[HN Gopher] Google sought fellow tech giants' help in stalling k...
___________________________________________________________________
Google sought fellow tech giants' help in stalling kids' privacy
protections
Author : koolba
Score : 314 points
Date : 2021-10-23 09:50 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.politico.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.com)
| hliyan wrote:
| Feels like something that should be handled at the client, rather
| than having even more personal info sent to servers. Perhaps
| something like a face-id that automatically switches the entire
| device a kids' profile.
| ganzuul wrote:
| Goddamn traitors of the species.
| m0zg wrote:
| Twitter threads on this are rather eye opening, if folks haven't
| seen them, check them out. If this shit is proven in court (and
| if the judge doesn't hold a large position in defendants, as the
| case may be), Google / FB could face some _serious_, life
| changing repercussions.
|
| I knew FB / Google Ads was a hive of scum and villainy (but
| would, nonetheless, accept the paycheck generated by all that),
| but did not think it was quite this bad. Much like when the
| varnish started cracking on both Google and Apple when Eric
| Schmidt fired the recruiter due to Steve Jobs' displeasure.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1451619916994396164
| theduder99 wrote:
| amazing thread, thanks for sharing.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| That's a great twitter thread!
| m0zg wrote:
| You can already see how Google/FB PR shills are trying to
| narrow down the fallout in the press (and on this site) by
| pretending this is only (or mostly) about kids' privacy,
| whereas the real story is rather severely anticompetitive
| behavior, collusion, and price fixing in ad exchanges, and
| privacy is merely a footnote in a War and Peace thick tome of
| alleged wrongdoing. The actual story is 100x bigger, but you
| wouldn't even know if you hadn't read that twitter thread.
| This is called "shaping".
| cletus wrote:
| I really wish we had less kneejerk cliche-recycling (eg "don't be
| evil" comments) commenters here just looking for confirmation
| bias because this is a difficult issue.
|
| First, kids use sites and apps when they're below the ToS age
| (usually 18 or sometimes 13, at least in the US). How are you
| meant to know that as a service provider? Don't get me wrong: it
| doesn't excuse you from doing due diligence. There's such a thing
| as wanton disregard for the truth. But we all know under 18s use
| IG, Snapchat, Tinder, etc. I'm not sure fining a company billions
| of dollars and putting executives in jail is the outcome anyone
| really wants if a 17 year old uses Tinder.
|
| Second, what is personal information, exactly? It's not as
| obvious as you might think to the point where lawyers who work
| for these companies can't agree among themselves. There are
| obvious things (eg IP addresses, dates of birth, SSNs, addresses,
| names). But what about media? Photos, videos and sound files may
| all contain PII, technically.
|
| Third, some will say "well don't store anything". Well, if a
| photo contains PII (which it can) then you can't operate a photo-
| sharing service at all for risk of storing PII of children. Also,
| this ignores legal obligations. If the Feds show up with a
| warrant about a particular user's actions then the argument "we
| log/store nothing" won't get you as far as you think.
|
| So I'm not saying Google didn't do wrong here but knowing the
| complexities I am sympathetic to the idea of resisting broad
| legislative overreach as you can end up with bad laws that do
| just that.
|
| And if we're going to start singling out tech giants for lobbying
| Congress, my question is why them in particular? We currently
| have a Senate that is essentially beholden to the personal
| interests of one unelected rich guy: Charles Koch. Koch lobbies
| against health care, taxes on the rich and infrastructure in the
| Senate. Around the country, he has been instrumental in defeating
| public transit and many other initiatives in many cities.
| tchalla wrote:
| > I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting
| executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17
| year old uses Tinder.
|
| A provider offers a service is responsible to ensure it
| functions within the law. The "How" is the responsibility of
| the provider. If they can't do it, they can explicitly state
| they can not do so and work with the government to find
| constructive solutions. If they absolutely can not, it means
| that they have to bear the consequence of the law. If they
| can't accept the consequence, they can decide to shut shop.
| classified wrote:
| It would be nice if things actually worked that way.
| cletus wrote:
| > A provider offers a service is responsible to ensure it
| functions within the law.
