Slashdot Mirror
Google Home Ends A Domestic Dispute By Calling The Police (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo:
According to ABC News, officers were called to a home outside Albuquerque, New Mexico this week when a Google Home called 911 and the operator heard a confrontation in the background. Police say that Eduardo Barros was house-sitting at the residence with his girlfriend and their daughter. Barros allegedly pulled a gun on his girlfriend when they got into an argument and asked her: "Did you call the sheriffs?" Google Home apparently heard "call the sheriffs," and proceeded to call the sheriffs. A SWAT team arrived at the home and after negotiating for hours, they were able to take Barros into custody... "The unexpected use of this new technology to contact emergency services has possibly helped save a life," Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales III said in a statement.
"It's easy to imagine police getting tired of being called to citizen's homes every time they watch the latest episode of Law and Order," quips Gizmodo. But they also call the incident "a clear reminder that smart home devices are always listening."
"It's easy to imagine police getting tired of being called to citizen's homes every time they watch the latest episode of Law and Order," quips Gizmodo. But they also call the incident "a clear reminder that smart home devices are always listening."
Coming soon, a law that mandates that all homes be equipped with one of these devices as well as prison sentences for those who attempt to disable them. For the sake of the children, of course. "You are the dead!"
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This fact does not redeem cancer.
At the very bottom of the linked story
http://abcnews.go.com/US/smart-home-device-alerts-mexico-authorities-alleged-assault/story?id=48470912
Editor's note: This story has been updated; an earlier version named a smart home device that was not the type found in the home and credited by police with calling 911.
When I was a kid (25 years ago) a family member insisted on unplugging the TV whenever they talked about the government, because this family member was concerned about them listening. I thought he was a whack job. In the late 90's I started to think it might be possible, early 2000's I was almost certain they were capable of it, and now it's current year, I'm reading about it on /.
Due to paranoia I don't own a TV. Fortunately for the government I have 2 laptops and a Samsung phone, so they can still monitor me and probably blow my phone up on me.
I'm not signing anything
This makes me wonder how many of hundreds of false calls to 911 there must be out there due to these things, if one of them actually happened at the right time.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Google Home cannot yet make phone calls. I'd like to see some proof that this was a Google Home at work. Isn't anyone at all skeptical anymore about news stories?
What's the problem with welfare for poor folks? As long as there's an obligation for self betterment with the view to getting off welfare i.e. education, internship, community service, I don't see the problem.
Corporate welfare on the other hand, I have a big problem with that. It has been demonstrated time and time again that corporate leaders use tax breaks to pad their own packages rather than improve employment prospects. Trickle down simply does not work and greed is the main factor.
In the end, perhaps it was a good thing.
But consider that Google Home missed the part about it being a question. I can see other situations where such a sentence might be used where I didn't want a SWAT response or any response at all.
Yes, I understand the 911 people listened in and made the decision to respond based on what they heard, and again in THIS case they were correct.
But there are all sorts of permutations of this where Google Home and whoever they called might be bad.
I certainly don't want to be sitting around bad-mouthing my employer / parents / next door neighbor who owns guns / [insert someone else here] and have Google Home call them so they can here it all...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Siriously:
https://support.google.com/googlehome/answer/7394795?hl=en
"Note: Calls to 911 or 1-900 numbers are not supported on Google Home. "
A smart speaker, which was hooked up to a surround sound system inside the home, recognized that as a voice command and called 911, Romero said.
The summary sure made it sound like the device learned and reacted to "owner in distress" and not just accidentally mis-interpreted a shouted phrase "Did you call the sheriffs?" (spoken by the perpetrator, not the victim, might I add).
This was talked about in 1984. East Germany did as much as they could given their limited tech. China is doing a much more comprehensive job with modern tech.
So you support corporations using the poor as easy position filling? That's what happens when you attach it to things like 'showing self improvement'. You get corporations taking part in incentive programs to 'create jobs'. The jobs in question are bottom of the barrel, violate labor laws (that the ignorant and poor cannot fight), and generally treat people like shit.
