Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Glenn Greenwald publishes classified materials stolen from the US government. This IS a repeat   (cnn.com) divider line 118
    More: Followup, United States, Glenn Greenwald, underwear bomber, National Counterterrorism Center, Edward Snowden, Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, Reliable Sources  
•       •       •

7239 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Aug 2014 at 8:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-05 03:32:51 PM  
Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?
 
2014-08-05 03:35:53 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?


Do you hate freedom that much?
 
2014-08-05 03:37:33 PM  
Since everything the government does these days is considered "classified", I'm having a problem getting too outraged

/frikkin office supply orders are classified, FFS
 
2014-08-05 03:38:40 PM  
ZOMG lists of names.
 
2014-08-05 03:40:56 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Since everything the government does these days is considered "classified", I'm having a problem getting too outraged


That is a big part of the problem.
 
2014-08-05 03:42:09 PM  

James!: ZOMG lists of names.


Yeah, you won't be laughing once you realize your name is on it, bub.  Secret Agent James!, code name: Countess.
 
2014-08-05 03:46:50 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?


No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)
 
2014-08-05 03:47:39 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: James!: ZOMG lists of names.

Yeah, you won't be laughing once you realize your name is on it, bub.  Secret Agent James!, code name: Countess.


It's Contessa, damnit.
 
2014-08-05 03:53:33 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


Do you think that all reporting on leaked classified documents should be punished with jail?
 
2014-08-05 03:53:33 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


This is fark, where the governement and law enforcement are all criminals the people who commit crimes are real american heroes sticking it to the man.
 
2014-08-05 03:53:38 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


Publishing them is not a crime. Greenwald has signed no documents to abide by any US national security laws. If he is inciting or paying someone to leak them, that might be one thing. If he did not actively seek to solicit this stuff, he is not a criminal. The government didn't criminally prosecute anyone at the New York Times or the Washington Post after they ran the contents of the Pentagon Papers. They tried (and failed) to enjoin those papers from running the articles. It's not a crime for the press to publish classified material leaked to them.
 
2014-08-05 04:02:30 PM  

Nabb1: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)

Publishing them is not a crime. Greenwald has signed no documents to abide by any US national security laws. If he is inciting or paying someone to leak them, that might be one thing. If he did not actively seek to solicit this stuff, he is not a criminal. The government didn't criminally prosecute anyone at the New York Times or the Washington Post after they ran the contents of the Pentagon Papers. They tried (and failed) to enjoin those papers from running the articles. It's not a crime for the press to publish classified material leaked to them.


Greenwald has made it pretty clear that post-Snowden, he's open to publishing more such leaks.  Sounds like an open solicitation of leaked data to me.

Your points are valid, no flaming here.  Just adding a counter-point.
 
2014-08-05 04:06:59 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Greenwald has made it pretty clear that post-Snowden, he's open to publishing more such leaks.  Sounds like an open solicitation of leaked data to me.

Your points are valid, no flaming here.  Just adding a counter-point.


It's cool. Solicitation requires more than just, "Hey, if anyone wants to leak more stuff, I'll publish it." If he sought out someone and actively enticed that specific person to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise, then maybe. If he sought out and paid someone to do it, then he'd probably be in trouble.
 
2014-08-05 04:21:28 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


May want to read the Pentagon papers case again.   The US has no analogue of the Official Secrets Act nor would such an act be Constitutional.   If you swear an oath to handle classified documents and you give them to me you HAVE committed a crime.  But if  I chose to Publish them and I have no security clearance?   Tough luck for the classifiers
 
2014-08-05 04:31:30 PM  

Magorn: But if  I chose to Publish them and I have no security clearance?   Tough luck for the classifiers


Yep, I get that...and that's the part that I think needs to be changed (within reason)

So, perhaps a middle ground:  You can publish them, but the Feds have the right to challenge the release in court.  If the feds can prove (in open court) that the release of said data poses an immediate and deadly threat to us personnel or provides material advantages to known enemies, then the publisher gets cuffed.  Otherwise, the publisher goes home for a beer.

Obviously, the feds' burden of proof has to be very, very high, but it does open the door for a truly disastrous leaker/publisher to be punished.  (e.g.-greenwald publishes a leaked list detailing the GPS location of every soldier in Kabul)

IMO, that should allow the press to continue as-is, but provide a legal backstop against insanity.

