7 ms·

Leaked FBI Email Reportedly Shows Desperation to Justify Warrantless Wiretaps

164 points by Jimmc414 2y ago

archgoon 2y ago
Not sure what to make of this. If the authorization is basically not being used, then it's a decent question to ask why they are so interested in renewing it. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a reasonable way to answer this question that doesn't rely on people's pre-existing biases. I'm sure everyone on this board knows what the 'real' reasons for the FBI wanting section 702 are.
lumb63 2y ago
This is terrible reporting. I don’t support the warrantless monitoring of citizens via Section 702, but the email displayed shows zero nefariousness as far as I can tell. It is just the FBI deputy director encouraging FBI agents to lawfully (at least according to FISA) use the tools at their disposal to demonstrate their use to the FBI.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > “To continue to demonstrate why tools like this are essential to our mission, we need to use them, while also holding ourselves accountable for doing so properly and in compliance with legal requirements,” Not sure why this is news.
  - olliej 2y ago
    You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. Conforming to the “legal requirements” means also conforming to the constitution, it doesn’t matter if someone writes a law that says you don’t need to obey the constitution, that just means the law itself is illegal. It’s amazing how government officials interpret the 2nd amendment (giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia to mean everyone can have guns in of all kinds in all cases, but then turn around and say the 4th amendment does not grant any rights at all)
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      > You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. According to you. The courts think it's perfectly constitutional.
      - dwater 2y ago
        Yes, in an alternate universe it would be gratifying to see a high court that wasn't captured by far right ideologues that was willing to take another look at precedent establishing decisions of the past that rolled back freedoms and privacy and say, "You know what, the facts that supported FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., were falsely manufactured for political reasons, and actually now that those falsehoods have come to light we think it's time to admit that those decisions were unsupported and should be reversed." But I expect the opposite for this universe.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        I disagree that they're captured and I support FISA. FISA should be expanded as far as I am concerned.
        int_19h 2y ago
        It's not a right/left thing, at least not in the colloquial sense those words are used in US. Laws like these have broad support on both sides of the political spectrum. The fundamental problem is authoritarianism, which is a disease infesting both left and right.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        The courts claim lots of things are constitutional when any reasonable person can see that the claim is nonsense. To give just a few examples from Supreme Court cases: Seizing property to turn it over to a private developer instead of for public use is a valid use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). Congress regulating farmers growing wheat on their own property for their own and their animals' consumption on the grounds is a valid regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn). Allowing Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch, in clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" (Hampton Co. v. United States). Ruling that exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself can be taken as evidence of guilt (Salinas v. Texas).
- felsokning 2y ago
  It definitely reads like a, "If we don't use it, we lose it," message - and not a, "oh, mahgerd, wE gOtTa Do SoMeThInG nOw!!!!!!" kind of message.
- philipov 2y ago
  I dunno. If they're really so essential, why do they require him to encourage their use? Sounds like they're completely optional, not essential.
- sweeter 2y ago
  I would have to disagree, the main issue with FISA is not only that allows the US Government to do warrantless wiretapping, it forces citizens who are business owners to facilitate that wire-tapping (which is already legal but only for a small subsection of types of businesses like telephone and internet companies) and FISA expands on the definition of these kinds of businesses without openly defining what that expansion is, the FBI can just make that determination without any due process, foresight, or reasoning. This is hugely detrimental to all Americans. They could go to any business and force them to wiretap their wifi or turn over ALL user records. The fact that there is no transparency at any level and that they are quietly pushing this through is damning. If they want to expand the definition of what FISA allows, they should do so in the open. The Majority Report had an expert on to talk about it, you can google it, its the first link under "majority report FISA"
  - nickff 2y ago