|
| This is what I like to call "engineer thinking" (and I say
| this as an engineer). By this I mean it's absolute.
|
| The law doesn't work that way and when it does, it tends to
| be terrible unjust and illogical (eg mandatory minimum
| sentences, three strikes laws).
|
| Here's how it actually works: because of the nature of your
| service users need to be able to give consent for legal
| reasons. It may be possible to provide such a service to
| under-18s but the legal compliance may be a significant
| amount of effort. Or it may be impossible.
|
| Already we've run into a problem because what about
| emancipated minors? They can, by definition, give legal
| consent. You may choose to ignore this corner case because
| it's too hard. That may be fine or it might not. You may be
| accused of unfairly denying services in certain segments of
| the population. Depending on your service, you may even run
| into legal trouble.
|
| Assuming you're a good actor, you make a "best effort" to
| comply with the age restriction. You may ask for certain
| personal information or even run a credit check. Certain
| things can only be done in person, perhaps just the first
| time, perhaps every time.
|
| If it ever comes up that you provided services to minors and
| there were legal consequences (civil or criminal), a court
| would ultimately look at the balance of evidence to decide if
| your actions were sufficient given the consequences of
| noncompliance, the harm you could've done and so on (note:
| the standards are different criminally and civilly too).
|
| So if you provide a hook up app and just ask "Are you over
| 18? Y/N" and have lots of profile pictures of suspiciously
| young people, lots of mentions of high school and so forth
| then it can be decided that you had a reckless disregard for
| your legal obligations and be fined or charged criminally. A
| court may also decide your actions were "reasonable" (this
| word comes up a lot). For example: you tried to verify them
| with a Facebook profile (with efforts to make sure it wasn't
| fake), you monitored photos and profiles for certain keywords
| and so on. That could satisfy your legal requirements even if
| it wasn't perfect.
|
| It's the difference between a bank who sometimes unknowingly
| facilitates criminal financial transactions vs a bank that
| has flagrant disregard for the law. There are banks that will
| charge you 15-20% for a wire transfer, for example. No
| legitimate customer would ever pay that. It's clearly aimed
| at people who don't want any questions or scrutiny. This will
| land you in jail. The first won't.
| tchalla wrote:
| > This is what I like to call "engineer thinking" (and I
| say this as an engineer). By this I mean it's absolute.
|
| Ironically, you called my thinking as absolute and went
| ahead to do the very same thing you called "Engineer
| Thinking". Nothing in my comment above contradicts your
| comment. Your effort to explain HOW in detail is admirable.
| However, I wish you hadn't created a label on my way of
| thinking. It doesn't help a discussion.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| The law is responsible for being just and reasonable, and not
| fining people for things they have no control over. There's
| no sure way to verify that a user is over 18[1], and I do
| believe that there's responsibility on parents to be
| monitoring their children - That if a 13 year old is creating
| accounts on over-18 websites, it is partially the parent's
| failing for allowing them too much unmonitored access.
|
| Quite frankly: I want 17 year olds to use Tinder, figure out
| how it works, and understand the problems therein. I want
| kids to be able to tip their toe in anonymously to adult
| activities. Any hard-line requirements create a nice hard
| line - People who have no experience with X, and people who
| are expected to be experts with X - And that's how you create
| a feeding ground for predators. 17 year olds don't have to be
| able to recognize that a 40-year old man who's hitting on
| them despite the fact the 17 year old lied about their age is
| not a quality catch - They have to have support networks and
| enough opportunity to test the waters to figure that out
| before they get caught in a predator's web. One of the most
| important tools towards that is the ability to create
| anonymous accounts and explore, with understanding but
| without consequences.
|
| [1] I won't iterate over the ways that is true, and I won't
| iterate over the ways that your perfect age verification is
| either a) broken or b) totalitarian and broken.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| > There's no sure way to verify that a user is over 18
|
| This is like a bar complaining that they shouldn't have to
| check ids because counterfeits exist. You can't serve your
| customers At Scale if you have to comply with those pesky
| laws, so maybe don't do it at scale.
| jfk13 wrote:
| > Quite frankly: I want 17 year olds to use Tinder...