/dons flame-retardant suit
 
2014-08-05 04:31:59 PM  

Nabb1: Publishing them is not a crime. Greenwald has signed no documents to abide by any US national security laws. If he is inciting or paying someone to leak them, that might be one thing. If he did not actively seek to solicit this stuff, he is not a criminal. The government didn't criminally prosecute anyone at the New York Times or the Washington Post after they ran the contents of the Pentagon Papers. They tried (and failed) to enjoin those papers from running the articles. It's not a crime for the press to publish classified material leaked to them.


^ This.

And if this information is so damn secret, the government should keep better track of it.

The real problem is that the "secret" information that's been leaked by Greenwald so far is really not so much "secret" (everyone knew about the wiretapping), as much as the confirmation it was being done on every phone line in America.  Verizon and AT&T violated Federal wiretap laws possibly many millions of times.

And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon.  They all hate Greenwald on instead.

We can thank our "news" media for that.
 
2014-08-05 04:39:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon


Perhaps it is just me, but I just always assumed that my cell carrier is tapping the customers' lines, or at least caching the voice calls in aggregate.  Just as cable/SAT firms are logging what you're watching to some degree.

Not saying it's right, but that might explain why folks had a collective 'meh' on that aspect of it.
 
2014-08-05 04:41:30 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon

Perhaps it is just me, but I just always assumed that my cell carrier is tapping the customers' lines, or at least caching the voice calls in aggregate.  Just as cable/SAT firms are logging what you're watching to some degree.

Not saying it's right, but that might explain why folks had a collective 'meh' on that aspect of it.


You used to get on your phone bill a list of all the calls you made and the duration. You can still get it, but you have to ask for it.
 
2014-08-05 04:55:15 PM  
why not link to The Intercept instead of shiatty CNN?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/08/05/watch-commande r/
 
2014-08-05 06:01:30 PM  

drew46n2: why not link to The Intercept instead of shiatty CNN?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/08/05/watch-commande r/


sorry, it was the first link I saw.  :(

/subby
 
2014-08-05 06:57:22 PM  
 I'm wondering when politicians will finally get a clue that the public is fed up with the government's abuse of power.  Oh wait, they gave the government that power to begin with...guess we'll be waiting until hell freezes over.
 
2014-08-05 08:24:36 PM  

Nabb1: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Greenwald has made it pretty clear that post-Snowden, he's open to publishing more such leaks.  Sounds like an open solicitation of leaked data to me.

Your points are valid, no flaming here.  Just adding a counter-point.

It's cool. Solicitation requires more than just, "Hey, if anyone wants to leak more stuff, I'll publish it." If he sought out someone and actively enticed that specific person to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise, then maybe. If he sought out and paid someone to do it, then he'd probably be in trouble.


Semi-related question/discussion topic, since the Pentagon papers have already been brought up here...

In this now all-digital age, is the 'freedom to print' shield doing as much harm as good?  I'm not implying that it should be removed (it should never be removed in totality), but can/should it still be the invincible umbrella that it has been in the past?

To put it another way: Does the freedom to print leaked info have a limit?  It seemingly hasn't in the past (age of paper), but should it going forward (digital age)?
 
2014-08-05 08:32:30 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Nabb1: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Greenwald has made it pretty clear that post-Snowden, he's open to publishing more such leaks.  Sounds like an open solicitation of leaked data to me.

Your points are valid, no flaming here.  Just adding a counter-point.

It's cool. Solicitation requires more than just, "Hey, if anyone wants to leak more stuff, I'll publish it." If he sought out someone and actively enticed that specific person to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise, then maybe. If he sought out and paid someone to do it, then he'd probably be in trouble.

Semi-related question/discussion topic, since the Pentagon papers have already been brought up here...

In this now all-digital age, is the 'freedom to print' shield doing as much harm as good?  I'm not implying that it should be removed (it should never be removed in totality), but can/should it still be the invincible umbrella that it has been in the past?

To put it another way: Does the freedom to print leaked info have a limit?  It seemingly hasn't in the past (age of paper), but should it going forward (digital age)?


I would say no. I think in this age, "publish" is the same as "print." I think once it gets out by way of a leak, there is nothing the government can do. It can't put the horse back in the barn. The feds have tested prior restraints and been soundly beaten back by the Supreme Court. As it should be. If the government wants to keep secrets, then it has to find a way to keep them secret.
 