    I don’t like the government forcing business owners to assist in controlling the populace either, but this is hardly a unique situation. The best example I can think of is requiring employers to pay deduct employees’ income tax. Should we stop requiring employers to deduct income tax? For the record, I think the answer to both is yes, but I’m in the minority.
    - notaustinpowers 2y ago
      FISA allows these governmental agencies to force/compel businesses to share this information without users being notified of it. Requiring employers to deduct employee's pay for income taxes notifies the employee in question before it is done. The notice is the important bit here.
      - nickff 2y ago
        People are constantly bombarded with notices, to the point that most of us actually read very few of them. I'm not sure the notice makes a big difference here; what proportion of taxpayers do you think actually know their total tax liability and/or effective tax rate at the federal, state, and/or local levels? We have notice of all of them, but it's so hard to keep track of income, investment, sales, and property taxes, that very few of us actually know this stuff. I bet that if you put a notice of FISA data collection on someone's pay stub, it's unlikely they would even notice.
- bandyaboot 2y ago
  Yeah, this article is very strange. The debate should be about whether the law is appropriate. This email adds nothing to that debate.
- prosody 2y ago
  Would you object if the FBI deputy director encouraged FBI agents to lawfully use their service firearms in the field to demonstrate their use to the FBI? There are real harms involved with increasing surveillance of the public and reducing judicial oversight. Placing the use of warrantless wiretapping as an end in itself rather than a possible means whose use needs to be carefully weighed necessarily means that the weighing will be less careful.
  - jrockway 2y ago
    Ultimately Congress should have written the law more carefully. It's their job to balance the various concerns of the government; effectiveness of their law enforcement vs. civil liberties. The FBI's job is only to investigate to the maximum extent of the law, and the email was just reminding people of that.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      > Ultimately Congress should have written the law more carefully. That's not how the clandestine agencies like Congress to write laws though. They love to live in the spaces and gray areas created by vaguely written laws.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > investigate to the maximum extent of the law Every branch of the government has a duty to uphold the constitution including its protections. Further the constitution is the law suggesting it’s only their responsibility to uphold some laws is the root of a great number of issues.
    - foooorsyth 2y ago
      > Ultimately Congress should have written the law more carefully Insane framing of “we know the spirit of the law but we are going to do everything we can to skirt it”. >The FBI’s job is only to investigate to the maximum extent of the law Wrong, according to the FBI itself: “The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.” https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-mission-of-the-fbi https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-mission-of-the-fb... Pray tell, how does warrantless spying on citizens help to uphold the 4th amendment?
- zugi 2y ago
  Not at all. Remember what FISA stands for: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law was originally written to allow spying on Foreign citizens. They stoked enough fear to get Congress to amend and expand the law to allow targeting of U.S. citizens, implying we were all in danger of we didn't allow it and promising to use that power responsibly. Now the FBI Deputy Director says: "I urge everyone to continue to look for ways to appropriately use US person queries to advance the mission" - that is, literally think about ways to use this power to spy on U.S. citizens. This absolutely is and should be big news.
- tootie 2y ago
  Putting the word "desperation" in the headline is serious editorializing. It's a valuable story but Gizmodo is chasing clicks.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  A congressperson said this email directly contradicts what the FBI told them during the bid to get the program renewed. Even if you're fine with them spreading their net to the legally allowed limit rather than what's necessary, lying to Congress seems like nefariousness.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    Are you ready for Assange's extradition 11 days from now?
    - boomboomsubban 2y ago
      Sorry, what does this have to do with what I said?
chefkd 2y ago
are there laws preventing the FBI from using NSA tools which in my head seem more advanced and all compassing? why even rely on wiretaps at this point
- aerostable_slug 2y ago
  They are in effect accomplishing the same goal with a billion dollar satellite that picks up cell phone calls in a denied country vs. a lawful intercept request from the phone company here in the U.S. The reason NSA has to get data from NRO satellites or its own clandestine taps (or Navy submarines, or what have you) is because North Korea's telco won't honor their intercept requests. Why spend the money when you can effectively just send an email to a friendly party? When we're talking the United States, FBI can exercise their legal privileges and avoid all that technical cost.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- tootie 2y ago
