Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy

Hillary Clinton: "We Need To Talk Sensibly About Spying" 461

Posted by samzenpus
from the watching-the-watchers dept.
dryriver writes "The Guardian reports: 'Hillary Clinton has called for a "sensible adult conversation", to be held in a transparent way, about the boundaries of state surveillance highlighted by the leaking of secret NSA files by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. In a boost to Nick Clegg, the British deputy prime minister, who is planning to start conversations within government about the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies, the former US secretary of state said it would be wrong to shut down a debate. Clinton, who is seen as a frontrunner for the 2016 US presidential election, said at Chatham House in London: "This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK. We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hillary Clinton: "We Need To Talk Sensibly About Spying"

Comments Filter:
  • by TheResilientFarter (3216187) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @01:50PM (#45114919)
    "as transparent as it can be"
    "with as much oversight and citizens' understanding as there can be"
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:00PM (#45114965)

      If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree.

      James Clapper can lie to Congress about the NSA's activities and there are no repercussions.

      How about we start with that? If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).

      • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:07PM (#45114995) Journal
        This. Rules and oversight are meaningless if they cannot or will not be enforced. Break the rules and/or lie to congress = go directly to jail. Or should be. The problem is that legislators do no take our privacy seriously at all; they just keep telling us we have nothing to hide. This call for new rules and oversight is just a smoke screen.
      • by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:49PM (#45115245) Homepage Journal

        If you feel that you have to lie to Congress then either you need to be fired or the program that you're lying about needs to be shut down (or both).

        I agree that if the director feels he has to lie, then those are appropriate responses. If he actually does lie, meaning he intentionally and knowingly deceives Congress, then he should be prosecuted for perjury.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "If I understand what I believe you are trying to imply then I agree."

        I agree in principle, but I don't agree with Clinton. Why?

        Because SHE is wholly involved in the current web of lies. Remember Benghazi. And ask yourself how she could have announced the death of certain people at the embassy 15 minutes before it happened.

        Then ask yourself why, when asked about Benghazi in a Congressional hearing, she sidestepped the questions by throwing up her hands and shouting, "What does it matter NOW?"

        I have no problem with a woman President. I have a very BIG problem with Hil

      • by jbolden (176878) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:31PM (#45115469) Homepage

        That's up to congress. They could have issued a contempt citation, have the Sargent of Arms of the Senate arrest Clapper, have him tried on the floor and have him imprisoned. That's the proper procedure. They didn't care.

    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:14PM (#45115067)

      Whenever a politician says "We need to have a conversation" it means that they want to avoid taking a position on the issue until they know which way the wind is blowing. It is easier to bend when you have no spine.

      • by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:00PM (#45115303) Journal

        In particular, Hillary Clinton said "we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK". Now, what did she mean with that remark, and would it be similar to the meaning that the common person might assign to it?

        From ancient Greek demos + kratos, democracy [wiktionary.org] = rule by the people.

        One suspects that what the rulers and would-be rulers mean is closer to autocracy [wikipedia.org] = rule over the people, coupled with the assertion that if the people don't actively resist (via rebellion), then they tacitly accept [wikipedia.org] the whims of their rulers.

      • I seem to remember Obama saying recently in a speech that when politicians say, "we need to have a conversation," it actually means that they aren't going to do anything. The way I see it is this: If you're a public figure, the way you "have a conversation" with the public is by making public statements and seeing what the response is. You don't just say, "We need to have a conversation."

    • by citizenr (871508) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:13PM (#45115377) Homepage

      "Mistakes were made"

      meanwhile
      Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to spy on UN
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333920/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-ordered-U-S-diplomats-spy-UN-leaders.html [dailymail.co.uk]

    • by AlphaWoIf_HK (3042365) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:46PM (#45115533)

      I don't care how transparent this is or how much oversight it has; spying on innocent people will never be okay, and neither will spying on people to find out if they're innocent or not.

    • We need a sensible adult conversation in which the sensible adults show up with torches and pitchforks.
  • Words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13, 2013 @01:52PM (#45114929)

    Just fucking words. From the mouth of a presidential hopeful. I can't think of anything more meaningless.

    • Re:Words (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:01PM (#45115309)

      Not just any words. Those are accusations. Clinton accuses us of being hysteric. Whenever a politician demands a "sensible" or "adult" debate, they're trying to discredit their opposition by implying that the debate was not sensible or adult before said politician called the opposition to order.

  • Do you spell bullshit with 1 L or 2? The totalitarian state will do as it pleases and have discussions to appease the masses.