|
| How about 16 yr olds? 15? 13? 10? 7? Should we draw a line
| for "dipping their toe anonymously in adult activities"
| somewhere, or should that line simply not exist?
|
| Do you believe that every 13 yr old is in fact being
| appropriately monitored by parents? If not, should there be
| some safeguards to mitigate the fact that in practice this
| is not reliable?
| bostik wrote:
| > _How about 16 yr olds? 15? 13? 10? 7? Should we draw a
| line for "dipping their toe anonymously in adult
| activities" somewhere [...]?_
|
| Age of consent differs across countries. So yes,
| different countries and jurisdictions _already_ draw a
| line for various adult activities. They also disagree
| what those lines should be and where they should be
| drawn.
|
| Reality is messy.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| Quite frankly: that line should be parents to draw and
| enforce, within reason. The liability should not be on
| the dating sites to prevent it from happening, not should
| they be forgiven for ignoring it when it does happen and
| it's brought to their attention.
|
| I'm in the unenviable situation of having had one of my
| big projects shut down for precisely this reason: it's
| too expensive to moderate sites that kids may use. The
| reason for that is actually very simple, proved by data,
| and verboten to say.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| My car isn't supposed to be driven by someone without a
| license. It's kept locked when not in use.
|
| Yet, that might not stop a 17 years old without a license
| from stealing my keys and taking it for a joy ride. Should we
| then outlaw cars since evidently it doesn't function within
| the law?
|
| These kids are violating the ToS.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| While I love a good car analogy as much as the next person
| this really doesn't fly.
|
| First of all, the TOS click through flow is more like
| leaving a car running, unlocked, and adding a piece of
| masking tape that says "please don't drive me" on the door
| handle. TOS operate entirely on the honor system.
|
| Second, you have no incentive for random children to come
| drive your car. For the tech giants, more users are great!
| So their incentives here are all in favor of letting kids
| sign up and doing the bare minimum to try and prevent this
| required to appease regulators.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| In tech, we've gone so far from manual work that we've all
| forgotten what's possible. If you run a bar and let in a 14
| year old, you're responsible for that. If you decide to
| automate your work, you are not in any way absolved of that
| responsibility just because it might be impossible to
| automate with the same level of reliability as doing it by
| hand.
|
| In other words, doing the very best that's possible doesn't
| count for shit if it's impossible to do what you have to do.
| Because it's always possible to comply, just not always
| possible to do it digitally. Tough shit. Then don't do it
| digitally.
| wswope wrote:
| > I really wish we had less kneejerk cliche-recycling (eg
| "don't be evil" comments).
|
| Looking at your profile, it's very obvious that your writing
| here is an ego-driven deflection to absolve yourself of
| complicity in these unethical behaviors. You sound like an ex-
| Shell employee denying global warming. But who cares as long as
| you're not as bad as the Koch brothers?
| literallyWTF wrote:
| Without fail, there's always someone who literally bends over
| backwards to defend these sorts of actions. I never understand
| it, do you expect some sort of payment or something?
| nevergoogle wrote:
| > _I never understand it, do you expect some sort of payment
| or something?_
|
| Exactly that, if you look in their bio, they're ex-Google.
| Certainly they still hold stock, so are trying to protect the
| stock price. It's people like this that _built_ Google, so it
| 's no wonder it's an extremely unethical company.
| eeegnu wrote:
| It's always worth examining the other perspective, it makes
| for actual discussion. If I want to see everyone in agreeance
| with no room for these opinions I'll use reddit.
| wswope wrote:
| He's literally been paid by Google and Facebook - see
| profile.
| specialist wrote:
| > _First, kids use sites and apps when they 're below the ToS
| age... How are you meant to know that as a service provider?_
|
| You think major providers don't know who is a kid? Please.
|
| They have profiles for every person living and dead. They have
| 1000s of data points for every person.
|
| They only pretend to not know. CYA.
|
| A fiction that stops when they target ads towards those same
| kids.
| yblu wrote:
| I think you made some good points. But you should probably have
| disclosed you worked for Google and Facebook.
| squarefoot wrote:
| > I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting
| executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17
| year old uses Tinder.