It then becomes a punishment to get off of welfare. We need to sever the tie between corporations, healthcare, and indeed even just surviving. Work needs to provide enough of a benefit that the government isn't needed. What often happens is these people get off welfare and have less money than they did before leaving it. Why bust your ass for pennies when the government takes better care of you?
Nobody has an answer to that because they're too busy being faux-moral jerkoffs. They believe everyone should suffer to justify their existence, or that some nebulous idea of 'personal responsibility' is the only way to go forward. Those values are proven to fail when challenged, because it becomes an excuse to mistreat people.
Are we to believe that he shouted out, "Ok, Google, call the sheriff?"
The devil's in the details.
What criteria are used to determine whether that obligation is being met? Can they be gamed by lazy people to do the bare minimum work to get maximum benefits? Is it fair to let people take advantage of welfare programs like that? Is it right to force people to meet that obligation if they legitimately can't hold a job due to disability? Who decides what disabilities qualify? Who decides whether someone meets a disability? Who has the ability to even answer these questions?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And those audio tracks can be processed and blacklisted, so those particular lines won't have any effect. As I understand, there are ongoing efforts for such things, but they're still incomplete at the moment.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Fucking NSA agent diverting the conversation to partisan politics so the serfs are distracted from the original topic!
and not just accidentally mis-interpreted a shouted phrase "Did you call the sheriffs?" (spoken by the perpetrator, not the victim, might I add).
This is actually puzzling/concerning me - perhaps more than it should. But I can't figure out how that phrase could trigger any of the "common" virtual assistants - Google, Amazon, Apple, or Microsoft - unless at least one manufacturer has been less than forthright regarding what can trigger a response (and, therefore, regarding what the device actively listens for).
#DeleteChrome
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that's not how it works.
Setting aside the comedy of a terms-of-use dispute, the police still (apparently) acted lawfully, as they believed they had probable cause to visit the house. Anything they observed during that visit would be evidence in its own right, including any threats or actions made leading to the arrest. Even if the recordings (911 call and Google's recordings, if available) were thrown own of court, the officers' testimony would probably still be admissible. They could say they were sent to the house by a 911 call, but wouldn't be able to say anything about the contents of the call.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And what would've happened if the police came, overreacted, and shot / killed the guy? Would they be suing Google for consequential damages?
When I hear about a story like this I think about an experience I had back when Doom II was released. I had hooked up my computer to my home stereo to show the game off to my roommates. I lived in an apartment in a bad neighborhood at the time.
I started to play and got as far as two shotgun blasts in before pressing pause to answer the phone. Shortly after the phone rang there was a very loud and forceful knock at the door. Said knock was followed by 'open up, police!'.
I went to the door, confused why the police were banging on my door. Several officers were standing outside with their guns in their hands while I had my phone in my hand. In my confusion I asked them what they wanted. They said they had reports of shots being fired and demanded entrance to my apartment. I let them in and showed them my computer with the game still paused. They were incredulous and didn't believe me, searching the apartment instead.
Ten seconds later they came back after finding nothing of interest. They then let me show them the computer game. I then showed them that by clicking the keyboard I could make the shotgun noise they heard.
Many additional police vehicles were outside. The officers had not yet bothered to tell the many additional cops outside that the shotgun was just a videogame. Much panic ensued as the officers outside started to yell 'shots fired' with their fellow officers inside my apartment. /repeat of my own comment from some time ago.
Does anyone know what device they actually had?
Neither the Amazon Echo or Google Home can currently make phone calls.
I would very much like to have one that can.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Fruit of the poisonous tree only applies if the law enforcement officers acted improperly. If the evidence was obtained via a third party device that has malfunctioned it would not apply.
The I think my echo can make some calls at this point but it doesn't respond to "call the sheriff".
Do not play this in your house!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is proof that the surveillance state is here for your safety.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The funniest thing about this story is that the girlfriend neither called the cops herself, nor did she ask Google Home to do it. The boyfriend asked 'Did you call the police', and Google Home heard the last part, took it as his directive, and called the cops.
