[HN Gopher] Major government surveillance revelations fail to ma...
___________________________________________________________________
Major government surveillance revelations fail to make a big splash
Author : baskethead
Score : 154 points
Date : 2022-03-20 16:29 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehill.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehill.com)
| dbtc wrote:
| > Another factor is that many Americans may now assume that their
| privacy is already shot.
|
| This is it for me, or the apathetic part of me. After a few
| revelations you can infer the not yet revealed.
|
| Hey, information wants to be free, right?
| natsup123490 wrote:
| Efforts to make governments behave are pretty hopeless. Besides,
| it's not just the US that is spying on everybody. If you want
| privacy, you need to change your behavior and your tooling, using
| technology to create privacy.
| qiskit wrote:
| It's been going on for decades.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
|
| What's going to happen if there is a "big splash". Nothing. Has
| anyone in intelligence ever been arrested or punished for
| violating the law? These people are above the law.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| whoa- a reference to Church, and then say "These people are
| above the law" without caveat.. what an awful lead up to
| complete compliance without complaining.. count me out
| archhn wrote:
| Without an avenue of recourse, people tune out.
|
| Eliminate choice and you eliminate thought.
|
| Honestly, it has been this way in US politics for a long time.
| The government is always doing crazy scandalous things, but most
| people are busy with the day to day and don't know how to act on
| such information anyway. We are also, as Vidal said, a nation of
| amnesia. Most people have the attention span of a goldfish. I'm
| sure most people lack the historical knowledge to contextualize
| these government actions. They don't know that an antagonistic
| relationship exists between the people and government. The
| numerous historical and contemporary betrayals of governments
| against their peoples isn't in their mind. Plus, most people
| think they are living in some fantasy world where nothing bad can
| happen to them.
|
| It's pretty dark. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.
| jerf wrote:
| The biggest power the media has isn't even to make you believe an
| active lie. It's the power to bury a story by simply neglecting
| it, and filling the media space with their own choices.
|
| The media is actively on the side of _you_ living under heavy
| government surveillance.
|
| Act accordingly.
| snarf21 wrote:
| As said, people don't care. They will only push click bait
| because it is vastly more profitable. There is no such thing as
| news anymore, it is infotainment. Sowing faux outrage for
| profit is all.
| CerealFounder wrote:
| No its not, the larger media is the original "for pay
| algorithm" that shows you what ever makes you engage with their
| platform more (subscription & ad supported). There is no
| conspiracy or man behind the curtain.
|
| Simply put, complex stories resonate deeply with a small group
| and not at all with the majority. What you get from that is the
| current media landscape. Surveillance is a very complicated
| technical and moral story that only the smallest group cares
| about.
| calibas wrote:
| The media's willful ignorance the Epstein case implies
| otherwise. This was a vast criminal conspiracy involving sex,
| Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates and
| Harvard University, the kind of juicy gossip that the average
| person goes crazy over, and the mainstream media knew about
| it for years, but chose not to report it.
|
| The media was complicit in the coverup until it could be
| ignored no longer. They did the opposite of what an honest
| news media is supposed to do, and helped suppress one of the
| decades biggest news stories. That certainly implies
| something, and directly contradicts the "media just gives
| people what they want" meme/excuse.
| mjreacher wrote:
| There's plenty of sex related scandals that go on all the
| time that are 'open secrets' so to speak, another famous
| one being Harvey Weinstein. On one hand you can go in the
| conspiracy direction and say everyone was colluding to keep
| it secret, but on the other hand you can think about how
| little strong evidence there was and how these kinds of
| people would be very eager to sue for defamation if you
| accused them of anything.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Not to mention disappearances, suicides, heart attacks
| and plane crashes.
| [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Casolaro]
| calibas wrote:
| Which creates a world where powerful people can get away
| with crimes and the victims are ignored even after they
| come forward. That means actual criminal conspiracies
| with powerful men pulling the strings.
|
| Also, if you think there was "little strong evidence" of
| what Epstein was up to, I have some good reading for you:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein#Legal_proce
| edi...