    Do you really think the people behind the sureillance will one day say "yea..i guess you are right we should not be doing this" to people, countries and businesses? That would be like the wall street bankers saying "yea..you are right..here is your money back"

    • by amiga3D (567632) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:12PM (#45115047)

      Two L's. H-i-L-L-a-r-y.

    • Yeah, "we need to talk sensibly" is a way of saying, "I hope someone else talks about this."

      Similar to when Obama says, "We need to have a national conversation about X" he means, "I hope you come around to my viewpoint after talking about it."
    • by dryeo (100693)

      They are different from totalitarian States, upside down even. Instead of the State controlling corporations, corporations control the State. Instead of politically motivating the people through youth organizations and such, they push for the population to be politically apathetic. Instead of mocking democracy, they pretend that they are the ultimate in democracy.
      Exactly the opposite of most totalitarian States.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism [wikipedia.org]

  • by jdogalt (961241) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:04PM (#45114989) Journal

    The level of abuses - both the spying itself, subsequent known abuses of the data, and countless likely unknown abuses - has already done enough damage to the fabric of the ideal of democracy, that an open and straightforward conversation is not enough. When there are very real threats that people will be tortured to preserve government secrecy about this...

    It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge. I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties. I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:24PM (#45115111)

      It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S.

      Why do the sexual organs or skin color of the US President matter so much to you?

    • by Heretic2 (117767)

      The level of abuses - both the spying itself, subsequent known abuses of the data, and countless likely unknown abuses - has already done enough damage to the fabric of the ideal of democracy, that an open and straightforward conversation is not enough. When there are very real threats that people will be tortured to preserve government secrecy about this...

      The only straightforward and sensible conversation at this point can be about shutting it down, and how quickly we can shut it down. You cannot have a democracy in this environment where the public is left completely uninformed, the programs are shrouded in secrecy, and any attempt to unravel that secrecy is met with "National Security, go fuck yourself." Snowden was straight on point when he said we building a solution for "turnkey tyranny." Communism to the extreme, or Capitalism to the extreme all lea

    • It's too late for the straightforward sensible conversation. Heads need to roll. Figuritively or literally. I stopped voting when Obama broke his 1 year GITMO pledge.

      First mistake. You have many choices to choose from. There are more than two candidates on the ballot.

      I thought I would make an exception if Hillary was the only female top spot on one of the two main parties.

      Second mistake. One party last fall had not only one female candidate, but two. Why not show them some support?

      I think this slashdot troll headline will make me give up on that. It'd be nice to see a non-male president of the U.S. But Hillary Clinton is day by day demonstrably failing to live up to the kind of standard which I would use if I could muster the belief that voting could help this in the same sensible fashion she is after. Things are *messed up*.

      Both main parties are supporting this shit. Vote third party. Tell you friends you are voting third party, and why. Encourage them to vote their conscience too.

      • by HiThere (15173)

        Yeah, vote third party. But don't lie to yourself and pretend that it makes a difference. The structure of the electoral system guarantees that only two parties have a chance of electing a candidate. The publicity factor guarantees that both of them will be bought ahead of time.

        FWIW, I did vote thrid party last time. I usually do. But I don't pretend that it makes a difference. Do a bit of systems analysis, for gods sake.

    • by FridayBob (619244) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:57PM (#45115599) Homepage

      Agreed. I've always seen myself as a progressive and have voted for Democratic candidates since the 1980s, but after the Obama experience I'm not so sure. There are a few exceptions, but otherwise it's clear to me that both of the two major parties are almost completely corrupt. For instance, do you think things would have been much different under Hillary than under Obama? I don't think so. They're both establishment figures who's real masters are the big corporations -- that's where they get most of the money for their campaigns. But that kind of cash always comes with strings attached.

      If we ever want to see this kind of corruption end, our first goal must be to get money out of politics.

      If that makes sense to you, I would suggest signing this petition: WOLF-PAC [wolf-pac.com]. Launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will end corporate personhood* and publicly finance all elections**. Since Congress won't pass such an Amendment on its own, the plan is to instead have the State Legislators propose it via an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, most notably Texas. If successful, we should see a much more respectable group of politicians emerge within one or two election cycles.

      .

      *) The aim is not to end legal personhood for corporations, but natural personhood. The latter became a problem following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which grated some of the rights of natural persons to corporations and makes it easier for them to lend financial support to political campaigns.