  The FBI is domestic law enforcement. They need admissable evidence. FISA grants warrants. NSA is operating on a different level with different objectives.
  - chefkd 2y ago
    But that's what's confusing to me I come from a country where a dictator might kill a few thousand just on a whim and shut off the internet so it's confusing why the NSA which in my head is still governed by democratic principles and is not at the whim of a single psychopath can collect data on everyone but it can't be used in court? Like hypothetically if they had social graphs and cell phone records showing a US citizen was kidnapped and murdered they can't act on it or pass it to the local police? Doesn't that seem illogical?
    - tootie 2y ago
      By statue, the NSA can't actually do that. The mass unwarranted surveillance of phone conversations was a short-term program that was ultimately shut down as soon it's existence became known outside the Oval Office. Even Bush's Attorney General said he couldn't do it. The bulk collection of telephone metadata lasted for maybe 15 years but was ultimately allowed to expire due to both ethical concerns and because it didn't yield a lot of value. The NSA is primarily tasked with overseas collection. IE tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. And they report up the chain to the DoD. Meaning they aren't even looking for domestic criminals and may not notice if they surveilled one. If they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone. I like to point to the Gestapo as a counterexample. They are the archetype for police state surveillance. And they did it in a country where most people didn't have even a rotary phone let alone the internet. The distinction between a police state and a free society is entirely up to will and not technology.
klabb3 2y ago
If massive surveillance is so necessary for our safety, why isn’t there any reporting on all the threats to society they’ve been averting, or criminals caught? I get that they can’t reveal everything, but as it stands now it’s all hush hush, and many naive people will think they’re catching terrorists every day. Generally, if someone refuses to tell you how they protect you “for your own good”, it is because they would look malicious, incompetent or both.
- abakker 2y ago
  I agree with the meaning and the premise of your question, but, pedantically, it is not always a good idea to go out and admit how effective a secret program is. Think about it in the context of national security and foreign policy - e.g. "we have broken 86% of other governments' encryption" - is not a stat you'd share. Maybe more pointed to the discussion here, by sharing how the program is successful, it would be a powerful indicator about what kinds of crimes criminals should focus on with the lowest risks.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > "we have broken 86% of other governments' encryption" - is not a stat you'd share...by sharing how the program is successful, it would be a powerful indicator about what kinds of crimes criminals should focus on with the lowest risks. They can not tell us that they are reading the encrypted communications of other governments but still tell us "We caught Joe Criminal on Wednesday who tried to blow up the moon, and Bill Evilguy on Friday who tried to poison the waterhole, and Amanda Terrorist on Sunday who tried to murder 10,000 kittens". Then they could hold public trials for those terrorists where even if we can't see all of the evidence we still know exactly who they are imprisoning/killing, when and how often. If criminals come to realize that terrorist attacks are likely to get them killed or sent to rot in gitmo because of how successful our spy agencies are, and they decide to hold up liqueur stores instead how is that a bad thing?
    - abakker 2y ago
      well, its been a while, but I remember seeing a study that states with the death penalty actually had higher incidence of violent crime. From that, it was posited that the existence of harsher punishments don't seem to offer much deterrent value because criminals do not expect to be caught. Further, there was discussion that state-sponsored demonstrations of power/punishment play a role in normalizing that behavior in the first place. Personally, I think both categories are likely true, but I couldn't comment on the effect size. One thing that law enforcement stats generally indicate is that a great deal of property crime is uninvestigated and unsolved. Maybe that is fine, but detailing, "we tried our literal best surveillance methods and have not managed to reduce convenience store robberies" gives an edge to those who would like to premeditate. Of course, if they think they won't get caught in the first place, it doesn't matter.
rootsandstones 2y ago
Offtopic but gizmodo.com is a mess, every few sentences there is an ad. And with activated adblocker it‘s just replaced with whitespace.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