| mjreacher wrote:
| Well yes, in capitalist countries generally rich people
| can get away with a lot of things others can't, in fact
| you can broaden that to any country or organization
| really. I'm well aware of what went on with Epstein, and
| if anything that goes against the idea that he's all
| powerful and can get away with anything, otherwise why
| would there have been any case against him in the first
| place?
| akira2501 wrote:
| > the larger media is the original
|
| Concentration of media ownership has not been a constant
| factor over the past several decades and several laws have
| been changed to alter this reality in that time frame. As the
| purveyors of news get bought up and consolidated, it has
| almost certainly made this "information control" problem
| worse.
|
| > Surveillance is a very complicated technical
|
| "The government is spying on you" is not exceptionally
| complicated or technical. The fourth amendment is widely
| known and understood.
| late2part wrote:
| Agreed. And if you don't toe the line:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Elon Musk has certainly done worse.
| rendall wrote:
| That's fucked up.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| <sarcasm> Yes, the "media" is to blame. The media that did
| report on the spying. </sarcasm>
|
| Blaming "The Media" is really a cop-out. Anyone who reads
| anything beyond entertainment news knows about the degradation
| of our civil liberties, rights, and privacy over the last 20
| years. It's not a secret, and "The Media" isn't covering it up.
|
| The sad, depressing, truth is that very few people overall
| care. Or they only care enough to say the disagree then go
| about ignoring it.
|
| Personally, I've tried to bring awareness, I've donated money
| to the EFF and ACLU, among other things. At this point it seems
| inevitable to get worse. I just wish the government would offer
| access or insights into the data the collect.
|
| If the government going to use tax dollars to collect all my
| data. They might as well turn it into a searchable service: "I
| know I email bob 20 years ago, I wish I could find that recipe
| I gave him". Maybe, they could email me with helpful things
| like "Y% of people in your area who google'd X, Y and Z had
| prostate cancer. You should talk to your doctor".
| technobabbler wrote:
| > If the government going to use tax dollars to collect all
| my data. They might as well turn it into a searchable
| service: "I know I email bob 20 years ago, I wish I could
| find that recipe I gave him". Maybe, they could email me with
| helpful things like "Y% of people in your area who google'd
| X, Y and Z had prostate cancer. You should talk to your
| doctor".
|
| Yeah, exactly this!! If you must know all my financial
| transactions, can't you at least do my taxes for me? If you
| already know who I am all the time, why do I need like three
| forms of ID to get a updated driver's license? If you can
| track all the phones, do you really need to ask for name and
| phone number when I call 911?
|
| It's just bizarre how much data they collect and then...
| ignore? It didn't catch terrorists, it didn't stop the
| capitol storming, it doesn't stop school shootings... what
| exactly do they do with it all? It's like a pointless subsidy
| for hard drive manufacturers, where personal information goes
| to die.
|
| At least Google provides useful services in exchange for all
| the tracking. Even Facebook has the decency to let you
| connect with people you might know, and help you remember
| what you did 10 years ago. If the government just offered
| useful services in exchange, millions would willingly
| surrender their privacy. Most of us just aren't very
| interesting.
| sdoering wrote:
| This data is being collected. And stories about that are
| being leaked, so that people feel (slightly) watched.
| Nobody in any (halfway intelligent) government wants a Nazi
| like Gestapo or SS patrols.
|
| They know that offensively acting against dissent would
| actually drive dissent. So they take a book out of
| Bentham's Panopticon [0] and translate it into modern
| society.
|
| You know you are being watched. And you know that there is
| a possibility that the government can construct something
| out of all that data. And if there is no data about you
| that is even more suspicious.
|
| So on a subliminal level the subduing effects are there.
| The status quo is being kept stable for the elites at
| least.
|
| People listen to entertainment news, see the next villain
| that we are shown and are happy the government protected us
| from whatever danger is the new fad (either Chinese
| imports, Muslim terrorists, socialists or whatever floats
| their boat).
|
| Media? Media is there to make money. Whatever drives
| advertising dollars wins.
|
| This data collection is there to subdue society at large.
| Not stop any single crime. If there were no crime/school
| shooting/act of terrorism nobody would buy the next
| surveillance bill and re-elect our masters.