      **) At the State level, more than half of all political campaigns are already publicly financed in some way, so there's nothing strange about doing the same for political campaigns for federal office.

  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:06PM (#45114993)

    There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

  • by icebike (68054) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:09PM (#45115021)

    She really means that the unwashed masses have to "educated" to shut up and accept it, which will take large amount of scare stories and perhaps some *cough* carefully engineered incidents to bring home the point that the function of government is to spy and watch over all aspects of society. For "It Takes a Village" Clinton to use the term "Adult Conversation" should fool no one.

    The story, is without a single suggestion from either the British authorities or Clinton, that the spying should be reined in. Rather, everyone seems to suggest simply placed under more "political oversight" is the answer. But Politicians are the LAST people we would trust with oversight. They are the ones that got us into this mess.

    And, at least in the US, the Judiciary can't be trusted either. We have judges who took oaths to defend the Constitution, approving whole sale monitoring of phone metadata [arstechnica.com] of every person in the US,yet again.

    Why should judges, entrusted to protect us, be above the law? Why can't they be prosecuted or sued?

    Is there anyone surprised by Clinton making obscure coded statements about a spying program that she would redouble? This is a very corrupt woman, who is politically ruthless. She left her minions twisting in the wind in Egypt, and if she gains a position from which she perceives the rest of us a "her children" she will assuredly not do a single thing to remove her parental control.

  • by goodmanj (234846) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:33PM (#45115159)

    Here's a proposal to try on for size. All covert surveillance with any domestic component must be approved by a secret court, with the decision made not by a professional judge, but by a citizen jury in an adversarial court setting. Now clearly the jury can't just be random dudes off the street, so how do you make sure they can be trusted with government secrets? They're selected by another jury, and if they agree to serve, they consent to total surveillance for a period of time during and after their service. These juries also select a people's advocate, who acts as a defense attorney and is required to argue against whatever the state is trying to do.

  • Enough of this nonsense! We need these invasive spying programs so that we know what the terrorists are up to. I know you all like to live in a world of fantasy, where privacy and freedom are paramount, but this is the real world. When things like terrorism are on the table, it's time to put away the kids toys and talk like serious, mannered adults. A world where the government does not watch over our every move is unthinkable and completely unrealistic.

    -- cold fjord

    What is with you morons? Enough of this "privacy" talk; our very lives are at stake! How can you really expect to live in a world where the government does not know what you're doing? The government cannot possibly protect us from terrorism, or even revolution, if they do not see everything we do. Fortunately, it's only a matter of time until they can read our thoughts.

    -- cold fjord

    Stop! No more privacy! Privacy is a tool used by freedom fighters! Do you know what freedom fighters do? They fight against freedom! They're fuckin' terrorists! Get 'em boys!

    -- cold fjord

    The constitution is an enemy of the state, and should be treated like one.

    -- cold fjord

  • I mean seriously. Just stop. It's that simple. Free country? Life? Liberty? Constitution? Remember all that stuff?

  • by Ckwop (707653) <Simon.Johnson@gmail.com> on Sunday October 13, 2013 @02:57PM (#45115277) Homepage

    The world is not a perfect place. The West does need spies and it does need an infrastructure to support them and gather intelligence.

    However, we should remember who we actually need to be spying on. Nation states, failed states, and yes terrorist training camps and what not.

    What we should not be engaging in is dragnet surveillance where everyone is entered in to some giant database. This is a really bad idea for a number of reasons.

    Firstly, the databases are not really likely to be that useful. Prism didn't stop the Boston Marathon bombers. You might have every text, every phone call, every e-mail but if you can't spot the connections it doesn't help you.

    Second, the massive database is a security risk in its own right. The NSA might think the Snowden leak is bad but it's child's play compared to what would happen if somebody leaks that database! You can bet your bottom dollar a shit-storm a 100% times the size would ensue. It might even threaten the agency's continued existence.

    Third, the database could be hacked by a foreign governments. This in itself is a giant risk that dwarfs the one outlined in the second paragraph. China getting access to wiretaps on US businesses? Does no-one in the security community see what a giant hole they're making in the West's security?

    This leads nicely to my fourth and final point. I do get the impression from the Snowden leaks that the competency of these organisations is being called in to question. It's clear they don't know what Snowden took; they don't know what he knows and what he doesn't. This is why he's catching them at so many lies. They make one statement, he leaks another document that shows them they're full of shit.

    This final point is perhaps the most damning. They've built a giant system they can't audit! If they don't know what he took when he's just a fairly junior contractor, we have to assume other nation states have thoroughly penetrated the system and already stolen Western secrets!

