Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses Government Privacy Security

Greenwald Advises Market-Based Solution To Mass Surveillance 157

Nicola Hahn writes In his latest Intercept piece Glenn Greenwald considers the recent defeat of the Senate's USA Freedom Act. He remarks that governments "don't walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power." Instead of appealing to an allegedly irrelevant Congress Greenwald advocates utilizing the power of consumer demand to address the failings of cyber security. Specifically he argues that companies care about their bottom line and that the trend of customers refusing to tolerate insecure products will force companies to protect user privacy, implement encryption, etc. All told Greenwald's argument is very telling: that society can rely on corporate interests for protection. Is it true that representative government is a lost cause and that lawmakers would never knowingly yield authority? There are people who think that advising citizens to devolve into consumers is a dubious proposition.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenwald Advises Market-Based Solution To Mass Surveillance

Comments Filter:
  • by globaljustin ( 574257 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @01:40AM (#48431813) Journal

    Just asking this question (in a serious context) is foolish and ruining America:

    Greenwald's argument is very telling: that society can rely on corporate interests for protection. Is it true that representative government is a lost cause and that lawmakers would never knowingly yield authority?

    The enemies of freedom want us to be asking fsking moronic questions like this!

    **of course 'representative government' isn't a lost cause**

    The fact that we are even putting this on /. is the thing that is actually "very telling"...it shows people have forgotten the basics of being a free individual

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Indeed. People should shut up and remember the real freedom - that is consuming, watching Kardashians on TV and bitching about taxes.

      Please ignore these trolls who tell you differently. They are ENEMIES OF THE FREEDOM!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Aighearach ( 97333 )

      I'm not at all surprised. Remember, the first thing Greenwald released from the Snowden stuff was the powerpoint slides that misrepresented the programs (because it was prepared by a contractor who wasn't actually using the stuff they were training!) He leaked out something like 8 months of lies and misrepresentations before the real programs got leaked, and by then most people had stopped paying attention to the details.

      I always assume he's the NSA damage-control guy.

      • Yeah, everybody should just trust the large corporations to ensure your personal privacy, please ignore how it's been violated for the past 10 years through the use of NSL's and secret warrants that the corporations couldn't tell you about, and that the administration [either R or D] will then use some other secret interpretation of laws and previous secret interpretations/rules to order the corporations to install secret back doors into their systems, with "your company will go bankrupt" sized penalties if

    • The summary is misleading anyways. Greenwald does dismiss the possibility of true reform from US legislation anytime soon. But he says:

      Those limitations are going to come from-are now coming from very different places:

      1. 1. Individuals refusing to use internet services that compromise their privacy.

      In that section, it does say: "Instead, these changes are taking place because these companies are petrified that the perception of their collaboration with the NSA will harm their future profits, " from which

      • I agree that the article is misrepresented badly. I read the article long before it was posted here and what I drew from it was that Greenwald seemed to advocating that the solution to mass surveillance would start from bottom up activism, such as boycotts and demonstrations, and not from congress spontaneously deciding that they would play nice. Which is honestly how democracy really works. If congress is failing to reign in mass surveillance it is because they don't fear losing their jobs over their fa

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      I agree, but it's still worth pestering corporations to get what we want. They have a lot of power, and a lot of money for lobbying. If we can align Google's or Apple's interests with our own we can take advantage of that.

      It's a dangerous game but democracy is so broken in the US it's what you are left with.

      • Really? Because my immediate reaction was to laugh out loud at the naivete. Companies care about bottom lines. They don't care about security, as amply demonstrated by banks which can have vulnerabilities pointed out to them, and then try to criminally prosecute the guy who tells them, and don't fix the problem.

        This has happened over and over right here on Slashdot.

        • by anagama ( 611277 )

          Companies care about bottom lines.

          Exactly and that's the point. If a flight of customers is going to make a business go under, that business is going to bitch to reps/senators and then something will happen.