He should be allowed to take Google Home w/ him to jail, so that he can train it better.
So you would have them process/blacklist every possible audio track from every show, movie, and radio broadcast ever created?
...yes?
It's not an intractable problem; merely an issue of scale, and the folks producing these systems are excellent at solving scaling issues. After all, the process has already begun with music.
As one possible solution, start with the libraries from Amazon, Google, and Netflix. Those libraries are already digitized and delivered in high-quality streams. As broadcast streams are produced, take a feed from each content-producing station, and process that. Note that since these streams can be processed faster than they're viewed, the backlog can be eventually caught up.
On the blacklist side, false positives can be reduced by listening to identify what media is being played. If you're watching Law and Order, for example, the device (or more appropriately, the cloud system behind it) can recognize the episode, and know to ignore the remaining dialog. That in turn increases the confidence of matches that aren't part of the episode's audio track. Conversely, when you change the station, the device can detect the deviation from the soundtrack, and lower that confidence input.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
For reference, I will defer to an actual lawyer. The Illustrated Guide to Law is an absolutely fantastic reference for basic legal fundamentals. Two pages in particular are good places to start for a particular example, applicable in this case.
By coincidence, it even addresses the privacy issue: There's no such expectation while in someone else's home.
The rest of the series is also great material for understanding the principles involved.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
There is always fraud. If it's possible for someone to get the assistance while still getting income from illegal or under-the-table dealings, someone will do it, even if just as a way to get by while "sticking it to the Man". Yes, that creative ingenuity would probably be more profitable in a legal enterprise, but there is always someone who just wants to get away with a scam. Remember, humans are horrible creatures.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
When will they update it to state what actually happened?
1. Police receive 911 call about domestic dispute from woman who pretended to call someone else. ....
2. Man asks woman "Did you call the sherriffs?"
3. Woman denies it.
4. Sherriffs show up, man starts threatening woman because she lied to him.
5. Sherriff spots smart home device, remembers what was said on the call, and defuses situation by suggesting that the woman didn't call them, the smart home device did when the man asked the question.
6. Journalist overhears and thinks he has a news for nerds story worthy of slashdot front page.
7.
8. Profit
It could be the new gun. Burglars are deterred when they know Google/Alexa is around.
Everyone is under surveillance at all times. Everyone is a suspect. Everyone is guilty. Gulag nation.
Likely, Missus: $assistant, call the sheriff department. Asshole: Bitch, did you just call the sheriff department?
Echo can call other echo's and other echo users via the app but not actually make calls.
I think it's very unlikely the sheriffs office just so happened to have an echo in the office connected to their office number.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
These things now make calls just by anonymous voice commands? Really? This is a massively irresponsible design. Even telephone number hyperlinks on websites require manual confirmation prior to dialing. Now anyone can create a website that plays call x, y and z to get your victim into trouble, stalk victims and or rack up toll charges or do the same via TV/radio broadcast.
They know it's dumb. They just can't help themselves.
You better decide which side you are on in this case.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Sure it does...
Now how much income? How do we account for inflation? Who gets to answer those questions? Is there any accommodation for unequal needs? What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens? Does it apply to all residents? Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison? How do we stop fraud? Where does the money come from? Is that fair and just?
This basically summarizes why the government rarely implements simple solutions. They're rarely simple.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The problem is with new episodes and with shows that are less common. Imagine someone playing a fresh Aussie show in the US with a lot of violence on a streaming service.
You can't catch them all. Unless you integrate the monitoring device with the audio system so it can automatically filter out all that sound.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
That's a fucking stupid way to look at it. No call to 911 would be legal if there was an assailant, as obviously he wouldn't approve of the call. The woman being threatened is surely in favor, and her permission can be assumed.
Train your virtual assistant to the name "Didju." Alternatively, the name "Bitch" may prove quite useful and/or hilarious.