2014-08-05 08:57:20 PM  
Considering how the NSA tracks people, are these 'people of interest' or 'possible terrorists'.  I know, the answer is both.

My point here is wording, I don't trust the US government to do the right thing here.
 
2014-08-05 09:02:17 PM  
So Greenwald released a list of people the government is keeping an eye on?

Wow. Can't imagine why anyone would be upset about that. Sure, a good number of them are likely actual criminals, but because some others might not be, that justifies letting said criminals know the feds are on their trail!
 
2014-08-05 09:06:57 PM  
Is this the big news Greenwald promised months back?

This is going to happen more and more, I think. The intelligence community is certainly at an interesting point in its history.

Interesting article about intelligence agencies, their strategies, and their employees moving forward:  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/28/spy_kids_nsa_surveill ance_next_generation
 
2014-08-05 09:07:24 PM  
i172.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-05 09:11:25 PM  

James!: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon

Perhaps it is just me, but I just always assumed that my cell carrier is tapping the customers' lines, or at least caching the voice calls in aggregate.  Just as cable/SAT firms are logging what you're watching to some degree.

Not saying it's right, but that might explain why folks had a collective 'meh' on that aspect of it.

You used to get on your phone bill a list of all the calls you made and the duration. You can still get it, but you have to ask for it.


When I log into AT&T (either mobile or on their website), there is a PDF copy of the bill detail right there with all of that information.

This has been the case for some time now.
 
2014-08-05 09:11:43 PM  

LordJiro: So Greenwald released a list of people the government is keeping an eye on?

Wow. Can't imagine why anyone would be upset about that. Sure, a good number of them are likely actual criminals, but because some others might not be, that justifies letting said criminals know the feds are on their trail!


Wouldn't any terrorist worth his weight assume the US government is tracking them?

I only saw an overview but didn't it say that almost 500,000 people were added to the list in a year many of them having no affiliation to a terrorist organization.

Of course the government is upset. Can you understand why the leaker would decide to do this? I can't imagine it is a simple decision to make.
 
2014-08-05 09:14:06 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?


Secrets only protect the guilty and imprison the innocent.
 
2014-08-05 09:17:54 PM  
I don't really understand what "This IS a repeat" offers that "this is not a repeat" does not already do.
 
2014-08-05 09:18:49 PM  
Of course, this could just be the US government releasing made up crap so they can figure out who the leak is. Make the bogus info available to a limited number of people and see if you can eliminate some people who couldn't have sent the leaked item.

/ we still have some spooks who know how to operate
 
2014-08-05 09:19:57 PM  
Good for him. Now, publish more.
 
2014-08-05 09:20:58 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


If you don't like it, move to North Korea.
 
2014-08-05 09:22:05 PM  

James!: Benevolent Misanthrope: James!: ZOMG lists of names.

Yeah, you won't be laughing once you realize your name is on it, bub.  Secret Agent James!, code name: Countess.

It's Contessa, damnit.


So you're Secret Agent Woman?
 
2014-08-05 09:23:39 PM  

James!: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon

Perhaps it is just me, but I just always assumed that my cell carrier is tapping the customers' lines, or at least caching the voice calls in aggregate.  Just as cable/SAT firms are logging what you're watching to some degree.

Not saying it's right, but that might explain why folks had a collective 'meh' on that aspect of it.

You used to get on your phone bill a list of all the calls you made and the duration. You can still get it, but you have to ask for it.


Huh?  I can log on to my account anytime and get a listing of my activity.

/Sprint customer.
 
2014-08-05 09:24:56 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


If there's ever a side to err on, it's giving too much information.
 
2014-08-05 09:25:09 PM  

slayer199: I'm wondering when politicians will finally get a clue that the public is fed up with the government's abuse of power.  Oh wait, they gave the government that power to begin with...guess we'll be waiting until hell freezes over.


What makes you think that anybody in government gives a damn about what the public thinks? As George Carlin said, they only let us vote because it doesn't matter.
 
2014-08-05 09:25:35 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


Well, if the government isn't doing anything wrong, it has nothing to hide.
 