|
| /s
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| It's really tough, I think people care but most feel
| completely overwhelmed by the scope of it and have just
| become jaded. Every time I try bringing it up with a friend,
| they all say some version of "yeah I know, it's really messed
| up but I can't do anything about it."
|
| I do think some of the blame lies with the media. In my
| lifetime they seem to have become little more than spokesmen
| for power. They're too scared to lose access to their meal
| ticket, the government sources who they regularly introduce
| in their reporting/propaganda with "according to government
| sources...", followed by some bit of strategically leaked
| information. It's increasingly rare for reporters to ask hard
| questions about much of anything, let alone pressing for
| answers or making a big stink about issues like this that
| actually matter. And when they do, the PR spokesman on the
| other end of the question just dodges it with a certain
| bullshit acuity that's rather horrifying.
|
| > If the government going to use tax dollars to collect all
| my data.
|
| The article also mentions "a defense agency buying consumer
| data from a third-party broker" which I somehow find even
| more odious, if that's possible!
| technobabbler wrote:
| Is it really the media's fault when they've reported at
| length about Snowden and Assange and Manning and in the
| end... nobody cared? Investigative journalism was THRIVING
| in the last few years. Trump, Kavanaugh, Epstein... can't
| even keep track of the scandals anymore. Did anyone care?
| Half the country kept voting red as before, the other half
| blue.
|
| Nothing really changed, and nobody was held accountable for
| anything of note. The media has been reporting a LOT,
| people are just... outta fucks to give? It's like a mix of
| compassion fatigue and learned helplessness... not really
| sure what normal people can do when there's a class of
| people unaccountable to the law, the media, or anything
| really. Their cronies are all in business and government
| together, with no checks and balances. It's not the media's
| fault we have zero accountability for our elites.
| bumby wrote:
| > _degradation of our civil liberties, rights...I 've donated
| money to the EFF and ACLU_
|
| The tough part is that it's hard to find find organizations
| that still defend the core principles without caveats. The
| ACLU used to be a neutral defender of free speech, but now
| they seem to have lost that.
|
| _" The Times reports that at a recent ACLU event, "A law
| professor argued that the free-speech rights of the far right
| were not worthy of defense by the ACLU. ... [And] an ACLU
| official said it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to
| decline to defend hate speech."_
|
| Every organization seems to get more polarized and, with
| that, principles may get sidelined.
|
| https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/558433-the-aclus-
| ci... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-
| speech.html
| car_analogy wrote:
| They defended free speech when free speech, as a whole,
| served to advance their political goals, even if specific
| instances of it didn't (e.g. KKK rallies).
|
| Now that their politics are the norm, the effects of free
| speech are less clear, and so is the ACLU's defense of it.
|
| _When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because
| that is according to your principles; when I am stronger
| than you, I take away your freedom because that is
| according to my principles._ - Frank Herbert, Children of
| Dune
| [deleted]
| gmuslera wrote:
| Consume even more Soma?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| This article reminded me of how many damn agencies we have spying
| on us. People regularly talk about the FBI, CIA, and NSA but
| there are like ten other US intelligence agencies.
|
| The US Intelligence Community contains 17 organizations,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Com...
| and that's not counting any state or local organizations that
| Blueleaks showed are doing similar things. Sure Google is making
| it seem normal to give up our information, but it's also hard to
| continue being angry when you hear that the DIA and DHS are also
| spying on us.
| [deleted]
| mjreacher wrote:
| While it is plausible for any of those agencies to spy on the
| domestic population, and it may definitely be possible that
| some of them need to be combined or removed, you must realize
| that any country will have such agencies as they have important
| roles, particularly for the military and law enforcement. It
| would be rather unwise if the FBI didn't have an intelligence
| branch because there's plenty of analysis to be gained from
| there, for example how drug cartels operate. Similarly, the DIA
| has an important job of accurately finding out the military
| capabilities of other countries. Whether they do bad/illegal
| things or not they are a necessary part of any government.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| You're not making a great case by saying we need to stop the
| drug cartels that exist because of prohibition and keep track
| of the military capabilities of countries we probably sold
| arms to.