-IOVAR Web Dev Platform
Because that way they're not just some dude that likes it in the rear. They're special. They're part of an exclusive, unique club where only its members can be above the laws (as they're always attempting) and enjoy eachother's touch. Only they can get rid of a daughter or mistress' little embarazdament, because they're special; their circumstances are special.
These closeted gays don't just want men. They want to be the only one, like the Quickening. And the only way to ensure that, is to make it illegal for everybody beneath themselves.
Ah yes, the uncivilized land of Australia, where Google can't possibly get a data-sharing contract with the production studios.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I won't be installing such a device then. My SO has the habit of saying "So then call in the Gestapo!" if they*'re in the wrong and out of rational arguments. And we don't want the Gestapo showing up on our front door, do we? (*=non-gender-specific pronoun)
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
And if you think welfare fraud is bad (protip: all the evidence is to the contrary), you should see the level of fraud in the private sector!
"It doesn't work 100% perfectly!" is the worst reason to dismantle anything.
Typical religious self loathing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd rather side with the wife-beater than the government on this one. Why? Simple logic. I am nobody's wife, so whoever enjoys beating up his wife is no threat to me. Government, on the other hand, ...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Too bad this post didn't have one, then it would at least have been funny, if offtopic...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What would happen if someone said "I wasn't expecting the Spanish inquisition..."?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Guy intervenes, gets hurt, ,..."
and then breaks the law by using force other than in self-defence, and then breaks another law by pulling a gun when his life is not in immediate danger.
No matter how much you might dislike it, a gun is literally the last resort and you don't pull it unless you fully intend to shoot to kill. If you pull it and don't shoot, it's because of a major change in the situation, but - like an airbag going off - is something that should automatically involve the police if things have got this far.
Either way, you want the police coming at that point. And your correct response would not have been to pull the gun unless you genuinely thought that you needed to use it as a lethal weapon (rather than just showing it off to shut people up), or - if you didn't intend to use it - using reasonable force to restrain - AND - having called the police.
Responsibility comes with it the ability to know the legal limits. Even "fighting back" is a grey area unless the safety of yourself or others is in question if you don't. And there you want police to come too.
Sorry, in this case, penis means "I'm going to pull out a weapon when it's unjustified and threaten people with it". The exact thing that the rest of the world is always pointing at when the US doesn't punish its own police force for doing that. Let alone a private citizen.
Much scarier than that people tolerate devices listening all the time is that they can call emergency services just by hearing certain phrases. Much scarier than that is idiots pulling guns because of a domestic. Much scarier than that is idiots like that being able to source and carry guns, legally.
If you had restraint, nothing would have been able to get to that kind of position anyway.
Exactly. It's detracting me from asking the most important question of all! How do I use the 3 sea shells?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
That's not even necessary. The queries are handled server-side and broadcast sounds happen at the same time, so the server can block queries for which many identical queries arrive from other users in the same 5-second (or whatever) window.
You'd just need to connect the TV output directly to the device as well, so it can filter out everything coming from TV from its processing. Not just to avoid panic when you watch a cop show, but it would help with voice processing anyway. Like when the kids put up the TV much too loud and you say "turn the volume down", your voice assistant will actually recognise it through the noise.
... "I shot the sheriff"
I wonder what the google home would do in that situation.
"Hey mate, did you order one giant dong, three butt plugs, and a gallon of lube?
I actually much prefer the Chinese model. It's terrible, don't get me wrong, but at least they are up front about it. None of this hacking people's property or hoarding critical vulnerabilities until they inevitably leak out. Just be up front, pass laws mandating that the service providers give you everything and set up a firewall to block anything you can't control.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
While I read the original story, and it noted that it wasn't Google Home, here is some interesting anecdotal thoughts that may or may not lead us to what the device actually was. (I really want to know for reason 1)
1. an Echo can only call other Echos (to my disappointment - I want to use mine to do speaker phone calls)
2. My Echo will randomly answer questions if something sounds anything like "Echo" which is my invocation word.
3. I would imagine with a heavy accent "Did you" could sound like "Echo" to an Echo (or other AWS device, as this obviously must be)
Knowing that it's not a Google Home, and that an Echo can't make calls, means it could be one of the other devices. So....does anyone know of a voice activated personal assistant that can make calls? I know I can do OK Google calls from my Nexus 6P since I have Assistant working on it.