    They're clearly not competent enough to run such a system and it should be shut down on grounds of national security.

  • (At least the article didn't quote her saying more, but maybe she did ...)

    She's not asking, 'is this spying worth the loss of liberty and should we continue?', she's just saying we should take steps to make people more comfortable with it.

    The serious conversation needs to be about the trade-off: People lose privacy, and eventually someone, even if not Obama or Hillary Clinton, will abuse the power to suppress political opposition and for other selfish purposes. Are the security gains worth all that harm? On

  • by AndreyFilippov (550131) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:10PM (#45115355) Homepage
    For the first 36 years of my life I lived in the USSR. It was un-free country, but many of us valued freedom and learned to love it more than the state religion - "Communism" that the government preached. When Bush started his war in Iraq as a retaliation to the 9/11, I noticed that with Patriot Act, "security" in the airports this country started to grow more and more similar to the failed state - Soviet Union. Some features that I believed to be unique trademarks of the totalitarian states sneaked in the everyday life of Americans. There was a government slogan in the USSR - "to catch up with and pass the USA", but now it seems that the USA is trying to catch up with the KGB-ish nature of the USSR. It is sad for me to see that many born-Americans believe that Freedom is given to them by God, by their brave predecessors or just by the Land they are born on. Freedom has to be fought for by every generation all over again, citizens have to prove they deserve it.
    I would never vote for Republicans - for me they share much more with Soviets than just the red color, but when Obama (whom I voted for) calls Snowden a "traitor" (instead of a hero), I'm thinking that Putin in his place would do exactly the same. Putin, who's main enemies are Russian citizens.
    • by sconeu (64226)

      I don't believe it's a coincidence that the response to 9/11 -- the Department of Homeland Security -- had essentially the same name as the KGB.

      • Yes, you are correct. And the NSA acronym also has the same source. Maybe the correct formula is
        DHS+NSA == KGB
        But honestly - I'm afraid that NSA has much superior capabilities against the citizens of the country than the KGB had. With the brand new facility some 15 miles from my home in Utah.
  • Just me? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hairy1 (180056) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:14PM (#45115379) Homepage

    Is it just me, or is "sensible adult conversation" rather condescending? Why is it that when a whistle blower identifies where the law has been violated, rather than a immediate and far reaching criminal investigation to identify and punish those responsible for breaking the law we see excuses and calls for "sensible adult conversation". There is no need for a negotiation. If I were to spy in this manner there would be no discussion; I would be prosecuted, imprisoned and possibly killed.

    National Security is a weak cover for the abuse of power and gross violations of the highest law of the land. How can senior people get away with lying to Congress and not get thrown in jail for life? What does it say when people can lie like this, break the highest law, and face no consequences? No. Instead the whistle blowers are facing life in prison.

    I didn't believe all the campaign promises of Obama, but to actually be worse than Bush takes some doing. The US is stuffed. Your 'democracy' was sacrificed many years ago; welcome to the Police State. What other country has tortured people for more than ten years - and now can only keep people alive - people who have not been charged much less given a trial - through forced feeding. The US is a grotesque parody of what it once stood for.

    • Is it just me, or is "sensible adult conversation" rather condescending?

      I'm rather surprised that an experienced and savvy politician like her would let something condescending like that slip. Her staff must be cringing at that statement. That's something I would have expected to hear from Dick Cheney. I think she's showing her age and losing her shine a bit. A politician is allowed to think that they know better than the rest of us . . . but to go out and rub it in our faces is political harakiri.

      Younger voters have been a traditional stronghold for the Democrats, but you

    • Re:Just me? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jcr (53032) <.jcr. .at. .mac.com.> on Sunday October 13, 2013 @07:39PM (#45116897) Journal

      Yes, it's condescending as hell, and that's exactly the attitude I expect from someone with no accomplishments of her own, who nevertheless is convinced that she's entitled to tell other people what to do.

      -jcr

  • by sjames (1099) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @03:54PM (#45115573) Homepage

    of course it needs to be an adult conversation. Children shouldn't be exposed to language strong enough to properly convey just how deeply th NSA and co. have betrayed the public trust.

    Now, since it isn't sensible to talk to the frightened children in the government as if they are adults, here goes: "Calm down now, there are no terrorists under the bed. See? I know there are scary bad people out there but there aren't nearly as many as the news wants us to think there are. The fact is the people on this street are just regular people like us. No more watching the neighbors with the binoculars. We can leave the nightlight on if you like, but it's time to go to sleep like a big girl.