|
| Neither of those things seem worth empowering a group to have
| the capability of spying on the domestic population.
| zaroth wrote:
| > _"Facebook can try to sell you products, but Facebook can 't
| put you in jail," Goitein explained. "Ideological prosecution or
| suppression isn't in the monetary interest of these companies."_
|
| This is dangerously naive and less than half true. While Facebook
| cannot arrest you, it can cause you to be arrested for something
| that is absolutely not a crime. It can also financially and
| socially ruin you.
|
| And it is most certainly in their financial and ideological
| interests to do so in many occasions.
| holidayacct wrote:
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| It's very chilly in here.
|
| Too afraid to discuss?
| lizardactivist wrote:
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| As the article says, there's little _to_ discuss:
|
| > First, details about the programs exposed recently are
| scarce. ... Snowden's disclosures, in contrast, included weeks
| of reporting on specific programs backed by leaked documents,
| making it easier for media and the public to latch onto the
| story.
| zibzab wrote:
| Yeah, but once we had the proof we realized that the
| conspiracy theorists around the world wouldn't recognize a
| real conspiracy it it hit them on the head.
|
| Why do you think the UFO and Area-51 conspiracy theories
| peaked around that time? Because it was always about keeping
| your head in the sand, while believing you are enlightened.
| tormock wrote:
| Hypothetical: If you had a law enforcement agency
| spying/harassing you, what would you do? If they would make it
| hard to prove?
| technobabbler wrote:
| Make a web series out of it and livestream it? Have your
| viewers vote on what kind of donuts to send? Silly, but
| probably a better choice than becoming the next Ted Kaczynski.
| pengaru wrote:
| As someone who experienced something along these lines through
| some kind of sloppy guilt by association (frequently computed
| from a cafe a drug dealer operated out of when he got busted),
| I don't even have to answer hypothetically.
|
| Ignored it, made sure my ducks were in a row, and basically
| waited for them to lose interest - budgets for such individual
| surveillance are presumably finite. Eventually the most visible
| manned surveillance ceased occurring, IIRC it lasted at least a
| few months. It was a very annoying experience.
|
| But the population-wide omnipresent automated surveillance is a
| different beast entirely. When it involves manpower actually
| watching and following someone it can't last forever.
|
| I'm sure people are regularly being caught up in mass location
| and communications metadata surveillance nets thanks to their
| phones being in the vicinity of criminal activity like whore
| houses and/or illegal drug dens. The cost is so low for
| sustaining that kind of thing it's basically an honor system
| from where I'm sitting that they ever stop.
| 2xpress wrote:
| One way to make it less likely to get caught up in a mass-
| location harvesting case is to disable GPS on phone,
| especially on a non-de-googled Android phone. I'd also
| recommend paying with cash whenever that is an option.
| Another biggie is not to vote for politicians supporting
| public surveillance laws, and to cast an abstention vote when
| no anti-public-surveillance candidate is available. The
| abstention sends a signal to other prospective candidates
| that the election-winning politicians are not un-defeatable
| by a candidate better aligned with the voters who abstained.
| specialist wrote:
| Everyone, living and dead, within the Pax Americana sphere is
| tracked in near real time. Including everyone's economic
| activity, movements, communications, relationships, interests,
| and affinities.
|
| These additional disclosures merely confirm additional pieces of
| overall panopticon are in fact operational.
|
| (I don't know the current state of medical record sharing. Back
| when I worked in healthcare IT, mid 2000s, we had datafeeds to
| the CDC and others for public health stuff, deaths, births. No
| matter; What isn't explicit can largely be inferred from other
| datasets.)
|
| One darkly humorous aspect is that we're still arguing about
| stuff like census, gun licenses, voter registration databases,
| etc. Those tasks could be done with straightforward queries, with
| almost no errors, no drama necessary.
| Atheros wrote:
| If the census, gun licenses, and voter registration were done
| as you suggest then you would simply move the drama to those
| other databases.
|
| There are powerful people who can legally attempt to increase
| their power by introducing errors into the census. Same with
| voter registration. The errors and subsequent drama are
| purposeful!
| MrYellowP wrote:
| Generally speaking nobody cares.