So, does anyone know of an AWS device that can make phone calls.
Make America grate again!
Based on some of the things my Echo responds to.... I bet "Did you' in a strong accent could sound like "Echo" which is a trigger word.
My concern is that the Echo can only call other Echo users.... so my guess is that it was one of the other AWS enabled devices.
Unless one of them is a developer and was building something that could do that. I don't imagine such folks are immune to domestic disputes. I knew a girl once who was very intelligent, (probably could have put ProtaOS on a Raspberry Pi) but always made bad choices for her SO.
Make America grate again!
Sure it does...
Now how much income?
Double the poverty line.
How do we account for inflation?
Peg an increase to the inflation rate; similar to what we do with Social Security
Who gets to answer those questions?
Congress does.
Is there any accommodation for unequal needs?
No, it's universal
What qualifies as "universal"? Does it apply to all citizens?
Yes, every man, woman and child above a certain age
Does it apply to all residents?
Maybe
Do convicted felons still get the paycheck while in prison?
Perhaps they would get a portion, considering their room and board are already being paid for by the state
How do we stop fraud?
It's universal, so there would not be much fraud. But you could tie it to the Social Security system and track it that way.
Where does the money come from?
The federal government. They could tax for it, or just print it.
Is that fair and just?
Yes.
Hey, check it out, I just worked out a basic income! ;-)
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I don't think the current level of fraud is terribly bad, and I'm not suggesting dismantling anything. Rather, I'm suggesting that simplistic statements like "just give us single-payer healthcare" or "just give us universal basic income" or "just cut taxes" or "just cut spending" are all ridiculous, because the actual implementations are so much more complicated than their basic ideas. They're good ideas, but too often I see people under the illusion that they're something that can happen in the short term.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Did he say ""Did you Google call the sheriffs?" I thought we were told this was how this thing worked...
#DeleteFacebook
Rule of Acquisition #10: Greed is eternal.
#DeleteFacebook
Have gnu, will travel.
Wait, you're suggesting I should give all my creative content to a commercial organisation renowned for exploiting their held data and sharing lots of it with their partners and random people on the internet? Before I even start selling it?
How about you and Google both go fuck yourselves and if my content triggers swatting then it's not me that has the issue.
>> "Did you call the sheriffs?"
"Did you call the NSA?"
You don't even need to say that, it's active per default
aaaaaaa
I had the volume up too loud watching Aliens and... well, we got nuked from orbit. Sorry.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
That's flat-out wrong. There are plenty of people that want to live on handouts and to never work an honest day in their life. I know people like this. They know every trick in the book to game every welfare-like program, and when the government does a sweep of welfare looking for cheats, they jump over to disability. If that stops working for them, they go back to welfare.
They won't get a job, they'll steal your shit while you're at work.
Someone shouldn't be making $1000 per week if that's not what they were earning before disability. If they were earning at least that prior to disability, then if able-bodied, they should be able to make that again. I don't see the problem here. If they're unwilling to return to work because it's work, pull their benefits and let them choose between work and starvation, just like the rest of us that work for a living.
This is not a good way to support UBI. The actual working class will see right through this.
Man shouting from outside: Alexa, unlock the front door!
Sorry your loved one died. They were watching a violent show and we scrubbed their call to 911.
Sure it does...
Now how much income?
Double the poverty line.
I believe this is a rare opportunity to use the original meaning of the phrase "begs the question".
Wait... what? That doesn't even work as a joke. If you were watching a violent show and needed to call 911 why would you do so by repeating, word-for-word, exactly what the TV is saying at that moment at nearly the exact same time?