164 points by Jimmc414 2y ago

Not sure what to make of this. If the authorization is basically not being used, then it's a decent question to ask why they are so interested in renewing it. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a reasonable way to answer this question that doesn't rely on people's pre-existing biases. I'm sure everyone on this board knows what the 'real' reasons for the FBI wanting section 702 are.

lumb63 2y ago

This is terrible reporting. I don’t support the warrantless monitoring of citizens via Section 702, but the email displayed shows zero nefariousness as far as I can tell. It is just the FBI deputy director encouraging FBI agents to lawfully (at least according to FISA) use the tools at their disposal to demonstrate their use to the FBI.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> “To continue to demonstrate why tools like this are essential to our mission, we need to use them, while also holding ourselves accountable for doing so properly and in compliance with legal requirements,” Not sure why this is news.
- olliej 2y ago
  You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. Conforming to the “legal requirements” means also conforming to the constitution, it doesn’t matter if someone writes a law that says you don’t need to obey the constitution, that just means the law itself is illegal. It’s amazing how government officials interpret the 2nd amendment (giving the right to bare arms in the absence of a formal militia to mean everyone can have guns in of all kinds in all cases, but then turn around and say the 4th amendment does not grant any rights at all)
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > You cannot use a “fisa warrant” legally, they’re objectively unconstitutional. According to you. The courts think it's perfectly constitutional.
    - dwater 2y ago
      Yes, in an alternate universe it would be gratifying to see a high court that wasn't captured by far right ideologues that was willing to take another look at precedent establishing decisions of the past that rolled back freedoms and privacy and say, "You know what, the facts that supported FISA, the Patriot Act, etc., were falsely manufactured for political reasons, and actually now that those falsehoods have come to light we think it's time to admit that those decisions were unsupported and should be reversed." But I expect the opposite for this universe.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        I disagree that they're captured and I support FISA. FISA should be expanded as far as I am concerned.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        It's not a right/left thing, at least not in the colloquial sense those words are used in US. Laws like these have broad support on both sides of the political spectrum. The fundamental problem is authoritarianism, which is a disease infesting both left and right.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      The courts claim lots of things are constitutional when any reasonable person can see that the claim is nonsense. To give just a few examples from Supreme Court cases: Seizing property to turn it over to a private developer instead of for public use is a valid use of the government's eminent domain power (Kelo v. New London). Congress regulating farmers growing wheat on their own property for their own and their animals' consumption on the grounds is a valid regulation of interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Wickard v. Filburn). Allowing Congress to delegate legislative power to the executive branch, in clear violation of Article I of the Constitution, as long as Congress gives an "intelligible principle" (Hampton Co. v. United States). Ruling that exercising your Fifth Amendment right not to be a witness against yourself can be taken as evidence of guilt (Salinas v. Texas).
felsokning 2y ago
It definitely reads like a, "If we don't use it, we lose it," message - and not a, "oh, mahgerd, wE gOtTa Do SoMeThInG nOw!!!!!!" kind of message.
philipov 2y ago
I dunno. If they're really so essential, why do they require him to encourage their use? Sounds like they're completely optional, not essential.
sweeter 2y ago
I would have to disagree, the main issue with FISA is not only that allows the US Government to do warrantless wiretapping, it forces citizens who are business owners to facilitate that wire-tapping (which is already legal but only for a small subsection of types of businesses like telephone and internet companies) and FISA expands on the definition of these kinds of businesses without openly defining what that expansion is, the FBI can just make that determination without any due process, foresight, or reasoning. This is hugely detrimental to all Americans. They could go to any business and force them to wiretap their wifi or turn over ALL user records. The fact that there is no transparency at any level and that they are quietly pushing this through is damning. If they want to expand the definition of what FISA allows, they should do so in the open. The Majority Report had an expert on to talk about it, you can google it, its the first link under "majority report FISA"