          To get there though, users must engage in flight to alternatives in a recognizable pattern. You think Google would totally not care if there was a demonstration day, where say google's usage rate dropped by a third and DuckDuckGo's septupled or whatever? Google would totally notice. So would DDG for

    • Actually, in response to a government that seems to give less than a concerned moment for privacy, and happiness and rights as individuals, we should seek to secure our data to prevent their current run of abuses. If everyone encrypts and goes iundergroud with their data we can make the laws as written wholly irrelevant. Your thoughts about being free are sound and I agree with the goal, but the right now of it all doesn't give us a drop of secrecy, until we either revolt, vote out a lame congress etc. It i

      • In a cyberwar those who know what they are doing and those that control the network have a huge advantage over those who don't. Trying to get the government to work by "voting with your dollars" will likely result in the corporations lying to you while they continue to submit to government demands in secret.
    • by Shark ( 78448 )

      I think a good point is being made that corporations are a lot better at telling the government what to do than the citizenry. Interestingly, that also boils down to corporations caring a lot more about protecting their interests. Maybe they understand what the masses do not: Ultimately, your very existence depends on it.

      • by digsbo ( 1292334 )
        So long as the corporations don't get special legal protections from the government, I'm not sure that's a problem. If Wal-Mart agents come to my house to force me to buy their stuff, I shoot them. I can't do that with government agents - whether those government agents are acting on the corporation's orders, or mine.
    • In American politics 'everyone' says voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. And just about everyone believes this lie. When you vote third party the democrats and republicans look for ways to take those 'lost' votes. And that means they borrow policies from the third parties. So even though the little guy will never form the government he's still influencing the nation. A vote for a third party is a vote for change.
    • **of course 'representative government' isn't a lost cause**

      Indeed. In my opinion just adding a federal recall procedure would fix a lot of mess in USA. Campaign funding should also be addressed, but is is a secondary problem once the elected knows he/she can be thrown out for misbehaving.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Case in point: Google.

  • lawmakers would never knowingly yield authority

    I can see how Greenwald would think that. He isn't in the business of buying and selling their authority.
  • Greenwald is either a deluded Randroid (but honestly, is there any other kind?) or a front for those pushing corporatism for the sake of those who run large corporations.

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @02:49AM (#48432011) Journal
      The success of Google and Facebook, as well as the enthusiasm of some for surveillance ("hey, I've got nothing to hide") show us that people don't give a toss about privacy. We care a little bit for security where our credit cards and naked selfies are concerned, and there may be a smallish market for secure, encrypted products and services, but that's doesn't mean corporate interests are aligned with our own when it comes to security. Quite the contrary, in a market where the prevailing business model is to hook as many eyeballs as possible with free stuff, and make money by selling their data.

      Telling us to rely on corporations to shield us from an invasive government is like the fox convincing the chicken that it can rely on the wolf for protection. One way or another, you're going to get eaten.
      • There is a significant difference between "giving up privacy to a company that is legally constrained in what they can do with it" and "having privacy taken from you by a government that is already ignoring its self-imposed legal limitations".

        The worst Google can do with my data is serve me bad ads or publicly release it. I'm not important enough for anyone to really care about my indiscretions, and I've not done anything that would make me infamous if it were announced. Unless Google were to try very hard

        • I don't see the difference. You say "legally constrained", but such constraints can only be enforced by government. If the government is pro-surveillance, they will co-opt the corporations that collect information and attack the *cough*Qwest*cough* ones that don't. If the government wants to throw you in Gitmo, they'll get all of Google's information on you. Corporation vs. government will not protect you.

      • Were the full breadth and scope of just how MUCH information big Corp has on everyone come to light, that may change.

        Right now the majority of that information is kept in the dark from the consumer. Most don't realize just how much data can be acquired and what kind of profile can be built against anyone utilizing it. Even if the data is released for public scrutiny, the explanation and implications of it would have to be toned down a bit to fit the typical users understanding of it. ( No law or enginee
  • Representatives in the House are elected every two years, and their districts are small enough that the number of politically active people is limited, especially in midterms. By politically active I mean people who directly affect the local. vote, not those of us who only post on Slashdot.

