Slashdot Mirror
The Story of Dealing With 33 Attorneys General
microbee writes "Early this year, Topix, a popular community forum, faced investigation from 33 state Attorneys General for the practice of charging a fee for 'expedited review' of content that was flagged as inappropriate. The case was settled on August 9th, with Topix dropping the fees in question. Now TechCrunch is running an article by Topix CEO Chris Tolles, in which he talks about his experiences dealing with so many Attorneys General. Quoting: 'This is going to happen more — The States' Attorneys General are the place that complaints about your company will probably end up. This is especially true if you host a social or community based site where people can post things that others may dislike. And, there's no downside to attacking a company based in California for these guys (MySpace, Facebook, Craigslist have all been targets in the past couple of years). Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up.'"
At some point there will have to be a decision on where an "Internet company" really is. You simply can not be subject to all the laws of all the places on the Internet.
This kind of thing is what scares the shit out of me, especially in California's economy:
Law enforcement shifting its focus to revenue collection. Most infamous are so-called "DUI" checkpoints in which citizens are searched throuroughly and ticketted for every little infraction. There was a story in the local reader about how somebody had their vehicle impounded ($300 bucks right off the bat here) because they didn't have updated insurance paperwork for their valid policy.
And it's only going to get worse.
This ain't about free speech, this is a method of extortion they took down.
"Oh, somebody posted something nasty about you. Pay $20 to take it down." Like that isn't ripe for abuse by the site admins. "Hmm, BillG1020 lives in a wealthy neighbourhood. Clickety-clickety. Let's see how long he takes."
It's a real pity the AG's didn't go further and block removal of comments at all. That's why Slashdot works so well, nasty crud gets modded down most times, but it's still there for the dirty minded buggers to read if they want. You're free to say it and I'm free to ignore it.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
The day they try to steal my car for lack of a piece of paper is the day I become a cop killer. I don't care what the criminal gang that calls themselves the government claims "the law" is, stealing is stealing and I will kill to defend myself.
Put the company outside the jurisdiction of concern.
$300? Up here in WA state, that ticket is over $600 if I'm not mistaken. They do allow you to submit proof after the fact that you had the insurance and waive most of the fee, but those tickets are expensive. LEOs can ticket you for every single violation they see. They'll generally give a warning on most of them if they feel that you're not going to do it again, but they don't have to. As long as they catch you doing it and it's on the books, the only hope you have is of the judge tossing it.
The AGs should not be able to do this until they can demonstrate laws were broken. Otherwise they are making up the rules as they go along. Rules that have not been approved by a law making body.
Topix should be able to petition a judge to shut down any talk of remediation until the AGs present formal charges.
Land of the fee and home of the brave indeed..
Fixed that for ya.
This isn't a free speech issue as much as it is a free market issue. On one hand I'd like to support the company in charging for whatever they want to, it's their company so they can make whatever rules they want. On the other hand removing inappropriate content is not so much a service that the company provides to the community, but a service the community provides to the company. So the practice is in poor taste, but what is the problem? If you think posting on someone else's website is EVER free speech then you need to have your head checked. Slashdot is a fairly open community, but it's still possible to have your voice silenced quickly if you post something that disagrees with the status quo.
Cops are just doing what they're told, it's not like that kind of focused effort comes from rank-and-file officers.
And how would that be remotely legal at all?
I strongly urge people to read the background information in the links before knee jerking. Here are some pertinent lines:
“In fact, a large percentage of the posts in some Kentucky forums contain explicit, vulgar, obscene and defamatory posts about citizens, including children.”
According to a press release from Conway’s office, the tools provided by Topix.com to remove the abusive posts are ineffective unless consumers agree to pay a $19.99 fee.
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it. That said, freedom and anarchy are not the same. People also have the right to protect themselves and their children from being defamed or slandered. Charging someone who might not otherwise access your site if they were not being slandered seems quite ridiculous to me.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
In Soviet Russia, post removes Attorney General!
Wait ... didn't that also happen to some AG named Elliott something-or-other in New York when details of his "hooker dates" leaked?
So move your servers to Kanuckistan. Welcome to the Great White North - soon to be the Great Green North, thanks to global warming.
Dunno about the legality of it, but not being able to remove comments would prevent a slippery slope of editing the public record.
All forums but one I belong to don't allow originators or commentators to remove posts because they would break the flow of the conversation. Admittedly that's about seventeen of however many millions there are.