|
| Jail, would be disproportionate, _but_ , those giants are
| perfectly aware that kids under certain age have absolutely no
| idea of the value of money and how much it costs to bring it
| home, then spend it carefully so there will be some available
| for less important stuff. So you show them ads of the latest
| cellphone or pair of famous-rapper-sponsored shoes that cost
| half of what their parents bring home in a month, and they'll
| want that crap no matter the cost. This is no that different
| from targeting very old people with phone calls, among which
| some can be lured into buying unnecessary stuff, sign
| fraudulent contracts, or worse, just because a well dressed
| drone rang their door and spent the evening talking with them
| to conquer their trust.
|
| Quite frankly I'm disgusted by those manipulative people, and
| tech giants dwelling in the dark side to maximize their profits
| make no difference.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's also basically no different from the standard for
| broadcast media advertising. The US has cycled back and forth
| on whether it should be illegal from decade to decade, but
| the jury is pretty out on that point of philosophy as a
| whole.
| derangedHorse wrote:
| >So you show them ads of the latest cellphone or pair of
| famous-rapper-sponsored shoes that cost half of what their
| parents bring home in a month, and they'll want that crap no
| matter the cost. This is no that different from targeting
| very old people with phone calls, among which some can be
| lured into buying unnecessary stuff, sign fraudulent
| contracts, or worse, just because a well dressed drone rang
| their door and spent the evening talking with them to conquer
| their trust.
|
| I don't see how companies not properly filtering out minors
| from their platform equate to them being similar to
| fraudsters who target the elderly. One is an example of
| (potentially) willful ignorance of the age of users on their
| platform, and the other is willful malice targeted at a
| vulnerable group.
| dmitriid wrote:
| You've listed the reasons why governments try not to regulate
| things until there's a blatant disregard of even common
| decency.
|
| We're way beyond blatant disregard.
| specialist wrote:
| > _And if we 're going to start singling out tech giants for
| lobbying Congress, my question is why them in particular?_
|
| Because they're the criminals. By their own admission.
|
| The real question is why it took Congress so long.
| rapind wrote:
| > I'm not sure fining a company billions of dollars and putting
| executives in jail is the outcome anyone really wants if a 17
| year old uses Tinder.
|
| Honestly, why not? If society deems that illegal, and the
| enablers are responsible, then so be it.
|
| If said company can't figure out how to profit while preventing
| this then why do I care? Lot's of businesses aren't viable
| without illegal practices.
|
| I'm doubtful this will be the actual fallout, but it wouldn't
| bother me at all if it was.
|
| If your businesses success relies on scale, but that scale in
| turn presents insurmountable issues, then congratulations, you
| found an unsustainable business model. No big deal.
| missedthecue wrote:
| " _Honestly, why not? If society deems that illegal, and the
| enablers are responsible, then so be it._ "
|
| Why not? I can think of a couple different situations where a
| given democratic society deemed X to be illegal, but that
| does not make it right.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "We have been successful in slowing down and delaying the
| [ePrivacy Regulation] process and have been working behind the
| scenes hand in hand with the other companies," the complaint
| quoted Google executives as saying in a memo ahead of the
| meeting. The August meeting could "find areas of alignment and
| narrow gaps in our positions and priorities on child privacy and
| safety."
|
| This sounds like a starting point for further investigation.
|
| Perhaps the litigation will reveal more about what is going on
| inside Big Tech.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Why were they successful? Why can't politicians just do the
| opposite of what these lobbyists want them to do? Whatever it
| is they're pushing is likely good for them and bad for society.
| Just do the opposite.
|
| They want less privacy protections for the humans they're
| exploiting? Add more. Add so many protections they probably
| won't be able to make any money anymore.
| nigerian1981 wrote:
| Because the lobbyists support their political campaigns.
| bostik wrote:
| Or they want a cushy, well-paid job in the industry they
| are supposedly regulating.
|
| See also: revolving door policy making.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| NB. This is ongoing antitrust litigation, not privacy
| litigation. Journalists and the public are not only interested
| in illegal acts (the law has not kept up with the internet),
| they are also interested in unethical and harmful behaviour
| (which, who knows, might someday be made illegal). The judge
| ordered documents filed in this antitrust case to be unsealed.
