Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Your Rights Online

Arizona Attempts To Make Trolling Illegal 474

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the entire-slashdot-readerbase-sent-to-gitmo dept.
LordofEntropy writes "Though unlikely to pass any First Amendment test. Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer has a bill on her desk that would in essence make 'trolling' illegal. The law states 'It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.'" This did indeed manage to pass through both houses of legislature and only needs a signature to become law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arizona Attempts To Make Trolling Illegal

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:04PM (#39573237)
    Jail this!
    • by durrr (1316311) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:16PM (#39573455)

      Jail Arizona's Gov. Jan Brewer for trolling if this law passes. It certainly offends and annoy me.

      • by lgw (121541) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:47PM (#39573915) Journal

        I believe this is primarily an anti-cyber-bullying law. Wouldn't want our precious special unique snowflakes to get their little feelers hurt, would we? If some big meanie insults then on the internet, why then just throw him in jail, problem solved!

        We seriously need to stop trying to keep kids cocooned until 25. Maturity comes only from facing the world, and coping with its hardships, whether that happens at 15 or 25. Delaying that isn't helping society.

        • Huh - now here's an idea for a website: user uploaded public conversations (i.e. from slashfaceplus) to solicit community responses scored and weighted on metrics such as: witty, soul crushing riposte, humorous laugh-off, etc... The initial user could then pick his or her favorite and proceed to devastate their cyber-bully with the best crowd-sourcing can provide!

          Of course, any successful response to said bully would be in violation of AZ's new law as well... (I used to be a cyber-bully, but this eight yea

      • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @02:17PM (#39574407) Journal

        This isn't a joke. The disrespect Brewer shows for our most cherished rights offends me far, far more than anything I've ever seen on the internet. Yes, even more than goatse.

        I'd rather live in a world where goatse was plastered on every billboard than in a world where our ostensibly most respectable citizens can propose something like this and not be run out of office with torches and pitchforks.

        This is not merely offensive, it's the deepest level of obscenity I can imagine. This is depravity writ large.

        • The disrespect Brewer shows for our most cherished rights offends me

          Think of it as supreme respect for her most cherished American value...money. And the campaign donations she's cashing from corporate interests (i.e. private jail companies writing Immigration Legislation to make more prisoners) are just more examples of her devoted and deep respect...

    • by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @02:40PM (#39574731) Homepage Journal

      If your trolling requires " use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person", then you're not doing it correctly.

  • by Kincaidia (927521) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:04PM (#39573239)
    [ this comment has been removed by the State of Arizona ]
    • by s.petry (762400)

      What happens to "I know you are but what am I" comments during censorship?

      • by Gription (1006467) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:31PM (#39573707)
        I assume this bill is on the AZ legislature's website which is an electronic medium.

        I find this type of assault on the first amendment blatantly obscene. And I am very offended.
        Voting to pass this makes it the voice of everyone that voted Yes on it. Let the first round of class 1 misdemeanors begin.
        • I invented a perpetual motion machine!

          Get arrested for posting a nude picture of yourself. Then that law approved by the Supreme Court that demands a strip search for any arrest kicks in!

    • Yup, and I think we all know the reasons why. As a wise submitter once said, this did indeed management to pass...
    • [this poster has been removed by the State of Arizona]

  • by bonch (38532) * on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:04PM (#39573245)

    BREAKING--Trolls Left Homeless After Website Ruled Illegal

    Tech site Slashdot was ruled illegal today, leaving hundreds of trolls without a home. Slashdot, founded in the late 90s by master troll Rob Malda, has provided shelter for countless trolls over the years.

    "It leaves me feeling naked. And petrified," said Slashdot user PortmanHotGrits. "Slashdot was once a thriving troll community due to its rigid ideology, biased editors, and broken moderation system."

    "Where am I going to hate Apple now?" asked one anonymous user. "I hate Reddit, and my real life friends bought Macs years ago. Slashdot was the last place my puppet accounts could go to vent their frustration at iSheep Crapple fans. Android4Lyfe! Hang on, my custom ROM just crashed."

    Reaction in other internet communities was mixed.

    "Slashdot is still around?" asked several Twitter users. Said one IT administrator: "Whoa, Slashdot? I used to post there when I ran Linux on my desktop back in 2001. I used to write 'Micro$oft' non-ironically. I was an embarrassing idiot. Farewell, Slashdot."

    Rob Malda, who ran screaming from Slashdot earlier in the year with half his body engulfed in flames, could not be reached for comment.