Consider a meat-space equivalent. Some white guy shouts something nasty at a crowd of blacks in Detroit. The news crews have filmed the incident from the start to the riot where the hospital is burned to the ground. Now the white guy goes and asks the film crews to cut his words out so that it looks like he was just standing there when the crowd went wild by itself.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
The sense I got from the news articles was of without payment, there was no service at all. Whether that was reality or perception by the users, I don't know.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
The news does this already. Years ago journalists went from wanting to "Deliver the news" to "Change the world" Scandal sells, rebutting a scandal not so much. Cue Fox News jokes, but all the outlets are guilty the only difference is the slant.
Today if you are a white male anyone can pretty much say whatever they want about you without it being considered actionable. There is libel and slander, but it is difficult to prove actual malice. Without that it is going to be a tough fight in court to get anywhere with libel or slander.
However, if you are in what is considered to be a protected group, such as women, African-Americans or other groups like this, it can easily be considered a violation of federal law to post comments which are derogatory without even getting into libel or slander. This is a side effect of "hate speech" laws that have come about.
Of course we are all familiar with the idea that if a member of a protected class is murdered and the State does not convict anyone the accused can be tried again (and again and again until convicted) under federal civil rights laws. The idea of double jeopardy has fallen by the wayside when it comes to protected groups.
I would say a web site that charges a fee to remove comments from a forum about a protected group is just asking for trouble on a federal level. Sooner or later they are going to run into someone that gets the attention of a big-name bigmouth like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson Sr. I wouldn't think you would have to go very far to find someone like Barney Franks that could exert some influence on behalf of a gay person being charged a fee to remove some anti-gay comment.
For "unsupervised" forums there may be some cover, but I would imagine it is just a matter of time before this is noticed. Sure, a Slashdot comment may be modded down. But if a unmoderated forum allows comments to stick around and be visible it better be a white male only forum because anything else can get you into serious trouble.
We all have to watch out for the civil rights of protected groups or else they will suffer grevious harm. Right?
Holy shit...
"...no one has the right to not be offended..."
Fuck you.
That was the Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer.
He was banging a hooker for a 1000 dollars an hour, the Feds were investigating and got him on a wiretap. He'd been doing it too as AG of New York, and had spent at least 80,000 on hookers.
Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.
They taught me not to follow "unlawful orders" when I was in the military.
Following orders is a very bad excuse for doing something you know is wrong.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
And how would that be remotely legal at all?
They are not required to remove comments, they chose to do so. They could change their stance to only remove comments with a court order.
A friend of mine came to me when she found disparaging things were posted about her on one of the Topix threads, and wanted me to help her to use her debit card to pay for having it removed. Being unfamiliar with Topix's extortion, I was naturally very surprised to see that they offered this "expedited investigation" or whatever it was called. I convinced her to wait a few days and see whether the normal channel of removal worked.
Oddly enough, it did work. I was able to flag the post over the course of a couple of days, and it was eventually removed. So don't say that they *never* removed posts based on the free system. They did at least once.
I have belonged to moderated forums.. I see nothing wrong with it.. For the most part removing posts, and censoring and banning people who don't comply with the TOS is done to provide a product to the standard that the owner and administrator of the site determines. I am not bound to these sites, and I have alternative avenues available to express my views.. To give an alternative example.. If I were to join depression and suicide prevention forums, and continued to post comments on the joys and best ways to commit suicide, and to attack various users on why they haven't killed themselves yet.. It would be negligent and wrong for the owners and administrators of the forum to leave my posts there just for "public record".. The different forums I have visited have a wide range of participation, and the users and the moderators play a part in the final product and whether or not I continue to participate.. But I do so with full knowledge that the owners and administrators of these forums have the right to perform quality control. It's a fine line. Too much reigning in is bad, and not enough or none can be bad as well.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this
There is a time and a place for everything.
The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
Seriously, can we stop with the French throwbacks, and say things the English way? What's wrong with General Attourneys?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
What interests me is the bias of the TechCrunch article, which is along the lines of "powerful attorneys general bully a beleaguered business because it makes them look good." WTF? Why is it assumed that Topix is unfairly under attack from the government, and the attorneys general are only doing what they're doing in order to bolster their careers?
The articles didn't give me a lot to go on, and I've never heard of Topix before, so I have to generalize. Lots of forums are moderated in one way or another, but this is the first time I've heard of one that turned "express moderation" into a profit center. But the point is, I don't start out assuming businesses are the "good guys" and the attorneys general are the "bad guys". My assumption would be that if 33 attorneys general are trying to get a company to change its behavior, they're doing it because they must have gotten quite a few complaints, not because they're attention whores. Businesses generally aren't looking out for my interests; they're looking to make money. I'll take the attorneys general over businesses any day, even if that causes butthurt for CEOs like Chris Tolles.