    There.

  • Liar. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VortexCortex (1117377) <VortexCortex@ p ... r e trograde.com> on Sunday October 13, 2013 @04:18PM (#45115753)

    Clinton, who is seen as a frontrunner for the 2016 US presidential election, said at Chatham House in London: "This is a very important question. On the intelligence issue, we are democracies thank goodness, both the US and the UK.

    Huh, a democracy, eh? Mind showing me the public vote where consent to the spying program was established? Oh there isn't one? You professional liars just love to trot out "we're a democracy" to shift the blame. Fuck you. It's a Republic. A Democratic Republic. Anyone who's held office while this shit has been going on let it happen. We need to fire congress -- They let the NSA lie to them, knowing full well that shit was a lie. The secret courts even ruled the NSA actions as a violation of the constitution. That means the Armed forces should be storming the NSA server rooms and shutting them down because they swore to protect the Constitution. Game over. We can't trust you. If a you found out a spy was a double agent you wouldn't let them go right back to working for you. Get the fuck out of our government. We're Americans. We can and have fought off forces greater than ours who wished to snuff us out. We didn't need an Orwellian spying agency to do it either. Now we're one of the greatest countries around, and you're saying we have to "Talk Sensibly About Spying"?! Yeah! We do! The sensible thing is to route that shit out. The Flu kills more folks in a year than multiple 9/11's. I'm more scared of my bathtub than a damn terrorist. Cars kill hundreds times more folks every year than 9/11. The sensible thing to do would be to stop wasting our money on shit we don't want, if this were "democracy". Fucking moronic liars. What she means is: "We need to engage full damage control, STAT!" Bite me bitch, you're fired.

  • by An dochasac (591582) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @05:16PM (#45116051)
    "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."
    -- Commander William Adama - Battlestar Galactica
  • BS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @05:29PM (#45116123)

    Hillary Clinton is as dirty and corrupt as they come. I used to work for the Clintons, so I assert that with more inside-baseball knowledge than the average bear. Want an example? Bill Clinton is now in bed with the guy who started and funded the Vince Foster witchhunt against them. See, most humans with any scruples would not choose to do that. But gold rules.

    Hillary will say whatever she needs to say to get enough sucke...er, voters, to vote for her. Then if successful she'll turn right around and dish out more of the same 'ole, same 'ole on Americans. Electing her to President is no solution at all.

    Stop pretending it is.

    The only solution seems to now be, given that neither the judiciary nor the legislative branches have put a stop to it, to have everyday Americans converge on DC and burn the place to the ground. Also, the Hamptons, and Newport, and Westchester, and every other gated community where DC's true masters sequester themselves.

    Then we can all sit down at a new Constitutional Convention and figure out America 2.0 where crap like this can't happen again.

  • by Max Threshold (540114) on Sunday October 13, 2013 @06:24PM (#45116465)
    ...or go home.
  • by jcr (53032) <.jcr. .at. .mac.com.> on Monday October 14, 2013 @12:13AM (#45118399) Journal

    Since you allegedly graduated from an American law school, you should recognize the following text:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    What the NSA is doing is not merely a crime, it is a usurpation of powers explicitly prohibited to the government in the document that is the ENTIRE legal basis for the government's existence. If you expect the American people to put up with it, then with all due respect, fuck you with a red-hot poker, you power-grubbing geriatric cunt.

    -jcr

  • by strikethree (811449) on Monday October 14, 2013 @03:13AM (#45119077) Journal

    We have always known that the NSA has been spying us as well as everyone else. Everything was just fine until the NSA started sharing this data with the domestic agencies. THAT is where the line was crossed. It is fine if the NSA watches me jacking off to ultraporn. It is NOT okay if the FBI does so.

    In other words, in the name of National Defense, I am cool with whatever spying goes on. It is when that data is used to catch mobsters, drug dealers, and other normal typical crime that it becomes a problem.

    If you want to catch a State actor planting a nuclear device in New York city, fine. If you want to catch a pedophile or murderer, fuck off. I would rather a thousand people die from random murder than to give up the fourth and fifth amendments.

    Now that YOU have pushed it to this level, fuck it, I am not okay with ANY domestic spying at all for ANY reason. You lost the trust. You have abused it and you WILL abuse it. Fuck off.

    You should have only shared national security shit with the domestic agencies.

The relative importance of files depends on their cost in terms of the human effort needed to regenerate them. -- T.A. Dolotta

Working...