Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Russian Leader Putin Signs Controversial 'Big Brother' Law (venturebeat.com) 166

Posted by msmash from the big-brother-is-watching dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Today Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the controversial "anti-terrorist" legislation adopted by the lower and upper houses of parliament in late June, despite the flurry of criticism from opposition-minded circles and the serious concerns expressed by Russian telecom and internet companies. As reported earlier by East-West Digital News, the new legislation -- which Edward Snowden has called "Russia's new Big-Brother law" -- is not only severe against those involved in "international terrorism," its financing or non-denunciation. Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight. Several key provisions will directly affect the internet and telecom industry. In particular, telecom operators and internet resources will need to store the recordings of all phone calls and the content of all text messages for a period of six months. They will be required to cooperate with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to make their users' communications fully accessible to this organization.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Leader Putin Signs Controversial 'Big Brother' Law More

Russian Leader Putin Signs Controversial 'Big Brother' Law

Comments Filter:

  • Putin's political opponents are lucky (Score:4, Funny)

    by mikeabbott420 ( 744514 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:54AM (#52463173) Journal
    if they have an argument with their spouse about any past conversation they can settle the argument by just calling up the kremlin and asking for a transcript

  • In Soviet America (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tripleevenfall ( 1990004 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @10:54AM (#52463177)

    "Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight. Several key provisions will directly affect the internet and telecom industry. In particular, telecom operators and internet resources will need to store the recordings of all phone calls and the content of all text messages for a period of six months. They will be required to cooperate with the Federal Security Service (FSB) to make their users' communications fully accessible to this organization."

    We will marvel at this here in the US, but it's on the way here as well. It won't just be terrorism fears, it'll be cries from the other side of the aisle about political corruption and tax evasion and everything else.

    Unless we resist it, government will always be seeking more power, as will the half of the political spectrum that is always seeking ever-more government.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by clonehappy ( 655530 )

      it's on the way here as well.

      It's already been here, you just haven't been paying attention.

      Who is being targeted by it only depends on what regime is currently in power.

      • it's on the way here as well.

        It's already been here, you just haven't been paying attention.

        Who is being targeted by it only depends on what regime is currently in power.

        It's already here that telecom operators are required to record and store all phone calls?

      • Re:In Soviet America (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:01PM (#52464185)

        there's only semantics diffs between russia and the US, or the UK and the US, when it comes to this very human-need to snoop on our fellow man and control, Control, CONTROL him.

        we used to make jokes about 'we dont do this, we are not russia' but we have become the stereotypical 'russians'. minor details vary, but the theme is 100% identical.

        a week ago, I was at a store that was giving away american flags for the 4th of july. I looked at them, thought to myself 'I have no pride in the US anymore, why would I want to boast about being american, these days? we are no better than anyone else, truth be told, and everything I was taught about the US, as a kid, were lies'.

        I walked past the table of flags and I have to tell you, it was not a pleasant thought to think what my country has become, over the last 20 years. I was never a flag-waver before, but the very thought of being proud of ourselves makes me feel quite conflicted. yes, there are some things we do well, but with so many lies and so much corruption, I just don't feel the same about my country anymore.

        • You know, 50 years ago your country (US) made a military dictatorship happen in my country (BR), and they supported the dictators during that dictatorship. The claim at the time was that we could turn into communists, and we as a people shouldn't be allowed to choose.

          While I see that the US is turning to shit even for Americans, it's important that you know you weren't better as a country before. It's just that instead of just fucking others over, your own people is getting screwed too, and we are getting t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by antdude ( 79039 )

          The problem is humans. :P

      • Which is why we need to curtail the power of government. Hmmm. A return to limited government anyone?

        Nah. That's only for whacky libertarians.

        You want to keep growing government? Vote for Hillary or Trump.

        You want to start to turn things around? Vote Third Party in 2016

        • nice try, but the system won't allow 3rd parties.

          I wish you were right, but you are completely wrong, in a very real sense.

          you can try to patch a broken system, like win3 brought to win98 and then brought upwards still. at some point, you have to THROW THE WHOLE THING OUT and restart it.

          yes, I mean that. exactly what I mean. nothing less will give us the results we want.

          someone has to say this. I'll say it.

          • nice try, but the system won't allow 3rd parties.

            Lincoln ring a bell? And I don't mean the car. Honest Abe ran for President as a Republican, back when the Republicans were the "third party".

            Of course, we got a Civil War that time. Maybe we can do better the next time...

          • Most of the time 3rd party ideals have been co-opted by the major parties. (Gay rights and drug legalization have been party of the libertarian party platform since it started.)