    • In other news, cries of "Raise the barricades!" and "It's the second Eternal September!" were heard coming from the vicinity of 4Chan as thousands of homeless trolls descended on the site.

  • Arizona (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:04PM (#39573247)

    I'm glad I moved to Texas.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      That is the first time that comment has been posted any where ever. Joking or not.
      • Re:Arizona (Score:5, Informative)

        by lgw (121541) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:55PM (#39574041) Journal

        You joke, but Texas currently (for at least the past 15 years) has a significant net inflow of migration from other states - no income tax (and a reasonable regulatory climate for starting a business or building something) is a nice draw, I guess. In any case, don't mess with Texas.

        • by Moryath (553296)

          It also leads the nation in creating shit-wage jobs, their vaunted "economic miracle" turned out to be just an accounting trick hidden by their only-done-biennially governmental structure. The moment they had to budget, everything came due, they found out 60% of the "new jobs" they had created were minimum wage jobs, their unemployment STILL was middle of the road for the country, and they're sitting almost dead last in education right now thanks to the retards in the legislature fucking over the public sch

    • by srmalloy (263556)

      Just be careful what you say there; Texas has a law against the defamation of beef [justia.com].

    • by Anomalyst (742352)

      I'm glad I moved to Texas.

      Enjoy your TSA bomb scare idiocy.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    The only actual story here is that the government and voters of Arizona are profoundly stupid.
  • Remember: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GmExtremacy (2579091) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:05PM (#39573271)

    You have the right to not be offended. Right?

    • Re:Remember: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mooingyak (720677) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:16PM (#39573441)

      You have the right to not be offended. Right?

      Absolutely. It's one of our inalienable rights. You are free to not be offended by whatever you choose to not be offended by.

    • by jimbolauski (882977) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:36PM (#39573763) Journal
      You have the right to not be offended, if can not afford to be offended, the court will provide someone to be offended for you.
      • by keytoe (91531)

        You have the right to not be offended, if can not afford to be offended, the court will provide someone to be offended for you.

        You should never go for the court appointed offender if you can avoid it. They really don't have your interests at heart, tend to be overworked and generally don't care. Hire your own offender to be sure you're properly offended. It may cost a bit, but it's well worth it.

    • Re:Remember: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:43PM (#39573849) Homepage

      You have the right to not be offended. Right?

      I know you're joking, but I have no idea where people came up with the notion they have some inalienable right to not be offended. Less so just because it's on the internet.

      I'm offended every time I listen to a politician speaking. I'm offended when some executive gets millions in bonuses for a money-losing quarter. I'm offended when some idiot says the world is only 6000 years old.

      Freedom of speech means you don't have to like what I say, and I don't have to like what you say. But neither of us can prevent the other from saying it.

      However, I know there are some groups who really do believe that I should in no way be able to say something that offends them.

      • While it may not be an inalienable right, it certainly has been defended by the supreme court that freedom of speech applies in all situations.*

        * Except for when it will offend other people who have no way of avoiding your free speech. For instance, you can't directly block the entrance to, say, an office building by exercising your 1st amendment rights if that's the only way for someone who is offended by your message to enter. You may not hold an offensive rally (think pro-Nazi rallies on college campuses

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          While there is no right not to be offended, the offender may have restrictions on their rights if they are making it unreasonable or impossible for someone else to go about their daily life.

          Sure, because that's to prevent you from interfering with the other guy's rights. Which I can agree with.

          But if I said "all people with blue hair look silly", and someone with blue hair is offended, too bad. (And, for the record, when I was younger, I did have blue hair a few times.)

          Similarly, if I say that anybody who

        • While there is no right not to be offended, the offender may have restrictions on their rights if they are making it unreasonable or impossible for someone else to go about their daily life.

          Physically preventing people from traversing an area has absolutely nothing to do with speech.

        • by chrismcb (983081)

          For instance, you can't directly block the entrance to, say, an office building by exercising your 1st amendment rights if that's the only way for someone who is offended by your message to enter.

          Then you'll be arrested for trespassing or some other such, not for exercising your 1st amendment rights.

          You may not hold an offensive rally (think pro-Nazi rallies on college campuses) if your free speech prevents someone from going from point A to point B without being offended

          Where did you get this idea? As long as you aren't inciting a riot (you know, you are having a peaceful demonstration) you sure can offend other people. That is sort of the whole point of the whole freedom of expression. Obviously if I'm not offending you, then you really don't care what I say. But if I offend you, you will want me to stop, and that is why the free speech is protected.