2014-08-05 09:27:15 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon

Perhaps it is just me, but I just always assumed that my cell carrier is tapping the customers' lines, or at least caching the voice calls in aggregate.  Just as cable/SAT firms are logging what you're watching to some degree.

Not saying it's right, but that might explain why folks had a collective 'meh' on that aspect of it.


Been going for quite awhile nothing new.
 
2014-08-05 09:27:57 PM  

DrPainMD: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)

If you don't like it, move to North Korea.


This is ridiculous. Stop.
 
2014-08-05 09:29:37 PM  

eas81: James!: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon

Perhaps it is just me, but I just always assumed that my cell carrier is tapping the customers' lines, or at least caching the voice calls in aggregate.  Just as cable/SAT firms are logging what you're watching to some degree.

Not saying it's right, but that might explain why folks had a collective 'meh' on that aspect of it.

You used to get on your phone bill a list of all the calls you made and the duration. You can still get it, but you have to ask for it.

Huh?  I can log on to my account anytime and get a listing of my activity.

/Sprint customer.


That would be asking for it.
 
2014-08-05 09:29:59 PM  

DrPainMD: slayer199: I'm wondering when politicians will finally get a clue that the public is fed up with the government's abuse of power.  Oh wait, they gave the government that power to begin with...guess we'll be waiting until hell freezes over.

What makes you think that anybody in government gives a damn about what the public thinks? As George Carlin said, they only let us vote because it doesn't matter.


It isn't like the intelligence community is made up of elected officials. I would imagine they have considerable power over the politicians for exactly that reason.
 
2014-08-05 09:31:07 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: eas81: James!: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: And yet I see no Americans outraged at AT&T and Verizon

Perhaps it is just me, but I just always assumed that my cell carrier is tapping the customers' lines, or at least caching the voice calls in aggregate.  Just as cable/SAT firms are logging what you're watching to some degree.

Not saying it's right, but that might explain why folks had a collective 'meh' on that aspect of it.

You used to get on your phone bill a list of all the calls you made and the duration. You can still get it, but you have to ask for it.

Huh?  I can log on to my account anytime and get a listing of my activity.

/Sprint customer.

That would be asking for it.


No, that is accessing something that is made available to you without a request.
 
2014-08-05 09:31:59 PM  
img.fark.net

This guy probably set up the canary trap that demonstrated there was a new source.
 
2014-08-05 09:47:55 PM  

ManateeGag: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)

This is fark, where the governement and law enforcement are all criminals the people who commit crimes are real american heroes sticking it to the man.


I didn't think people like you dared post after the Iraq war.

Perhaps you didn't soil yourself then, or you have no shame?
 
2014-08-05 09:49:38 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)


You seem more upset over the leaks over the documents than the fact that the Gov. is slaughtering the Constitution in secret.
 
2014-08-05 09:50:28 PM  
The sad part is, even if the founding fathers came back at this point, they would be too obsessed with garbage disposals to do anything about this.
 
2014-08-05 09:52:28 PM  
This is all making Obama look bad by now, so now everyone is back to sucking government balls.

Integrity, what is it
 
2014-08-05 09:52:36 PM  

TheOmni: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Marcus Aurelius: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Since he's back in the "publishing classified docs that were illegally obtained" game, NOW can someone put his ass in jail?

Do you hate freedom that much?

No, but I do hate people who provide assistance to thieves and leakers.  Perhaps the Feds do classify too much stuff, but that's another topic (and a valid one to be sure)

That doesn't change the fact that someone is leaking classified docs (a crime), and someone is acting as a go-between to receive and publish them (also a crime)

Do you think that all reporting on leaked classified documents should be punished with jail?


No, but wouldn't it be nice if Glenn Greenwald, self-professed protector of the rights of the free world that he claims to be, would release all these leaked documents at once, instead of tantalizingly dribbling them out a drop at a time as if they were the newly-discovered Marilyn Monroe sex diaries?

One of the main reasons I have trouble taking Snowden, Greenwald, and their ilk with anything less than extreme contempt is their sensationalist attitude toward their material. It's not "Here's this incredible stuff the public needs to know right now," it's more like "Wow, you're going to be so impressed when I let you see what I haven't showed you yet! Maaaayyyybe I'll let you see some of it next week...or maybe not."

If it's that important and damaging, we need to see it all, now. Otherwise, they're no better than the governments they pretend to despise.
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report