Most of the Topix small town boards are complete cesspools. It's like the old fashioned small-town gossip phone tree, except 1) it's completely anonymous and 2) millions of people can access it easily.
A lot of these small towns are trying to increase tourism and bring new industries into their communities. Having a public forum where their citizens are anonymously posting vitriolic comments about other citizens is not going to attract tourism or industry.
Sent from my iPhone
Sure.
Anyway, should it read "33 Attorney Generals"? Plural is in the wrong word.
OP there is no 'u' in attorney too. ;)
Also in Washington, I was driving around with an expired card, but the policy was still valid. Sent in proof of insurance and got stuck with a $60 "administrative fee" is what they called it if I remember correctly.
There wasn't even a hint of my car getting impounded.
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
It's worth noting here that the First Amendment is as absolute as any change to the Constitution can be and it was the first such change made. I think that makes such talk as yours above, rather unenlightened. Sure, if you were warning us about an absolute interpretation of some obscure clause, I might agree. But instead, you're speaking of one of the core parts of the Constitution.
Second, the original poster already showed, via their discussion of slander and libel, that they do not think in absolutes with respect to freedom of speech, hence, your warning is unjustified. Nor do I see any indication that absolutes were being considered in your quoted fragment anyway. It is merely true that no one has the right to not be offended.
Considering all that, why did you bother to post your warning? Do you really think there should be some sort of "right" or privilege to impose on someone else's freedom in order to merely avoid being offended?
"Attorneys General" is correct. This is because English is f'd up.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
"...no one has the right to not be offended..."
Fuck you.
lol... exactly
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Topix is a horrible, searcn-engine spamming, pop-up and advert-ridden site whose very existence depends entirely upon leeching other sites' content.
Not worth the mention here or anywhere.
Yes because it is so hard for alternative forums to be created, and there are so few places to post whatever it is your trying to say.. hell it's probably really difficult, like establishing a user account.. but then who wants to keep a record of gems like your post, or the replies to it.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this
There is a time and a place for everything.
The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn.
The most dangerous legal mistake a geek can make is to think that those who have framed and interpreted the Constitution over 185 years have ever thought in terms of absolutes.
Interesting how you left out the caveat I included that was clearly part of the sentence...
Before I go any further, I want to say that I feel strongly that no one has the right to not be offended. There are many in the US who feel as I do, and I believe that higher law, including the Constitution agrees with this, or at least doesn't contradict it.
That said, I guess to me it goes back to the basic tenet that you have the freedom to exercise your rights as long as the exercise of those rights do not infringe upon others' rights. Whenever there is a conflict of rights that cannot be resolved by the people involved, the next logical step is to take it to agents of the law who will resolve the issue as best they can within the framework of the minor laws while attempting to hold true to the greater principals. Must compromises be made when fundamental rights are at odds? Yes. Is this the same as "The US Constitution forces compromise at every turn"? I don't think so, but of course I am a mere interested layman. My main point was that the issue is not as one-sided as the poster seemed to be indicating.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Oh and he used campaign money to rent hotel rooms for his hookups.
Unless you were there, I don't see how you can make that claim:
" the prosecutors found no evidence that Mr. Spitzer had used public money or campaign funds to pay for his encounters with prostitutes, he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/nyregion/07spitzer.html?_r=1&hp
And it's interesting how you left out all the good things he did in his career, not the least of which was taking on the Gambino crime family.
http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2002/jun/jun04a_02.html
Does anyone REALLY care that he got down with some hookers? Are we really still so prude?
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
No, it's because we're referring to 33 attorneys, not 33 generals. You modify the basic noun, not the modifiers. English would be more f'd up if you didn't.
Imagine if this was correct english:
"I'm a rebel without a cause. You're a rebel without a cause too. We're rebel without a causes!"
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
My assumption would be that if 33 attorneys general are trying to get a company to change its behavior, they're doing it because they must have gotten quite a few complaints, not because they're attention whores.
When the AG's issue press releases instead of talking to the company about their concerns, you should assume the AG's are doing it for the media attention. According to the article, the AG's did this with both press releases. The first time, the release lied by claiming they had sent a letter to to company when the letter wasn't postmarked until five days later. The second time, the AG's never expressed to the company the changes they'd like to see made before villifying them in the press.