    • Re:Remember: (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:45PM (#39573883)

      >>>You have the right to not be offended. Right?

      F.U.

      (I am referring of course to the new Fiscal Union of europe.) The summary almost makes the law sound reasonable, but I prefer infowars' spin on it:

      Internet Censorship Bill Goes After Free Speech In Arizona The state legislature of Arizona has passed a bill that vastly broadens telephone harassment laws and applies them to the Internet and other means of electronic communication.

      LINK - http://www.infowars.com/internet-censorship-bill-goes-after-free-speech-in-arizona/ [infowars.com]

      Another interesting story from the same site: "TSA Screener Throws Hot Coffee In Face Of Pilot Who Asked Her To Stop Cursing" :-o Wow.

      • Re:Remember: (Score:5, Informative)

        by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:57PM (#39574077) Homepage

        Another interesting story from the same site: "TSA Screener Throws Hot Coffee In Face Of Pilot Who Asked Her To Stop Cursing" :-o Wow.

        Holy crap, you're not kidding [infowars.com].

        Mr Trivett then attempted to get a closer look at the screener's ID tags, presumably in order to report the incident. The screener, 30 year old Lateisha El, then reportedly shoved the pilot and hurled a full cup of hot coffee at his face.

        Police said that Mr Trivett thankfully walked away without being seriously hurt. El, from East New York in Brooklyn, was arrested and charged with harassment and misdemeanor-assault.

        I'm sorry, but if someone in uniform who has the authority to arrest and detain you does that, that should be a lot more than a misdemeanor. Because if I threw a cup of coffee into a TSA screener's face, I'd be sure as hell facing an entirely different set of charges. In fact, it would likely be a Federal offense.

  • Even worse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bobbutts (927504) <bobbutts@gmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:05PM (#39573279)
    It's not just trolling "annoy or offend" could literally be applied to every word ever written.
    • >> "annoy or offend" could literally be applied to every word ever written

      It could be applied to an entire state even.

    • by JWSmythe (446288)

      You're right. You can't make everyone happy all the time. In any discussion, argument, or debate, there will be at least two sides. Apple/Windows/Linux gets 3, unless you could *BSD, but didn't Netcraft have something to say about that? :)

      I guess that'll be another note in my travel journal. "Do not enter Arizona, I'm probably a criminal there." That list is getting pretty long. If only there were some place that guaranteed the rights of freedom of speech and expression

      • by hob42 (41735) <jupo42NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:29PM (#39573653) Homepage Journal

        Did you just suggest boycotting Arizona? As a Tucson resident, that ticks me off. I'm calling the cops.

        • Don't use a cell phone to file the complaint, filing the complaint will cause the officer to do more paperwork which will annoy him and as a cell phone is a digital device you would be in violation of the law.
    • Re:Even worse (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TFAFalcon (1839122) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:23PM (#39573567)

      But the law seems to imply that annoying is fine, as long as you don't 'use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.'

      So it's not so much a law against trolling, as it is against impolite trolling.

      If that is the case then I fully support it. It's so much more satisfying to drive a person crazy while being completely polite.

  • well.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oh_my_080980980 (773867) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:05PM (#39573281)
    They also outlawed teaching Mexican American studies in public schools, so no I don't find this surprising.
    • Re:well.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Brentyl (685453) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:13PM (#39573389)

      Not to be pedantic: The State of Arizona had little to do with one school district canceling Mexican-American studies. That was a course taught at a few schools in Tucson, and the school district shut it down. There are reasonable arguments both ways on that call.

      There was some pressure from the state Dept of Ed, but it was truly a local decision.

      That said, as a long-time resident and observer, general knuckleheadedness runs both deep and wide in our fair state. If Brewer signs this bill, I can't imagine it withstanding any appeal. This is basic First Amendment stuff.

      • Re:well.... (Score:4, Informative)

        by sgrandi (725424) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:31PM (#39573687)
        If you are going to be pedantic, at least be correct.... The state of Arizona did pass a law stating that schools can’t teach courses designed “primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.” Tom Horne, Arizona’s attorney general crafted this law when he was the state’s school superintendent. While still superintendent, he ruled that the Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American studies program violated the law. To avoid the penalty specified in the law (loss of a percentage of state funds for school support) , TUSD shut down the program.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Is0m0rph (819726)
      No what they got rid of is the racist teachings of La Raza in Southern Arizona to illegal alien Mexicans to foster hate against the "man" in Arizona.
  • Prior art (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 6Yankee (597075) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:07PM (#39573307)

    It's bad enough taking existing patents and adding "ON THE INTERNET", without doing it to existing laws as well.