    With a few hundred people who attend town hall meetings and debates, post on that rep's Facebook wall, call into the local radio station when the rep is on etc, a dozen or so active citizens might well swing a represen

    • Just saying "abolish the NSA" leaves one wide open to the rebuttal "who then will keep on eye on China, Russia, and actual terrorists like ISIS? "

      When ex-NSA employees are suggesting that the NSA is too entrenched to be reformed and has to be rebuilt from the ground up (sorry, I can't find a reference at the moment), maybe it's not such a bad idea.

      But if we don't go that far, an NSA watchdog group might be the next best thing. It could be comprised of EFF, the ACLU, and oh I don't know, Slashdot, Reddit, and 4chan. Sadly, that's probably not the stupidest suggestion so far. But seriously, how were foreign threats monitored prior to the NSA's exist

    • Representatives in the House are elected every two years, and their districts are small enough that the number of politically active people is limited, especially in midterms. By politically active I mean people who directly affect the local. vote, not those of us who only post on Slashdot.
      So the House is completely doable. It just requires a few people _in_each_district_ who care enough to study and understand beyond the headlines, then put in a few hours of time.

      Political effectiveness demands a serious investment in time, money and manpower.

      It can't be done on the cheap.

      There are 435 congressional districts in the United States House of Representatives, with each one representing approximately 700,000 people. These are not small numbers. Congressional district [wikipedia.org]

      • > each one representing approximately 700,000 people.

        Of those 700,000, about 150 will show up to a town hall meeting to let the rep know what they think of some topic. Some are most interested in what's happening with the VA, whatever. Of those 150 who show up, maybe 30 will be there to talk about the NSA and such. When the rep thinks about what voters think about a particular issue, he's guided by a small sample - the 30 people who told him what they think.

    • by NotSanguine ( 1917456 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:39AM (#48432259) Journal

      With a few hundred people who attend town hall meetings and debates, post on that rep's Facebook wall, call into the local radio station when the rep is on etc, a dozen or so active citizens might well swing a representative's vote,

      That's so cute that you believe that! The average congressional campaign [opensecrets.org] cost USD$1.2 million this year. Money talks and it's corporations and other monied interests that are doing the talking, not "concerned citizens." Sure your congressperson will pat you on the head and say "I work hard to make sure our district gets what it needs! I work for you." But the truth is they work for those who pay their way.

      You must think things work as they did back in 1946 [amazon.com] when this was written. Sorry champ. Those days are long gone.

      • With a few hundred people who attend town hall meetings and debates, post on that rep's Facebook wall, call into the local radio station when the rep is on etc, a dozen or so active citizens might well swing a representative's vote,

        That's so cute that you believe that! The average congressional campaign [opensecrets.org] cost USD$1.2 million this year. Money talks and it's corporations and other monied interests that are doing the talking, not "concerned citizens." Sure your congressperson will pat you on the head and say "I work hard to make sure our district gets what it needs! I work for you." But the truth is they work for those who pay their way.

        You must think things work as they did back in 1946 [amazon.com] when this was written. Sorry champ. Those days are long gone.

        Money doesn't talk as much as people think, and the return rate on dollars to candidates elected for SuperPACs remains poor. It only works when the messaging goes unchallenged.

      • Don't forget they spend that $1.2 million on something. They spend that money getting votes by first figuring out what message will work, then promoting that message. In 2008, 72% of candidates used some of their money on a Facebook page to get their message out ( Williams and Gulati 2012). So while the candidates are spending money building just the right Facebook presence to get votes, I suggested "post on that rep's Facebook wall". By doing so, when the candidate spends $1.2MM asking voters to "Like us

      • Those days are long gone.

        You really have to wonder whether "those days" were ever around in the first place.

        Money always talks. The more money you have, the louder you can be. Even on the internet, which equalizes this a bit, money just goes into disinformation rather than information.

    • Just saying "abolish the NSA" leaves one wide open to the rebuttal "who then will keep on eye on China, Russia, and actual terrorists like ISIS? "

      That's not a valid rebuttal in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," or for any free country really. Our fundamental liberties are simply more important than safety, and it's extremely unsettling that most people living in the land of the free don't seem to care at all about the constitution or even our most basic liberties. As far as I'm concerned, such people can move to North Korea, which already has everything they could possibly desire in a government.