- nickff 2y ago
  I don’t like the government forcing business owners to assist in controlling the populace either, but this is hardly a unique situation. The best example I can think of is requiring employers to pay deduct employees’ income tax. Should we stop requiring employers to deduct income tax? For the record, I think the answer to both is yes, but I’m in the minority.
  - notaustinpowers 2y ago
    FISA allows these governmental agencies to force/compel businesses to share this information without users being notified of it. Requiring employers to deduct employee's pay for income taxes notifies the employee in question before it is done. The notice is the important bit here.
    - nickff 2y ago
      People are constantly bombarded with notices, to the point that most of us actually read very few of them. I'm not sure the notice makes a big difference here; what proportion of taxpayers do you think actually know their total tax liability and/or effective tax rate at the federal, state, and/or local levels? We have notice of all of them, but it's so hard to keep track of income, investment, sales, and property taxes, that very few of us actually know this stuff. I bet that if you put a notice of FISA data collection on someone's pay stub, it's unlikely they would even notice.
bandyaboot 2y ago
Yeah, this article is very strange. The debate should be about whether the law is appropriate. This email adds nothing to that debate.
prosody 2y ago
Would you object if the FBI deputy director encouraged FBI agents to lawfully use their service firearms in the field to demonstrate their use to the FBI? There are real harms involved with increasing surveillance of the public and reducing judicial oversight. Placing the use of warrantless wiretapping as an end in itself rather than a possible means whose use needs to be carefully weighed necessarily means that the weighing will be less careful.
- jrockway 2y ago
  Ultimately Congress should have written the law more carefully. It's their job to balance the various concerns of the government; effectiveness of their law enforcement vs. civil liberties. The FBI's job is only to investigate to the maximum extent of the law, and the email was just reminding people of that.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > Ultimately Congress should have written the law more carefully. That's not how the clandestine agencies like Congress to write laws though. They love to live in the spaces and gray areas created by vaguely written laws.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > investigate to the maximum extent of the law Every branch of the government has a duty to uphold the constitution including its protections. Further the constitution is the law suggesting it’s only their responsibility to uphold some laws is the root of a great number of issues.
  - foooorsyth 2y ago
    > Ultimately Congress should have written the law more carefully Insane framing of “we know the spirit of the law but we are going to do everything we can to skirt it”. >The FBI’s job is only to investigate to the maximum extent of the law Wrong, according to the FBI itself: “The mission of the FBI is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.” https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-mission-of-the-fbi https://www.fbi.gov/about/faqs/what-is-the-mission-of-the-fb... Pray tell, how does warrantless spying on citizens help to uphold the 4th amendment?
zugi 2y ago
Not at all. Remember what FISA stands for: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law was originally written to allow spying on Foreign citizens. They stoked enough fear to get Congress to amend and expand the law to allow targeting of U.S. citizens, implying we were all in danger of we didn't allow it and promising to use that power responsibly. Now the FBI Deputy Director says: "I urge everyone to continue to look for ways to appropriately use US person queries to advance the mission" - that is, literally think about ways to use this power to spy on U.S. citizens. This absolutely is and should be big news.
tootie 2y ago
Putting the word "desperation" in the headline is serious editorializing. It's a valuable story but Gizmodo is chasing clicks.
boomboomsubban 2y ago
A congressperson said this email directly contradicts what the FBI told them during the bid to get the program renewed. Even if you're fine with them spreading their net to the legally allowed limit rather than what's necessary, lying to Congress seems like nefariousness.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Are you ready for Assange's extradition 11 days from now?
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    Sorry, what does this have to do with what I said?