  • Great work! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Georules (655379) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:07PM (#39573317)
    Great work on crapping all over free speech Arizona.
  • Breaking news: (Score:5, Informative)

    by asdbffg (1902686) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:08PM (#39573329)
    Arizona proposes another batshit law.
    The rest of the country is unsurprised.
    • Trolling isn't that much different than the important debate exercise of being able to debate both sides of an argument, even though it is not an argument that you agree with.

  • You can kinda tell something about the submitter when you see the typo "management" instead of "manage". This lets you know that the submitter types "management" a lot. Probably a working class Joe.
  • And a lot else besides. Really, illegal to annoy someone? Really?!
  • Fox News (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:11PM (#39573375)

    How's that going to work for Fox News?

  • Trolling (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaneM (810927) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:12PM (#39573385)

    So...if you make inflammatory comments against fraudsters, does that mean you're...(wait for it)

    Trolling for phishers? Would that now be considered poaching?

  • Any troll worth his salt need not "use ... obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person".

  • Isn't this already covered under stalking? Or does this law makes it illegal to say anything bad about anyone even on a public channel?
  • by RevSpaminator (1419557) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:15PM (#39573431)
    In what bizarre interpretation of the US Constitution would this be allowed? Oh wait, I get it, that only protects written works that were published by a device identified as a "press". Since the internet is NOT a press, what you write on the internet is not considered protected. Civil liberties are no longer a right of being human, they are now a technicality that must be navigated around.
    • by idontgno (624372)

      Ahhh... but what if you use a Wordpress blog? It's got the word "press" right in it.

      Ok, so it's buggier than the entire state of Arizona, and your blog will be pwnd by malware and SEO blackhats in minutes, but at least it's a PRESS. It qualifies for the 1st Amendment. HAH!

    • Strict textualist argument. Scalia would be proud of you. ;)
  • Hm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:16PM (#39573449)

    'It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.

    So, technically, couldn't it be viewed that this law is breaking itself?

    • Re:Hm... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by berashith (222128) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:26PM (#39573611)

      I once tried this on an HR droid. I was being forced through orientation of a large company as my smaller company had been purchased. The new policy was that all instances of harrasment and intimidation would be investigated, and that there was no standard of expected behavior. Any behavior that offended someone was based on teh one being offended, and therefore anything could be reported to HR, and therefore anyone could be investigated, for ANYTHING that someone chose to be offended by. I immediately stated that I was offended by such a policy, and that I would like to report HR to HR to open an investigation. The poor guy about popped. After attempting to just ignore me , thinking I was just being an ass, I did explain that I felt that the open ended policy was a threat to me, and that I was intimidated in my workplace as I was never certain what was an appropriate way to act or interact with my coworkers. They decided to take the verbiage to legal, and I quit soon afterwards as management that is this clueless will never change.

  • ... Haters gonna hate!
  • So how effective will they likely be at extraditing the other 99.9999% of the world to Arizona for prosecution?
  • Hence illegal.

    I hate electronics, and I'm going to tell the world that it annoys me when they use them. Therefore every is intentionally
    trolling me online constantly. Arrest everyone.

  • I guess... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Genda (560240) <mariet@ g o t . n et> on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:19PM (#39573501) Journal

    In a related story, Today the Arizona state legislature made Gays, Democrats, Liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, gay mixed drinks with fruit and umbrellas, small dogs, men's skin care products, evolution, gun control advocates, subcompact foreign cars, lite beer, pansies, petunias and 6 other flowers that begin with the letter 'P' illegal. When asked, leaders of the legislature said "Yeah, we know its unconstitutional, but tomorrow we're making the Constitution illegal."

  • Legislating morality, with nice vague language; that'll end well.

    But on a slightly more serious note, has anyone read the actual bill? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently experiencing some mild Benadryl withdrawal (topical cream, had some chapped lips, couldn't find anything else to put on them last night), and it's making my life slightly more challenging than usual.