            If you're correct then we have only two possible futures - a repressive government or a devastating civil war (which may very well lead to a repressive government). Our system of government does allow for change. All you need to do is to vote for the 3rd party candidate.

            If 3rd parties get a combined 10%, 20%, 30% or more of the

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Agripa ( 139780 )

              If 3rd parties get a combined 10%, 20%, 30% or more of the vote don't you think that people would take notice?

              No. If 3rd parties routinely threw elections and people took notice, then they would be unlawful in one way or another. The only reason they are tolerated is that they have no significant influence and provide a modicum of false respectability to the political process.

              No. It's not too late to get change via the ballot box.

              Once we selected plurality as our voting system, it was too late. I do not blame the people who did this since they could not know better but I blame those who continue to support it. We have the government and everything resulting from it

    • Re:In Soviet America (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:03AM (#52463255) Homepage

      Unless we resist it, government will always be seeking more power, as will the half of the political spectrum that is always seeking ever-more government.

      Both halves of the political spectrum (i.e. Republicans and Democrats) push for ever-more government. They might differ in some instances as to where this bigger government should be intruding, but they both support it. The days of the Republicans being proponents of small government are gone. (If that ever was the case, in the first place. At the very least, the GOP has been a steady supporter of increasing the military's size no matter what.)

      • A simple exercise (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:31AM (#52463471)

        Fact #1: The republicans and democrats have dominated US politics together over the past century. Neither has dominated alone; they have shared roughly equally in the domination of US politics.

        Fact #2: The US government of today dwarfs the US government of a century ago, in terms of both revenue (adjusted for population growth) and power over the people. In that time period, the US government has grown itself into the largest and most expensive world empire in human history, with a military presence in some 200 foreign countries. By any measure, the US government is the largest and most powerful government this world has ever seen.

        Now consider the common view of the republicans being the party of small government, and the democracts being the party of big government. If that were true, wouldn't we expect their political efforts to roughly cancel each other out, resulting in a US government roughly the same size as a century ago, measured in either revenue or power over the people?

        The problem is that it's not. In fact, it's not even comparable. The US government of today absolutely dwarfs the US government of a century ago. What can we possibly conclude from this except that neither the republicans nor democrats have been fighting for smaller government? If they had been, we wouldn't be sitting in the middle of the largest, most far-reaching, most expensive, and most powerful government in world history.

        • So what you're saying is the GOP sucks at its job then?

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Different AC here, but I'd call it more accurate to say that the GOP sucks at its publicly stated purpose. At its actual job, it's been performing splendidly for decades.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shakrai ( 717556 )

          In that time period, the US government has grown itself into the largest and most expensive world empire in human history, with a military presence in some 200 foreign countries

          You know that metric is total bullshit right? Are there half a dozen unarmed US service-members there at the behest of the local government to help train local forces? That country is now considered to have a "US military presence." It's kind of like the way that MADD counts "alcohol related" accidents to inflate fears of drunk driving. Sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian? That's an "alcohol related" accident. Sober driver with drunk passenger gets rear ended by someone who was texting? That's anoth

        • Fact #3: the whole notion of a large, intrusive national government in the USA grew out of the Great Depression and WW2.

          Might want to check to see who dominated the government then, if you want to get a few clues.

          Note that this is not meant to imply that the Republicans are little angels - power attracts power, and as the Federal government grew and grew, it increasingly attracted the kind of people who like to tell other people what to do, on all sides of the political fence.

          But it started with FDR, no

      • You are absolutely correct, Jason unlike "tripleevenfall" who clearly has some kind of political agenda with re to that party on "the other side of the aisle" thing.

        I recommend "tripleevenfall" review the origins of the Patriot Act. First of all, it was signed into law by a Republican Admin, but you'll see that everybody (ie, both political parties) were involved by introducing additional provisions, etc.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Agripa ( 139780 )

        The days of the Republicans being proponents of small government are gone. (If that ever was the case, in the first place. At the very least, the GOP has been a steady supporter of increasing the military's size no matter what.)

        Republicans never supported small government but they liked to say they did.

    • but it's on the way here as well.

      Ummm, hello? It's long past the point of being "on the way here", it's here. It's been here for quite some time.

    • HALF of the political spectrum?

      Or are you one of those children who believe the Conservatives when they say they want less government?

  • NSA Envy ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Russians too often just copy what Americans do.

  • I suspect they are just formalizing the already standard practices.