chefkd 2y ago

are there laws preventing the FBI from using NSA tools which in my head seem more advanced and all compassing? why even rely on wiretaps at this point

aerostable_slug 2y ago
They are in effect accomplishing the same goal with a billion dollar satellite that picks up cell phone calls in a denied country vs. a lawful intercept request from the phone company here in the U.S. The reason NSA has to get data from NRO satellites or its own clandestine taps (or Navy submarines, or what have you) is because North Korea's telco won't honor their intercept requests. Why spend the money when you can effectively just send an email to a friendly party? When we're talking the United States, FBI can exercise their legal privileges and avoid all that technical cost.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tootie 2y ago
The FBI is domestic law enforcement. They need admissable evidence. FISA grants warrants. NSA is operating on a different level with different objectives.
- chefkd 2y ago
  But that's what's confusing to me I come from a country where a dictator might kill a few thousand just on a whim and shut off the internet so it's confusing why the NSA which in my head is still governed by democratic principles and is not at the whim of a single psychopath can collect data on everyone but it can't be used in court? Like hypothetically if they had social graphs and cell phone records showing a US citizen was kidnapped and murdered they can't act on it or pass it to the local police? Doesn't that seem illogical?
  - tootie 2y ago
    By statue, the NSA can't actually do that. The mass unwarranted surveillance of phone conversations was a short-term program that was ultimately shut down as soon it's existence became known outside the Oval Office. Even Bush's Attorney General said he couldn't do it. The bulk collection of telephone metadata lasted for maybe 15 years but was ultimately allowed to expire due to both ethical concerns and because it didn't yield a lot of value. The NSA is primarily tasked with overseas collection. IE tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. And they report up the chain to the DoD. Meaning they aren't even looking for domestic criminals and may not notice if they surveilled one. If they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone. I like to point to the Gestapo as a counterexample. They are the archetype for police state surveillance. And they did it in a country where most people didn't have even a rotary phone let alone the internet. The distinction between a police state and a free society is entirely up to will and not technology.

klabb3 2y ago

If massive surveillance is so necessary for our safety, why isn’t there any reporting on all the threats to society they’ve been averting, or criminals caught? I get that they can’t reveal everything, but as it stands now it’s all hush hush, and many naive people will think they’re catching terrorists every day. Generally, if someone refuses to tell you how they protect you “for your own good”, it is because they would look malicious, incompetent or both.

abakker 2y ago
I agree with the meaning and the premise of your question, but, pedantically, it is not always a good idea to go out and admit how effective a secret program is. Think about it in the context of national security and foreign policy - e.g. "we have broken 86% of other governments' encryption" - is not a stat you'd share. Maybe more pointed to the discussion here, by sharing how the program is successful, it would be a powerful indicator about what kinds of crimes criminals should focus on with the lowest risks.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > "we have broken 86% of other governments' encryption" - is not a stat you'd share...by sharing how the program is successful, it would be a powerful indicator about what kinds of crimes criminals should focus on with the lowest risks. They can not tell us that they are reading the encrypted communications of other governments but still tell us "We caught Joe Criminal on Wednesday who tried to blow up the moon, and Bill Evilguy on Friday who tried to poison the waterhole, and Amanda Terrorist on Sunday who tried to murder 10,000 kittens". Then they could hold public trials for those terrorists where even if we can't see all of the evidence we still know exactly who they are imprisoning/killing, when and how often. If criminals come to realize that terrorist attacks are likely to get them killed or sent to rot in gitmo because of how successful our spy agencies are, and they decide to hold up liqueur stores instead how is that a bad thing?
  - abakker 2y ago
    well, its been a while, but I remember seeing a study that states with the death penalty actually had higher incidence of violent crime. From that, it was posited that the existence of harsher punishments don't seem to offer much deterrent value because criminals do not expect to be caught. Further, there was discussion that state-sponsored demonstrations of power/punishment play a role in normalizing that behavior in the first place. Personally, I think both categories are likely true, but I couldn't comment on the effect size. One thing that law enforcement stats generally indicate is that a great deal of property crime is uninvestigated and unsolved. Maybe that is fine, but detailing, "we tried our literal best surveillance methods and have not managed to reduce convenience store robberies" gives an edge to those who would like to premeditate. Of course, if they think they won't get caught in the first place, it doesn't matter.

rootsandstones 2y ago

Offtopic but gizmodo.com is a mess, every few sentences there is an ad. And with activated adblocker it‘s just replaced with whitespace.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]