  • Fuck that (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sarten-X (1102295) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:24PM (#39573583) Homepage

    I am strongly in favor of limiting free speech [slashdot.org], and opposed to "rampant profanity" [slashdot.org], but I have my limits. Clearly, the law is intended to stop online bullying and harassment, but the broad ruling leaves a ridiculous amount of power in the hands of any public individual. It reminds me of those "it's not what you intended, but how they felt" lines from every sexual harassment seminar.

    Without further ado, I must speak what's really on my mind, as intended for this law's authors and supporters.. Fuck this shitty law, and everything about it. Does it offend your short-sighted sensibilities that someone's fucking language could be used for some fucking emphasis? If you want to curb offensive abuses of free speech, then use your brain and figure out a legal wording that doesn't also cover anything poorly-worded. You've reached a point where, in your cowardly mind, you cannot empathize with someone else's point of view, that might lead them to say the things they say? Must you censor them, not by attacking their methods, but by attacking their very words?

    If this obsession with political correctness continues, we, as a society, are fucked. In my ideal world, intent to cause harm would be illegal, but accidental harm is repaired and forgiven. Why the fuck can't we work toward that?

  • I am not sure about the exact text of this or the general interpretation of it but when someone intends to cause physiological distress then normally it is illegal.
    Say whatever you what, but if the sole reason you are speaking is to cause harm to another then most people would consider that worthy of being illegal.

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:38PM (#39573789)

    This is probably going to go against popular opinion, but having read the bill, it looks ok with one exception: "annoy or offend". Remove those two (ok, three counting "or") words and what you have is a bill that says "It's illegal to threaten someone via the telephone so it should be illegal to do so online as well." Remember, freedom of speech isn't freedom to threaten someone with bodily harm or to stalk someone.

    With "annoy/offend" intact, though, the law could be read in much too broad of a manner and could easily infringe on someone's free speech rights.

  • by someone1234 (830754) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:40PM (#39573817)

    How do they deduce intent?

    • by westlake (615356)

      How do they deduce intent?

      They don't.

      They present evidence to a jury exposing a pattern of threats, harassment and verbal abuse --- and let them see the malice and purpose in your actions.

  • by jjohn (2991) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:43PM (#39573855) Homepage Journal

    I don't know when these two states decided to battle for the dumbest state government, but it is sure entertaining to watch.

  • OK, I am confused (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Brett Buck (811747) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @01:47PM (#39573913)

    How is this going to get overturned, if it was passed by duly elected legislature? By unelected judges? I thought a recently as 3 days ago, that was an outrageous activist overreach?

  • by SirGarlon (845873) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @02:03PM (#39574205)

    If you parse the ridiculously long sentence in the summary, what Arizona is trying to outlaw is using obscene language, suggest lewd acts, or threaten violence. The "intent to annoy" thing is a necessary condition for the post to be in violation of this law. So if I say "the Arizona legislature can go fuck themselves. I want to beat them all with a golf club," the state still has to prove I did it with intent to 'terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" and if they can't then my obscene, suggestive, violent language was OK.

    I'm not defending the law. I hate it. I'm only saying that sounding off on a misinterpretation of its text, based on the word "annoy," fails to grasp the intent of the law.

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @02:13PM (#39574343) Journal

    If I could interrupt what passes for discussion in Slashdot,

    I heard this on the radio on the way into work this morning: That due to public outcry, the bill's authors realize they screwed the pooch on this one (deliberately being offensive...) and have quietly asked the governor not to sign it.

    There may be another bill later, but it may be slightly less insane.

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled panic.

  • by doston (2372830) on Wednesday April 04, 2012 @02:20PM (#39574447)
    The fact that people can. The other thing that's great about it is you actually get to see what some people are really thinking. Sometimes the AC posts on here are amusing, even if they are completely obscene. It's like seeing what a person really does all alone on that business trip or alone in private thoughts. Banning trolling isn't just immoral, it's stupid and probably removes the one tiny peek hole into people's real thoughts. The guy who got on and said nigger faggot in the second post.... Well, as a faggot, I don't really like it, if I were also a black person, I'm sure it's not exactly nice. But isn't it helpful to know that the work educating people isn't over? What if everyone is totally fascist (like at the office) and has to pretend all day and we get into a false sense of security about where people are in their heads? The only real barometer is allowing people anonymous thoughts. Lets you know that there are still racists, and homophobes, (so don't get too comfy at the office...you might just get tired yet). Sorry I'm rambling/being offensive, but we don't have many 'freedoms' left as it is. From now on, I plan to appreciate that troll.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...