  • Government malfunction can only be blamed on the people who vote for crooks. What could be simpler? What is this? Does Greenwald think privacy is going to trickle down? Where have we heard that before? If people cared about their privacy they would vote for politicians that would respect privacy. But they don't. So forget about it. We just have to make the authorities more transparent.

    • Both Parties are crooks. How can you blame the voters for an evil choice when the choices are evil and evil?

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        How can you blame the voters for an evil choice when the choices are evil and evil?

        Because the actual choices are evil, evil, I-don't-know-you, never-heard-of-you, who-are-you and I-don't-care-enough-to-actually-check-who-the-choices-are.

        There are more than two parties in the system. The fact that only two of them matter is what voters can and should be blamed for.

        • The other parties need to put up people who aren't loonies then. In the governor's race for my state there was a libertarian on the ballot, and I thought, "Oh, I might vote for a third party candidate!" So I went to his website and read his platform, and yeah, he wants my state to issue its own currency backed by gold.

          Just saying "vote third party!" misses the point that the third parties have to be worth voting for.

        • Because the actual choices are evil, evil, I-don't-know-you, never-heard-of-you, who-are-you and I-don't-care-enough-to-actually-check-who-the-choices-are.

          And it's naive to assume that I-don't-know-you, never-heard-of-you, and who-are-you aren't just as evil, or at least as enthusiastically corruptible, as the scumbags we keep getting stuck with.

        • by danaris ( 525051 )

          How can you blame the voters for an evil choice when the choices are evil and evil?

          Because the actual choices are evil, evil, I-don't-know-you, never-heard-of-you, who-are-you and I-don't-care-enough-to-actually-check-who-the-choices-are.

          There are more than two parties in the system. The fact that only two of them matter is what voters can and should be blamed for.

          However, as I think you know perfectly well, as long as we have single-selection first-past-the-post voting, it doesn't matter how many parties there are in the system—only the two major ones have more than a snowball's chance in Hell of actually winning more than 1 or 2 legislative seats in anything but the rarest circumstances.

          No; once you've reached the polls, the chance to select better candidates is already long past. If you want a better choice of candidates, then the first answer is "do your be

          • by Tom ( 822 )

            it doesn't matter how many parties there are in the systemâ"only the two major ones have more than a snowball's chance in Hell of actually winning more than 1 or 2 legislative seats in anything but the rarest circumstances.

            And this is true exactly because everyone assumes it is true and adapts their voting behavior accordingly.

            • by danaris ( 525051 )

              it doesn't matter how many parties there are in the systemâ"only the two major ones have more than a snowball's chance in Hell of actually winning more than 1 or 2 legislative seats in anything but the rarest circumstances.

              And this is true exactly because everyone assumes it is true and adapts their voting behavior accordingly.

              Changing a political system, even one as inertia-ridden as we have in the US right now, is easier than changing human nature.

              Dan Aris

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21, 2014 @02:30AM (#48431963)

    Coincidentally, I have stopped using a mobile phone. This is much to the disgust of people around me, apparently it is their right to be able to contact me at any time these days. Failure to give a near instantaneous response causes anger! I have now realised that I was a slave to technology. I'm not willingly going to give any company my money any more. Consumerist propaganda can fuck itself. I am down to spending less than 20% of my income on core expenses (rent/food). Now the power of compounding interest is on my side.

    Fight neo-feudalism. The corporation and government are not my lords. I am free, not a slave. I owe them NOTHING.

    • NoScript for the win! And Ghostery as a safety net when desperate.

      Actually, now you've mentioned it, I don't think I was hassled about the lack of a cellphone by the inlaws last Christmas, nor since. It had been a bit of ritual for the last decade or so. Maybe it's starting to sink in for them.

    • by Tom ( 822 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:58AM (#48432313) Homepage Journal

      Coincidentally, I have stopped using a mobile phone. This is much to the disgust of people around me, apparently it is their right to be able to contact me at any time these days.

      You don't have to ditch your phone to do that. You can simply realize that answering it is still a choice.

      You can let a call go to voicemail. You can leave a text message sitting there, waiting for answer until it's convenient for you to answer it. It's possible, you know?