  • US ISPs already store text messages (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Verizon does it for 90 days. The Russians do for 180 days. What's the difference?

    The "Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight" is nonsense. The law requires judicial oversight in that the court has to empanel a prosecutor to investigate you before the cops can be granted access. Basically the FSB can get warrantless access only if a court has already okayed an investigation into you. Russia doesn't have grand juries but the closest US analog

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Verizon does it for 90 days. The Russians do for 180 days. What's the difference?

      90.

    • Verizon does it for 90 days. The Russians do for 180 days. What's the difference?

      unicode takes up more disk space.

      that, and as others have said, 90 more days.

  • ...You're fucked

  • No Judicial Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:07AM (#52463275) Homepage

    Access to every communication with no judicial oversight? The question isn't "will this be abused" but "how quickly will this be abused?" Also: "Will we ever know that it has been abused or will the Russian government cover it up?"

    Bonus question: Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      I'm sure Putin's agents were already doing this, it just makes it more widely available.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      There doesn't have to be a Snowden. No one in Russia really believes that they aren't already somehow being watched at the level that the NSA is/was doing. They would likely shrug and start taking bets on how long Snowdenski would remain alive before someone slipped him some polonium.

      • Snowdenski is probably a Pole. Just saying...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Maritz ( 1829006 )
          He sometimes confuses him with Snodenov.

          • Snodenov and Snodenki.

            LOL

            somewhere, there could be a joke that parallels the 'evil spock' with a beard and the non-evil non-bearded spock to the US vs russian 'snowdens'.

            I wonder how long it will take until snowden becomes a verb, if not already one.

        • Right, the convention is to end Polish names with "ski" and Russian with 'sky," so Snowdensky would be the Russianized version. Also, interesting that the OP mentioned polonium, which is named after Poland (by Marie Curie who was Polish and who discovered the element). On top of that, Poland would probably be a better place for a Russian equivalent of Snowden to seek asylum. Among other things, it would make the Poles think about the fact that their constitution was written with privacy provisions specif

          • The russian ending is more like "skiy" phonetically, besides it is not only the ending, but also the "w" letter in the name, which is extensively used in polish, but is very rare in russian transliteration. And, from what I remember from my russian lessons very long ago, even in Russia the "skiy" ending is not that common and is a hint of either polish or gentry ancestors, something like that.

            Don't get your hopes up when it comes to Poland, though. They seem to go full retard right now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

        Yeah, I was gonna say... this is excellent transparency for what's doubtless going on already!

    • Access to every communication with no judicial oversight? The question isn't "will this be abused" but "how quickly will this be abused?" Also: "Will we ever know that it has been abused or will the Russian government cover it up?"

      Bonus question: Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?

      Snowden was a thing because the US were hiding what they were doing. Putin doesn't give a fuck.

    • "Abuse" implies contrary to intent. Since the intent of the Russian law is clearly to suppress internal political dissent, I would argue either that no abuse can occur, or alternatively that abuse will occur within a few nanoseconds of implementation (limited by the speed of light).

      • The US government is no different. They already do this, and for the same purpose, only they hide their actions and dissemble about the purpose.

        What is a terrorist but a political dissenter who turned to violence? And in the current US political climate, all dissenters are suspected to be potential terrorists, and since the goal is to eliminate terrorists before they actually commit a crime, the actual (unstated) goal is to eliminate dissenters.

    • They would use him to trade for Snowden. I'm surprised you would even ask that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shakrai ( 717556 )

      Will the Russian equivalent of Snowden flee his country with files detailing the abuses this law allows, publish the information drawing the ire of the Russian government, and flee to the US for sanctuary? Also, would the US grant him asylum or use him in a trade for Snowden?

      Putin takes a slightly different approach [wikipedia.org] to dealing with people who flee his grasp than Barack Obama does.

      It's interesting to read the comments here wherein people equate the actions of the United States to those of Russia; I highly doubt that Snowden is going to mysteriously ingest polonium-210. Hell, if we really wanted him that badly all that was required was some realpolitik: "President Putin, we'll quietly acquiesce to your fait accompli in Crimea, all you have to do is put Mr. Snowden on the next f

  • They can force their ISPs to comply, but there's no reason why non-Russian services like Google, twitter, and Facebook have to go along with this. Morally, they shouldn't.

    Yeah, competitors might swoop in, but let them. Let Russia build its own totalitarian-friendly internet if it likes. They can have fun talking to North Koreans and Egyptians and Chinese to their heart's content, and let the rest of us get on with the persuits of free people.

    • let the rest of us get on with the persuits of free people.

