers is clearly a Democrat.
    I, also, forgot to mention that the Republicans are not fighting to keep tax cuts for the "richest" 2.5% of our population. They are fighting to keep the tax cuts for all, including those who earn in the top 2.5% of income. There is a difference between those with the highest income and those who are the wealthiest. Bill Gates is one of the richest men in the country, but he has nowhere near the highest income. The other point on this issue is that most of the top 2.5% of income according to the IRS are S corporations, not actual individuals.
  • by Mitchell314 (1576581) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @09:35AM (#33585988)
    How about both are the party of whoever-gives-the-most-votes? That way we don't have to keep changing it around.
  • back to the future (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @09:38AM (#33586040) Homepage Journal

    If you ask me it's time we brought back the death penalty for unruly corporations.

    That's exactly as it used to be. Pennsylvania was notorious for shutting down banks that were misbehaving in the 1810's and 1820's. All corporations of the time were for limited terms and for public benefit.

    Come around towards 1870 and John D. Rockefeller finds he can use his "influence" in Congress to get corporations made permanent, and soon in Santa Clara a footnote to an unrelated case finds that corporations have human rights, and all three branches of government heartily embrace this bizzare idea.

    Soon after the "Trust Busters" decided to break up Standard Oil and implemented the break-up plan that Rockefeller himself crafted (as he had found Standard Oil by that time to be too unwieldy to compete nimbly). They showed him, right?

    Witness the transformation of the Wall Street banks in the 1990's from partnerships (where the owners' money is directly at risk) to corporate ownership and the resulting shenanigans that ensued.

    Corporations remove that direct responsibility, and are, in essence, an agreement between the government and the managers to protect the managers from the People when they engage in malfeasance. Typically, those managers see to it that the representatives in Government are well taken care of, and thus the positive-feedback loop is complete.

    Partnerships are the natural structure of companies that need to grow to a large size. There is a limit on their size, in contrast to giant multi-national corporations. Some will argue that the big multi-nationals are essential to provide some kind of product at some kind of price, but the evidence against them is far too compelling to support those arguments of a net-utility benefit.

    I'll get a bunch of responses here that we need a big government to protect us from corporations (from well-meaning folks educated in government education centers) but I hope I've given enough of a kernel of information to lead you to read up on how government action is the root problem here, and that corporations exist only at its pleasure.

  • by radtea (464814) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @09:51AM (#33586246)

    and aren't therefore connected to natural gas reservoirs

    Yet. Fracking isn't exactly brain surgery. I've worked in the industry (micro-seismic monitoring) and know how poorly understood the rock mechanics of this process is.

    Shale gas wells tap the gas from a tight shale that's completely separated vertically from the aquifer.

    I'm curious how you managed to get to a deep shale formation without drilling through the rock on top. Once you've put a well in the whole "vertical separation" claim doesn't look so good, and it's not as if well linings never leak, so please don't bother to bring that one up. We're talking about facts here. Well linings leak, rather more than 1% of the time.

    Nobody who has just spent $$$ on drilling a well wants the very gas they were after to piss itself away into an aquifer. You may doubt companies stick to regulations, but I'm sure you don't suspect their desire for not literally letting their profit evaporate.

    Ok, now you're just being a moron. I guess you also think that no company would ever engage in the kind of systematic laxity that dumped a few millions barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico three months ago. I know being a corporate shill is mentally and morally damaging, but seriously, just how stupid do you think the rest of us are?

    This bogus argument that "profit maximization in the long term will prevent the people who work for companies from ever engaging in risky behaviour that would limit long-term profits" is the corporate Stata Claus: it would be so NICE if it was true, but y'know what? It's false. Bringing wells/mines/whatever into production FAST is generally strongly incentived in the extraactive industries, and it is not at all uncommon for companies to lose long-term profits in the name of hitting short-term goals. Look up "high grading" [thesudburystar.com] if you're unfamiliar with this all-too-common corporate phenomenon.

    The people who work for companies, as witnessed by the idiots at BPHTO (BP/Halibuton/Trans-Ocean), are more than capable of making bad, short-sighted decisions that result in pretty much unlimited environmental damage, and the proof of that is they already have. That is simple empiricism, and for someone to trot out that tired old corporate "just so" story about how profits will protect us all is sad.

Our informal mission is to improve the love life of operators worldwide. -- Peter Behrendt, president of Exabyte

Working...