Maybe the article is wrong and the company is lying about the AG's behavior. The article doesn't say whether the reporter tried to get the AG's side of the story, which probably means the reporter didn't. However, if the accusations in the article are true, then then, yes, the AG's were acting like "attention whores".
From the article: "Too often, we've found, the office of attorney general is used for little more than a way to advance one's political career."
"Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up."
"Unlike most other people in business who will attempt to reach out to you to get what they want, and use the threat of going public as a tool, our experience is that the offices of the Attorneys' General seem to be most happy communicating via press conference, without any sort of preliminaries. This is primarily a political exercise, and you're dealing with people who are very empowered to make life difficult for you."
"At no time during this process were we accused of breaking any laws."
"...an AG essentially is a state run law firm employing hundreds of people."
The political system in the U.S. is extremely corrupt.
Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times, I was going by what they'd said on July 16, 2008.
So I take back that he used campaign funds to pay for rooms.
But not that he cheated on his wife and blew over 80,000 on hookers.
If he was the governor of my state, I'd care that he "got down" with some hookers. But he never was and the Gambino crime family has no power in any state I've lived, so his taking them on really doesn't sway me either.
If you read your own link, Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.
"The case will be prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Frederick J. Whelan III, who is an Assistant Deputy New York State Attorney General in the AG’s Organized Crime Task Force, and Assistant US Attorneys Andrew M. Genser, Katya Jestin and Arthur Hui. The Task Force is headed by Deputy Attorney General George Quinlan, and supervised by Chris Prather, Assistant Deputy of the AG’s Criminal Division."
Gee, sorry I missed the correction to the NY Times
It wasn't a correction. You went by the accusations, not by what was proven. There's a big difference.
Spitzer was only there for the press conference. The people who took the Mob on were all Feds.
Do you know about anything you say, or do you just say whatever nonsense comes to mind?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003960-5,00.html
(starts at paragraph 2)
He headed the three year investigation, and masterminded the operation that brought him down. He was a modern day Eliot Ness.
As far as whether anything he did affected you, I recommend you read the whole Time article. It's titled: Eliot Spitzer: Wall Street's Top Cop
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003960-1,00.html
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
By all means lets take them all down based on the views of a few.
In fact, while we are taking down these derogatory forums and fields of hate monger glory we should make a few more changes. We need a group of individuals to monitor television and newspapers. As well as a separate and special group to burn disconcerting books. In fact, all major media should have some over sight bodies to ensure the material for consumption meets with the guidelines of a chosen few.
Once this is complete we need to be able to identify and separate individuals who have discouraging view points.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
I'm as suspicious of politicians as the next guy BUT Taking complaints from your citizenry and acting on them is kind of in the job description.
Besides, it might of occurred to the company in question, that taking payola to take down what might be considered liabelous posts exposed them to even more liability since they could no longer claim a lack of resources was the primary holdup. Suddenly they became paid editors. Maybe they should just use a moderation system if they want to ignore it and a subscription model if they want more money.
Eliot Ness didn't lose his job for blowing 80000 dollars on hookers a thousand dollars an hour.
In many states, it's a jailable offense to knowingly drive without insurance. If you're driving, and your insurance isn't valid, it would typically be enough to arrest you in such states (which could include the impounding of your car).
"Stumble before you crawl"
I now sometimes think Tor should come built into modems and routers.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Here in MD, Driving Without Insurance is 1 year in jail and I believe $1k. The non-jailable version - Failure to Maintain Security - is $280 on the ticket.
"Stumble before you crawl"
The last things the government wants are an introspective military and soldiers that think for themselves.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Yes, we care about the hookers. Not because they're hookers, but because when an Attorney General is involved with an organized ring of anything illegal, then he's a hypocrite and has huge conflict of interest problems. And when a hypocrite gets to make the rules, he isn't affected by them - so he has no motivation to make sure they're just and practicable. He got caught by a money laundering law that he had passed so he could catch other people doing the same thing. He demanded very high standards from everybody else, it's why he was elected Governor in the first place. So now he gets to pay the piper.
You honestly don't see a problem with the Attorney General of a state being involved with a madam? Because it was going on while he was the Attorney General - the person in charge of prosecutions across the state. The conflict of interest posed by a state's top prosecutor being involved in an organized criminal enterprise is simply unacceptable, even if you think that the particular crime in question ought not be a crime at all. Was Spitzer protecting his call girls from prosecution while prosecuting others? What would have happened if the criminal enterprise in question started to blackmail Spitzer? Things can go seriously south in all kinds of unpleasant ways from here. Supposing the outfit he got the call girls from hired thugs to shake people down. How is Spitzer supposed to put a stop to that?