|
| Given the modern echo chamber, unless people actively spread
| news/information to those who aren't usually exposed to it, it
| simply won't ever reach them.
|
| That, of course, is no guarantee. There's tons of people who
| solely believe the mass media.
|
| The biggest problem is, though, that apparently _everyone_ keeps
| believing them again and again and again, whenever the topic
| switches. From one crisis to the next people literally forget
| that they can not and should not trust both their governments and
| mass media.
|
| Fascinating, isn't it?
| archhn wrote:
| I'm inclined to use the word "terrifying." Some people I know
| call me "crazy" every time I take a position which contradicts
| MSM. They fully believe that the T.V. is giving them the
| unadulterated truth of all matters that should concern them.
| rendall wrote:
| I suspect the MSM engaging in coordinated lying on behalf of
| the powerful has been going on for at least half a century if
| not longer. The rise of the internet has allowed us, the
| audience, to independently falsify their accounts and listen
| to alternate perspectives, but I find it endlessly baffling
| that large numbers of people still just... allow their
| reality to be exactly what the MSM pundits tell them it is.
| westmeal wrote:
| I suspect it's easier and comforting to not think about the
| terrible reality of our world, and to have an 'official'
| perspective is to be able to move on with your life.
| archhn wrote:
| There are essentially two mentalities I've observed in
| people around me.
|
| 1. The Optimist. Believes they live in "the best of all
| worlds" and everything always works out for the best--
| Voltare satirizes this idealism in Candide.
|
| 2. The Broken Nihilist. Believes everything is bull shit.
| Everyone is a liar, civilization is a scam, and all human
| interaction is a power struggle.
|
| The optimist doesn't feel the need to worry about
| anything because they believe some magic force will make
| everything right for them. They thus are more susceptible
| to deception because they believe there can be no bad
| consequences of their actions...they are living a magical
| life in the best of all worlds...nothing can go wrong.
|
| The nihilist, as we may suspect, is naturally immune to
| deception within the bounds of his reasoning capacity.
| This gives him an advantage over the optimist...and he
| always looks down upon the optimist as an idiot.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Fascinating, isn't it?
|
| Yes. From a human psychology POV it's absolutely
| fascinating (in the sense of being an open puzzle that
| compels one to ask deep questions).
|
| It concerns much more than illegal mass surveillance.
| What is truly astonishing is the distance between the
| stories we tell ourselves and the reality we inhabit.
| It's the same denial and rationalisation that means we
| can cope with climate emergency.
|
| Our age is the spectacle of the chasm. There's an
| enormous gulf between our mythology - what we tell
| ourselves about our rational civilisation, our
| empowerment by technology, our omniscient knowledge, our
| social contract, our freedom... etc - and the reality -
| that we have almost no basis for reason (except within
| narrow confines of science), are dominated by our
| technology, live in ignorance and fear, have torn up
| social contracts and become slaves to 19th century
| ideologies.
|
| This is the interregnum in which you can have revelations
| on the scale of Snowden exposing colossal constitutional
| violations, and have people shrug.
|
| >> to have an 'official' perspective is to be able to
| move on with your life
|
| Except people don't. They pretend to. In reality they
| move on with a shadow of what approximates to life under
| the conditions of extraordinary dissonance. They become
| docile, domesticated shells of real people for whom
| cultural, educational, economic and spiritual life
| dimensions are crippled. The awareness of dominance
| doesn't magically vanish, it is sublimated into broad
| cynicism, sarcasm, duplicity and inability to trust or
| believe in anything.
|
| Don't mistake tolerance for the effects being rendered
| harmless by wilful ignorance.
| archhn wrote:
| Excellent description of what's happening.
|
| Just look at all the mentally crippled people who resort
| to psychoactive drugs in order to quell the raging
| dissonance within them. They know something is wrong, but
| they've been conditioned to accept the system...so the
| only remaining culprit is themselves...and the
| psychiatric machinery is there to convince them they are
| sick.
|
| When I was struggling to confront our harsh reality, I
| just thought I was depressed. Those around me convinced
| me to go to the doctor and they played along. This
| scenario is playing out everywhere. People are being told
| they are sick when it's our society that is sick.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Plenty of people are also sick.