| Thus, irrespective of the success of the states' antitrust
| claims, the public benefits by learning about Big Tech's
| conduct.
| extropy wrote:
| It seems that they did not do anything illegal, so not sure
| what you are proposing to litigate?
|
| Lobbying lawmakers is a basic practice that happens all the
| time. And a law is not right on its own right, there is always
| supporters and detractors. Just that we agree as a society yo
| abide by the laws we currently have.
|
| If anything we should invest in more public awareness to make
| sure strong privacy requirements are signed into the law.
|
| On the other hand, strong privacy laws is a sizable buerocratic
| burden on the society. So we should be cautious to not over
| regulate. Laws are difficult to change or revoke even if they
| are found ineffective or too stringent later on.
|
| A high trust environment where most of the players do the right
| thing without the buerocracy and enforcement is way more
| efficient.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| Relevant thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28860824
|
| Google hasn't been shy about their own cash for kids(' data)
| schemes. It's also pretty wild how similar their market creation
| tactics are (and how beneficial they would be) to groomers other
| child exploiters.
|
| What are advertising and privacy protection laws regarding
| children like in other counties? Could Google have happened
| somewhere with stronger consumer and child protection laws?
| sva_ wrote:
| This seems like a bad day for Google (and 'fellow tech giants'.)
| I wonder if there will, for once, be any actual consequences that
| will lead to change.
|
| If not, then I don't know if these mega-corporations are perhaps
| to be considered untouchable, which would cast serious doubt on
| our government; or rather, erase most doubt remaining about the
| degree of corruption thereof (at least from my perspective.)
| [deleted]
| koolba wrote:
| Title suffix of "... states allege" removed due to HN length
| limits. Full title: _Google sought fellow tech giants ' help in
| stalling kids' privacy protections, states allege_
| evgen wrote:
| A more honest title would remove 'states allege' and simply
| state 'evidence shows'.
| extropy wrote:
| Or more biased, depends on which side you are.
| imgabe wrote:
| > A week before the meeting, the Federal Trade Commission
| announced that it was considering making changes to its
| interpretation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act,
| which prohibits companies from collecting information about kids
| under the age of 13 without parental permission.
|
| How would that work in practice? A lot of us here operate
| websites. Your website gets a request. How are you supposed to
| tell the age of the person that request came from? Maybe Google /
| Facebook have enough data to identify the person and their age,
| but ironically, they would have to collect information about them
| to determine that it's a person they shouldn't collect
| information about.
|
| Certainly no child in the history of the Internet has ever lied
| to a website when asked their age.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| I think that websites generally do this based on whether the
| content is primarily intended for children (e.g. youtube
| doesn't collect this type of data when users are viewing videos
| marked as being for children).
| xenomachina wrote:
| And this ends up breaking the site for adults as well.
|
| I have a YouTube playlist of videos I'd like to show my kids.
| It turns out that YouTube will not allow videos marked as
| "intended for children" to be added to a playlist, even by an
| account that belongs to a adult. So the only videos I can put
| in that playlist for my kids are ones YouTube thinks are NOT
| for kids.
| throwawayay02 wrote:
| That just sounds like a bug.
| makomk wrote:
| It's not a bug, it's a direct and intentional consequence
| of the FTC's efforts to strengthen COPPA which this
| article complains that Google didn't just go along with,
| and required by the settlement mentioned in the article.
| COPPA effectively bans companies from collecting data on
| under-13s (there's a parental consent provision which is
| basically infeasable to comply with), which includes
| stuff like letting them add videos to playlists. Google
| didn't allow under-13s to have accounts, but parents let
| kids watch videos on their accounts and the FTC's
| position is that this was a violation of COPPA when the
| videos weren't aimed at kids. So now Google cannot, by
| law, allow people to comment on videos that seem like
| they're aimed at kids, add them to playlists, or do other
| things that collect data from the person viewing them.
| thenthenthen wrote:
| Login using social security number/id. Its commonplace in one
| of the larger economies
| f6v wrote:
| > How would that work in practice?
|
| You could ask everyone to confirm their age with eID.