The first line from the CEO should have been "what can I do to make you guys go away."
The second line should have been "I'll put this lube on right now so it'll be easier."
"Taking complaints from your citizenry and turning them into political capital is simply too good an opportunity for these guys to pass up."
On the other hand, a company doing shitty things that piss off consumers is a good way to get attention from attorneys general.
You can't get fired for not racking up enough speeding tickets in the military.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Well, you convinced me. However I think that as far as forums go it should be okay to ADD a moderated comment to posts, eg something along the lines of "We have, in fact, checked the birth records and John's parents WERE married to each other at the time of his birth and, furthermore, his penis is about average."
If he had, would it have detracted from his accomplishments? I think not. You had your facts wrong, and when confronted, you fell back into the fallacies of Ad Hominem and Hypocrisy.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Simple fallacies of Ad Hominem, Hypocrisy, and What if.
The funny part is I was not even arguing whether he should have lost his job if he had been caught when he was AG (he didn't.) My argument is that you cannot judge all of a man by one deed, after the fact. I fully acknowledge what he did was wrong, and COULD HAVE had wider ramifications. But the main point of my post was to correct the misinformation being spread, and point out that he did some good things, and that in actuality the good he did for the public way overshadowed any ACTUAL harm.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
The fact that Spitzer got caught doing the same illegal things he was against isn't up for debate though. He was just another shady politician.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Some sigs just aren't the same without a picture to refer to.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
TFA says they weren't violating any laws, they just got on the wrong side of powerful people and had to deal with 35 attorneys general holding slanderous press releases.
TFA was written by the guy under investigation, so you give the FA credence at your peril. I found it disingenuous.
State AGs have a huge backload of complaints of many stripes. The fact that the author of TFA managed to piss off 35 of them enough to devote time to an investigation should be a clue that his business plan was flawed.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The day they try to steal my car for lack of a piece of paper is the day I become a cop killer.
I don't care what the criminal gang that calls themselves the government claims "the law" is, stealing is stealing and I will kill to defend myself.
(Memo to self: Replying to ACs is a bad idea.)
Anyway, I will assume you are not a troll and that you need to try out for this show:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_Wars
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
you americans were fucking my head with this, when talking about all the recent political developments.
enjoy your federalism now. with this kind of 'freedom', people in one state will or will not be able to do things that are legal and free in their state, because it isnt in another. so, people in that state will live by other states' laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Your example is odd, though I'd take a bet that there are languages where modification of the adjective and not the noun is appropriate.
In many or most languages, there would need to be accordance between both the substantive noun, and the adjectives, including in general: Des Avocats Rouges et Bleus, for example.
The major confusion here seems to stem from what you say, that they are 'general attorneys,' where general is the adjectival modifier, but the older form where the adjective follows the noun is preserved, 'attorneys general,' which can both sound a little odd and make the reader think that the entire phrase 'attorney general' is the substantive, as in a compound formulation such as 'attorney-general'.
And of course, you refer to 'correct english,' a rather schoolmarmish concept. Exactly whom are you referring to?
Are we really still so prude?
You're talking about the US, and the answer is yes. As well as petty and trite, and above all, ready to enjoy the spectacle of destroying a high public figure by any means possible.
The fact that Spitzer got caught doing the same illegal things he was against...
That's just plain horseshit. Did he engage in organized crime by sleeping with hookers? Not by a long shot. Was sleeping with hookers an anti competitive practice? Not by any stretch of the imagination. You are merely engaging in sensationalist moralizing, that isn't even based on fact. Do you even know what Ad Hominem is? Probably not. Based on your comments, I doubt you'd know what critical thinking was even if you got hit upside the head with it.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
> This is because English is f'd up.
English has been "f'ed" up since it became a Danish/Anglo-Saxon pidgin, before the Norman Conquest. If you don't accept that, there are still hundreds of other languages in which you can write (assuming someone else can write back -- there aren't many Pequot-literates, anymore :-)
A notable example of this was the Democratic rally riots in the 60's, where the only thing that was shown on TV was the police beating on college students. The footage of rock throwing, spitting and taunting insults being thrown at the police were suspiciously absent. Not that it excuses the police brutality, but it is a completely different narrative. "I was sitting there, innocently minding my own business when the mean policeman started beating me with a club" is a completely different story than "I was pitching rocks at that fat-ass, when he started chasing me down."
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
If it doesn't offend someone, it couldn't possibly interest anyone.