      I love my iPhone because it puts things into my pocket that are useful to me. Maps, reminders, calendar, notes, and occasionally writing a mail or checking something on the Internet. I very rarely answer mails on my phone, for example.

      • by RyoShin ( 610051 )

        He could also be concerned about tracking via the cellphone, a reason to get rid of it entirely.

        But even outside of that, some people just seem addicted to their devices (in metaphor if not in the literal sense), and the only way to break that is to get rid of it entirely. You wouldn't expect an alcoholic to keep beer around in case his friends want a cold one when they visit, so to me it's quite reasonable to toss the phone entirely.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Now the power of compounding interest is on my side.

      You get enough interest on your money to matter? Can I get the name of your bank?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        It's probably stocks. Making him the corporate lord.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      They are not upset that they can't contact you instantly, they are upset that contacting you is quite a bit harder. I'm guessing you don't have a Facebook account either... So basically they can call your land line and hope you are there. No calling your mobile, no text messages. It's an extra burden for them, and they don't understand your objection to being tracked.

      • It also tends to be that people who forego cellphones still choose to utilize everyone else's. At some point that's a violation of the social contract - you're making yourself uncontactable, but taking advantage of that utility surrounding everyone else. Moreover, you're also starting to demand people adhere to your schedule on your terms: see complaining that people won't kowtow to your contact hours.

    • by klek ( 1237566 )

      I am free, not a slave.

      Ah!-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaa! Sit down, Number 6.

  • No, I do not agree that representative government is a lost cause. But I absolutely do believe that American representative government is clearly a lost cause.

    Americans have no real choice when it comes to change. Obama has proven that change does not happen, no matter that a would-be president says.

    Americans have only two choices. And those two choices have proven time and time and time and time and time again that those two choices are bad choices. The influence of money and corruption permeates all leve

    • American politics is just a dysfunctional example. There are examples of it working better elsewhere in the world. Here in the UK, for example. We grumble about our politicians a lot, and it's no great secret that they are in bed with financial interests, but at the same time we do get to have a sensible debate over social issues in a manner that seems to be impossible in the US. You won't find anyone in politics here accusing the prime minister of trying to import illegal children to sell for medical resea

  • Is it true that representative government is a lost cause and that lawmakers would never knowingly yield authority? There are people who think that advising citizens to devolve into consumers is a dubious proposition.

    Maybe working through both venues [theonion.com] would improve the chances of effecting change?

  • We're consumers enough already. We should maybe show people who to become citizens, aware of their duties and rights and able and willing to heed and exercise them, instead of just being mindless consumer drones.

  • A market-based approach cannot work for cyber-security any more than a Government-led approach can, when the Government feels it has a vested interest in being able to monitor its own or other countries' citizens.
    The market-based approach fails because the market-based philosophy is to maximize profit while minimizing cost, so the end result is a risk analysis of:
    1. The odds of being hacked.
    2. The odds of that hack being detected by someone outside the company, and that being published.
    3. The odds of that h

  • There are people who think that advising citizens to devolve into consumers is a dubious proposition.

    Devolve? I'm still waiting for them to evolve into citizens.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • The use of anti-biotics on farm animals causes the spread of drug resistant disease. The same is happening here with the government's abuse of spying. They are making a perfect incubator to develop countermeasures to spying.
  • Just because the US political system is so corrupt does not mean it's like that everywhere.
    In most countries governments work pretty well.
  • by Tom ( 822 )

    Take a lesson from politics. Dictators have discovered in the 50s that it is cheaper and more reliable to put money into propaganda and oppression than into actually improving their peoples lives. The purpose of both approaches - at least from a dictators perspective - is to prevent uprisings and revolutions, i.e. to stay in power. Sadly, the same economically driven view that's being advocated here also makes the least desireable outcome be the most rational choice.

    For computers, the equivalent solution is

  • "Oh, your product is so secure that our services can't crack it? Well, then you can't sell it here, and possession will be made illegal."
  • People *do* care about privacy. 86% have taken some steps to clean up digital footprints [pewinternet.org]. There's other stats that show the interest, but there's some serious overtones of impotence -- that there's just not that much anyone can do about it -- we all need all these super valuable cloud services so we must lock ourselves in to big vendors, who then might abuse our trust (or get hacked themselves, being a rich target).