| eitland wrote:
| Which ironically takes your site from
|
| - "can maybe connect sensitive data to some persons"
|
| to
|
| - "can absolutely connect sensitive data to every user unless
| they really go out of their way to avoid it"
| seanhunter wrote:
| Maybe you shouldn't collect the information about anybody
| unless you have a way of discriminating.
|
| I run some (low-traffic) websites. I don't collect any
| information about anyone. It's not essential.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| This is basically what I do with my hobby sites. I have
| HAProxy sprinkled around the internet here and there. I set
| the custom header with the client IP address to something
| that my web server doesn't recognize. This means everyone on
| the internet shows up as my VPN address. This also forces me
| to ignore IP addresses and design protection ACL's to be
| generalized. It has been a fun learning exercise.
|
| That said, I am not suggesting that businesses should or
| could do this. Some businesses are required through
| regulations to capture IP addresses of their customers at a
| minimum.
| imgabe wrote:
| It depends on what they consider "collecting information".
| Does your server log IP addresses? Do you know the age of the
| person behind each IP address? Does that count as "collecting
| information" about them? You know an IP, the time and date
| they accessed the site, what pages they viewed, you can infer
| a general location. If the law is not clear enough, it can be
| interpreted to make basically any website infringing.
|
| If you want to have a newsletter, or offer a service where
| people log in and want to recover their password, you'll need
| at least an email address. Can you verify that every email
| address is exclusively used by people 13+?
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I agree with the grandparent poster that not collecting
| information should be the default.
|
| re: collecting IP addresses: I run my web sites behind
| Nginx and does have rolling logs, but I ignore IP
| addresses.
|
| For your e-mail use case, I think a reasonable compromise
| is asking if the user is older than 13 and what alternative
| is there but to trust them? Personally, I think that
| collecting e-mail addresses for people signing up for a
| newsletter is a great example of when it is perfectly fine
| to collect private data.
| svachalek wrote:
| I think duration and consent have to be part of the
| equation. Collecting an IP for somewhere in the range of
| milliseconds to 24 hours in order to gather statistics
| about site traffic is one thing, putting it in perpetual
| storage for cross correlation is entire different. Asking
| for an email address to create an account is one thing,
| using 3rd party cookies to figure out someone's email
| address to cross correlate with their browsing history is
| different. Blurring the line between these innocent
| practices and mass surveillance by international
| corporations is quite disingenuous.
| imgabe wrote:
| I am not trying to blur the line or say they're
| equivalent. I'm saying that if the law, as written,
| doesn't distinguish between these things then it becomes
| a cudgel that can be selectively wielded against any
| website that happens to draw the ire of anyone with power
| to launch investigations.
|
| We all see how incompetent the government is when it
| comes to understanding technology and how it works (see
| the Missouri governor clamoring to prosecute someone for
| "hacking" because they used view source), so remember
| when you're asking for greater regulation who it is
| that's going to be doing the regulating.
| Factorium wrote:
| Requiring payment for access would also work. Maybe $10 for a
| lifetime membership, otherwise its read-only.
|
| Children can only participate with these companies because the
| product is 'free'. Same with p*rn and free2play games:
| eliminate the 'free' component to effectively block them from
| children (at least without parental consent).
| derangedHorse wrote:
| Not too hard to get around. I have friends who used to buy
| American Express gift cards to get around having to pay
| online with a credit card so kids could easily get around any
| payment restrictions. I think all a paywall would do is make
| life more inconvenient for the average user.
| simion314 wrote:
| >How would that work in practice? A lot of us here operate
| websites. Your website gets a request. How are you supposed to
| tell the age of the person that request came from?
|
| Idea, browsers would implement parent control, so when you
| setup a child account on your kid device the OS will store the
| age of the user, the browsers would read this. Then in the
| request (maybe depending or region or whatever protocol) the
| browser can tell you if the user age is <13 or other interval.
|
| So this means the browsers need to collaborate with the OS and
| the parent has the responsibility to setup the correct user
| account for the user in the OS, for older OS the parent will
| have to setup this setting directly in browser and setup the
| browser in a "child" mode.
| gundmc wrote:
| Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28967575
|
| There are at least 4 similar stories on the front page right now
| all stemming from the same amended Texas court filing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-23 23:01 UTC)