| randcraw wrote:
| IMHO, the problem with spying on citizens is that it's a double
| edged sword. We'd be nuts not to gather useful info on serious
| violations of law to improve national security (FBI) or local
| safety (local police). But abuse of such inherently secret info
| is difficult to oversee and harder still to effectively regulate.
|
| On one hand, oversight of spying programs always reveals some
| details about what nfo was gathered, either as dutiful proof of
| its proper use to the public, or in court cases as part of the
| chain of evidence. But doing this inevitably reveals something
| about _what_ info was gathered and _how_ , thereby weakening the
| future value of that source as people (or perps) learn to
| mistrust it and take greater pains to protect their sensitive
| info.
|
| On the other hand, NOT revealing data that was gathered invites
| its abuse, especially by orgs with minimal oversight (and
| scruples). Too often, law enforcement sees oversight of their
| practices as being equally as inimical as the perpetrators they
| pursue.
|
| I suspect the only way to sustainably manage this dance of
| mistrust is to change the role of police so that oversight is
| built into their culture, where they know someone is always
| watching their back -- both in offering support to help them do a
| sometimes impossible job, as well as in demanding that they not
| abuse the special authority their job demands. In terms of their
| access to sensitive info, this must include enforcable strictures
| on their special access to info that should NOT be shared with
| others, like the client-servant privacy privileges demanded of
| lawyers or doctors.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I suspect the Fourth Amendment debate got sniped by the Defund
| the Police movement. They have overlap in their bases. But the
| latter is more radical. That turned the public away from
| regulating police powers.
| infogulch wrote:
| That seems reasonable, and invites the question of whether it
| was deliberately planted to relieve the pressure that was
| building up around the Fourth, because "Defund the Police" is
| obviously stupid and unsustainable on its face and any
| reasonable person will realize this eventually.
| snarf21 wrote:
| Your opinion feels a lot like "I don't have anything to hide"
| kind of argument. We should just not be spying on people
| without express probable cause. We already have built in
| tracking for cells phones that people don't seem to realize or
| care. The other point is that we've seen nothing but continued
| confirmation that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The
| police (et al) have shown that they can't be trusted with this
| power.
| afpx wrote:
| How do you get probable cause (say, for a potential terrorist
| attack) without spying? People organizing mass violence tend
| to hide their tracks pretty well.
|
| Personally, I think the risk of terrorist attacks is pretty
| low compared to other risks. But, at a certain point it needs
| to be addressed.
| perfecthjrjth wrote:
| That's what "parallel construction" achieves!!
| nine_k wrote:
| The poster's point is that even _lawfully_ collected info is
| sensitive, and the forces that collect it should be
| structured so that spilling or misusing it would be curbed by
| checks and balances.
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| > We already have built in tracking for cells phones that
| people don't seem to realize or care.
|
| It's in most cars, too.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| On a recent senate committee hearing about authoritarianism the
| US said Russia is more synchronized in their message of using
| propaganda and that the US needs to figure out how we can do the
| same.
|
| In calling out authoritarianism their response is in order to fix
| it we should be more like them. The US could in the same sentence
| tell you why it is not okay to start war but it is okay if they
| do it.
| glasshug wrote:
| Maybe I can be the first to speak to the actual Wyden-Heinrich
| letter [1].
|
| I hope I don't sound like a spook when I say: there's been no
| splash because there's no (public) substance. Having read the
| 70-page PCLOB report [2], I can summarize it as:
|
| - the CIA has EO 12333 authority to perform bulk surveillance
|
| - they use it to [redacted], including financial transactions
|
| - they have a [redacted] internal process to review its use which
| potentially has some gaps and vagueness
|
| Sens. Wyden and Heinrich probably have more shocking secret info
| too. But yeah, I'd expect people to not react to these vague
| disclosures the same way they did 2013's detailed leaks.
|
| [1]
| https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HainesBurns_Wyden...
|
| [2]
| https://www.cia.gov/static/63f697addbbd30a4d64432ff28bbc6d6/...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-20 23:01 UTC)