      I think governments around the world are already in pursuit of free people enough, thank you.

    • Stop talking about "the internet" as if it had a personality of its own. "The internet", that's us. The ISPs are not "the internet", and they are certainly not the internet police, they are not when it comes to policing whether certain content may or may not pass through their cables and they are not when it comes to protecting your privacy.

      The only person who can protect your privacy is you. And you alone.

      Start using encryption, and where encryption is outlawed, start using encryption that cannot be detect

    • Most Russians only speak Russian. You think they're going to miss the English-speaking internet?

  • Wow (Score:3)

    by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:25AM (#52463419)

    The terrorists won even in countries they didn't attack on 9/11

    Fascism by the government is on the rise worldwide....

  • Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @11:47AM (#52463613) Journal

    As we have seen by Russia's aggression against its neighbors (Georgia and Ukraine specifically), with Putin in charge they have sunk back to the old ways of repression and oppression. This law is only one of many designed to give absolute power to the one in charge, reminiscent of days past when the person in the Kremlin had the final say on anything.

    The Soviet Union is dead yet Putin is insistent on trying to resurrect it, attacking its neighbors, sending in little green men to capture land, disruption of those who have left the oppression of Russia or those trying to crawl out of the hole dug for them by sycophants of Russia.

    As we have seen in Crimea, where Putin has decreed the Tartars are not allowed to speak their own language or have schools which teach the Tartar language, where Tartars are beaten for speaking out against the indignities thrust upon them, where his oligarch minions have swooped in to steal at gunpoint the businesses people have built up, where the only news broadcast is what Putin says can be broadcast, everything possible to suppress people is being done all, ostensibly, to protect them.

    Yet how protected can they be if their own government treats them as vassals? When Putin orders the murder of those who point out the endemic corruption in his government (such as Boris Nemtsov), when his estimated net worth, based on those who directly worked for him and managed his accounts, to be in the billions of dollars despite his salary, when he denies the deaths of thousands of soldiers when they invaded Ukraine, when he denies his own troops who admit they have been captured during the aggression against Ukraine, even going so far as to make it a crime for the mothers to talk about their son's deaths, it is quite clear he cares not for the Russian people but only himself and his legacy.

    This law is nothing more than another step on Putin's march to returning to the past where neighbor spied on neighbor, where freedom of speech is only so much as he says is freedom of speech, where opposition newspapers, television and radio stations are routinely silenced to prevent the people from hearing anything other than state sponsored "news", where he and his oligarch buddies steal the country blind and live in lavish homes while the common man can barely afford a decent meal.

    Is it any wonder the world doesn't take Russia seriously and why Russia, to this day, has still not advanced to a first world status.

    • Re:Putin rebuilding the Soviet Union (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:46PM (#52464047)

      So? From an American perspective it may seem onerous, but most Russians don't care. Russia is an extraordinarily hard country to govern, with multiple ethnicities, terrible geography, crappy ports, and hostile neighbors. On top of that, Russia has been the subject of the 3 largest invasions in human history. Even with that, they have no allies with which they can identify; they're white so they're not Asian, but the Europeans don't accept them as European either. There somewhere in the middle.

      The only times in Russian history where Russia has been strong was under a strongman leader. Peter the Great, Catherine, Stalin, Putin. Americans are happy to argue freedom and civil liberties when they're surrounded by countries they've crushed militarily, dominate economically, and are protected by two big oceans and the world's biggest Navy. Most Russians are willing to give up freedoms and security when their history is rife with people who surround them, hate them, and try to kill them.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        and yet, those to the west do NOT hate them, esp the western Europeans. They were happy to live in peace and work together. The problems came about when Russia decided to start invading small eastern European nations and proving that they are not interested in peace, but in having others to blame.
        And all of those eastern European nations KNOWS that Russia has invaded many many more nations, than they have been invaded.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      To be fair the Georgian conflict was started by Georgians attacking a peace keeping mission. Russia then recognized the independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia or however you spell it. It was all to get back at the west for Kosovo, as I understand it. Ukraine was more of an aggressive act, but again there's the question of how the ouster of whatshisname was done and the money coming in from the west to undermine him. Putin's been more reactive than aggressive so far. When he matches into Estonia or Finl

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        To be fair the Georgian conflict was started by Georgians attacking a peace keeping mission. Russia then recognized the independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia or however you spell it. It was all to get back at the west for Kosovo, as I understand it. Ukraine was more of an aggressive act, but again there's the question of how the ouster of whatshisname was done and the money coming in from the west to undermine him. Putin's been more reactive than aggressive so far. When he matches into Estonia or Finland unprovoked, then you can call that aggression.