Sure it does...
Now how much income?
Double the poverty line.
I believe this is a rare opportunity to use the original meaning of the phrase "begs the question".
What question? The poverty line? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Seriously. The "or just print it" part clinched the dumbass award for him.
Are you under the impression that that's not what they do now? What do you think the federal debt is? It's money printing. Or the Fed can just print it itself like they did after 2008. If it makes you feel better, they can go through the formality of creating Treasury bills to offset the dollars they just created.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You are using one arbitrary threshold (double the poverty line) to define another arbitrary threshold (universal basic income) without actually answering the question of what those thresholds ought to be and why. Why should UBI be double the poverty line instead of half or triple or any other multiple of the poverty line? What is the poverty line to begin with? The US Federal poverty line was set in 1968 based on three times the estimated cost of an economy food budget, because at the time of creating the poverty definition, the Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. The threshold gets updated every year based on cost-of-goods and inflation, but since the cost of food as percentage of household budget has dropped, the poverty line doesn't actually reflect any practical cost of living. The federal government uses it for demographic purposes, but explicitly discourages it from being interpreted as any kind of personal budget. This whole dilemma of defining a poverty line should be a cautionary tale for those who want to set a UBI: even your basic assumptions will likely be invalidated with an generation or two.
That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while, even on slashdot.
That's because it was you who read it, lacking the reading capability of reading the rest of the sentence, which contains qualifiers.
But evolution can work really fast. Look at some of the studies on Galapagos finches (some of the most studied animals in the world), where things like beak size or overall size have changed within just a few generations. As long as there is pressure, the selection process is faster than most people think, and sexual selection reinforces this.
We can see this for humans too. In the industrialized world, the pressure of starvation has been greatly reduced, and as a result, larger individuals are not selected against. A result is that even poor men of today are on average taller and stronger than rich and well-fed men of a few generations ago. That's genetics, and not just nurture. The competition against fellow man now selects for bigger men who can better attract women, without being selected against by a higher risk of starvation. That there is no need to be bigger anymore doesn't matter - as long as females select for brawniness, it will be reinforced until it hits other pressures selecting against it. Peacocks are good examples of how sexual selection works despite the winning males not being any more fit for survival than their less outrageous brothers. Introduce more starvation and predation of peafowl, and it won't take many generations before the less outrageous males are selected for. But with humans protecting them and feeding them, the wild peacocks are more colorful now than they were even a few generations ago.
Score 6, insightful ... in this case its maybe a good thing, and im sure thats why it will be linked all over, free advertisinig, im sure 1e100 has their own team 24/7 akin to a presidential election campaign team doing nothing but pounce on shti like this
... does that thing come with a switch ? I used to have this girlfriend , a bit of sangre caliente ... pointing knives at me and stuff followed by the mandatory goodies wasnt that rare ... a thing like that in the house would have been very inconvenient hahah
... some people can't, some people would take before they beg if they have to and with this i think i let myself be seduced into speaking again. However slashdot might be full of Trumpians (as it has always been, a certain upper intellectual class of hardworking whatever if you like ... it still seems to adhere to free speech is free so well why not)
do the math
uh, unless you're some redneck born from daddymoney conservative it would be hard to not see the benefit in benefit unless you are gonna go soylent green on they momma ass and do a gangsta stance on youtube-man ?
it beats having people steal your sandwich money since they have none, it saves a LOT more than it costs, it costs a lot less than keeping an invididual in prison and in a lot of cases prevents entry into the circle (you know , the one that becomes a downward spiral) and arguments like "that would never happen to me" mean you never had serious trouble or are either living in a privileged land of opportunity where you have never had to worry or even think about where the next meal is coming from.
but off-topic as it might be
but in my case i get a sudden urge to take the battery out of my android phone and im not even shooting my wife or raping the neighbours daughter
as for the wellfare, off-topic, but have you actually ever researched the very very small percentage of govt spending that actually is and the impact on society if you ban it since not everyone is built to be homeless beggars
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?