    But Greenwald is absolutely right, we must provide for our own safety, we cannot ever delegat

  • Apple seems to be doing this. They don't benefit anything from tracking their customers. Unlike, say, Google or Facebook who tracks their users for ads, Apple sells devices and as of late is consciously distinguishing itself with attention to privacy. To think about just few things:
    • iOS security whitepaper [apple.com] describes how is iOS and related technologies hardened against attacks. iMessage specifically is fully end-to-end encrypted with Apple never being in possession of messages' cleartext or the keys to dec
  • Specifically he argues that companies care about their bottom line and that the trend of customers refusing to tolerate insecure products will force companies to protect user privacy, implement encryption, etc.

    Posting this article on slashdot is trolling, whoring for clicks, etc, because no technical solution can ever solve our political problems. As long as the USA is willing to use the rubber hose, presaged by a national security letter, nothing corporations can do can fix this problem.

    Markets are defined by governments. Wank wank, stroke stroke, flonk flonk.

    • How often does the government use the rubber hose? IANAL, but it seems to me there's a tendency in the US courts to not require people to hand over cipher keys as a general rule. If the NSA can't read your email. that's at least a bit of privacy you've gained.

      • IANAL, but it seems to me there's a tendency in the US courts

        The problem is that the US can ignore the law when it wants to. Although we're not seeing the average US citizen whisked off to gitmo, the general lack of respect for rights means that you cannot count on yours being protected.

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Friday November 21, 2014 @08:03AM (#48432709) Homepage

    There's a religious refrain, "Pray to God but row toward shore." It means you should ask for God's help, but that doesn't mean you should just sit there in the boat and wait to be saved.

    From the Cryptome PDF:
    Yesterday the USA Freedom Act was blocked in the Senate as it failed to garner the 60 votes required to move forward. Presumably the bill would have imposed limits on NSA surveillance. Careful scrutiny of the billâ(TM)s text however reveals yet another mere gesture of reform, one that would codify and entrench existing surveillance capabilities rather than eliminate them.

    We didn't really lose anything. The government chose not to pass a platitude. That's probably not going to change until we manage to fix the twin problem of fear and hatred, being stoked by those who gain from emotionalism.

    In the meantime, we need to row toward shore. Keep working on all the cryptography solutions you have time to help with. If you have an interest in meme propagation on social media or propaganda, see if you can figure out some ways to weaken the grip of emotionalism. I am, and it's fun.

    Sometimes your nation calls on you for service. Sometimes you have to know what it needs even if it doesn't know how to ask.

  • This is sort of confusing. Our government is doing what the highest paying corporations want currently, and Greenwald thinks us putting trust in them will save us?

    They are part of the problem. Corporations & Governments, shitheads that walk hand in hand.

  • Greenwald has an excellent point here: if the current Democratic -majority Senate rejected NSA reform, what's going to happen next year when Republicans assume power? We will get improved privacy rights only when consumers care enough about the subject to choose more secure products.

    Want contactless payments? Then consciously go for the most secure implementations. Tired of having your e-mail account hacked while on vacation? Take the trouble to use two-factor authentication. Concerned about the NSA's abili

  • Our outrage at Big Corp is pretty irrelevant. The minority who understands the problem can protest and complain all we like. Won't make any difference. Similar to the gaming industry. Those in the know don't buy games on launch day ( or pre-order ) because we know there is a good chance it will be completely borked for a while until the patches get issued and problems resolved. The companies don't care though, because they have armies of the gullible standing by that are more than willing to hand them
  • You really think Greenwald is saying "that society can rely on corporate interests for protection"? You need to read more Greenwald.
  • As it happens, I was just wondering to myself this morning how much of our present right-wing enthusiasm for our current economic system is rooted in capitalist democracy being far, far, far superior to pre-COBOL Stalinism. The true test arrives when some Asian economic model arises, one very different from our own historical model, and kicks us in the pants.

    It's sad, really, that "market-based" turned into such a horrible cliche. Most of the damage was caused by so many people putting it in front of "sol

Computer programmers never die, they just get lost in the processing.

Working...