        Note: I think Putin provoked the west into anti-russian positions by being an authoritarian.

        And the West provoked Russia into attacking both Ukraine and Georgia.

        Georgia was a Soviet satellite and when the USSR broke up the government was pro-Russian. In 2003 the Rose Revolution occured putting into power a pro-Western, anti Russian government, and the Rose Revolution was heavily influenced, encouraged, and funded by US foreign policy makers such as the US ambassador to Georgia and former Secretary of State James Baker, while the IMF cut off funding to the previous pro-Russian government to encour

        • Both Ukraine and Georgia are independent sovereign countries. It's not for Russia to tell which alliances they can and cannot join. Bringing up NATO in that context is especially laughable, as it is fundamentally a defensive alliance. When did NATO last invade Russia?

          In Putin's position, I would do everything it takes to make Russia a part of EU, and ultimately even NATO itself. There's really no reason why it shouldn't be a part of the collective Western defense, except for its stubborn refusal to play tha

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        To be fair the Georgian conflict was started by Georgians attacking a peace keeping mission.

        *slow clap* Of course they did.

  • I'm not sure what friends Snowden has left after this, but I am sure thankful for his work and hope God protects him!

  • They're catching up (Score:3)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:07PM (#52463759) Journal

    "Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight."

    So....pretty much like it is here, eh? Wow, the Russians are finally catching up to us in state-approved surveillance, who would have guessed we'd be the leader in this field?

    Remember all the propaganda about "commies" and the "unfettered power of the police" they used to warn us about? Well, it turns out it was actually the US government that was running wild with virtually no constraints. The only constraint was "don't get caught", and even when they did get caught, nothing really happened.

    And now the police feel free to shoot anyone, any time, on any pretext or none at all. The latest example of this is Philando Castile [cnn.com], who wasn't doing anything worthy of being shot. His only "crime" was going out in public and allowing himself to be seen by the police. They asked for his ID, and when he reached for it, they shot him to death in his car, still sitting in the driver's seat next to his girlfriend.

    As Jesse Williams remarked, "In the interest of time, would ye noble patriots please provide a list of infractions punishable by spontaneous public execution?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Agripa ( 139780 )

      Remember all the propaganda about "commies" and the "unfettered power of the police" they used to warn us about? Well, it turns out it was actually the US government that was running wild with virtually no constraints. The only constraint was "don't get caught", and even when they did get caught, nothing really happened.

      And now the police feel free to shoot anyone, any time, on any pretext or none at all.

      At last our police do not charge your family for the bullets they shoot you with so we have that going for us.

  • obvious question (Score:3)

    by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:36PM (#52464511) Journal
    How? Even though most people are not tech-aware enough to write their own communications software, it's so ubiquitous now that getting a program which will allow you to encrypt all your voice calls is just a matter of compiling it. I mean, it's as simple as installing an operating system on a bare-bones PC. That's not exactly a high-level skill. This seems more like an attempt to force everyone living in Russia to encrypt their communications to increase the level of security of internal communications. Unlike Americans, who are basic sometime cynical but basically trusting of the government, RF citizens (and don't call them Russians because of them aren't) still retains the old Soviet attitude of cynicism towards any stated goals of the government.
  • US security agencies and US congresspeople have insisted that intrusive surveillance is the only path to security, and security experts have tried to point out that personal privacy and government surveillance are contradictory. Now that the known-to-be-bad Soviet - sorry, Russian - government, led by a known-to-be-megalomaniac who is known to have his political opponents killed, has a formal law in place, the people pushing the same laws here must explain whether we're not becoming the same police state t
  • Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!

  • Can now celebrate the freedom he has brought to the Russian Federation. This is the fruit of his labor.

  • Meh. Canada's been trying the same since 2012. Only difference is that Russia was successful while Canada only partially so.

    Bill C-30 "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act" (Struck down)
    Bill C-51 "Anti-terrorism Act, 2015" (Enacted)

    One of the more interesting things I remember about C-30 when it was being talked about, was that our telecommunication Industry (i.e. Bell and Rogers Communication) opposed the idea due to the cost to upgrade their networks and systems to be able to have the data on h

  • Seriously, Snowden fled to nations that remain effectively under totalitarian rules. His now speaking up against this law is going to get himself killed.

    • Russia and China don't actually normally do anything against people who speak against their government as an individual. Organizing is what gets you jailed or killed -- be it a protest, a newspaper or a campaign for office.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close