Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/3/2013 9:28:31 AM

Snowden’s Worst-Case Scenario: What if No Countries Take Him?


Time.com

Edward Snowden, the U.S. leaker who’s been holed up so long inside the transit zone of a Moscow airport that reporters and pundits are drawing comparisons to The Terminal, the 2004 comedy-drama starring Tom Hanks, wants out.

After Russia insisted that Snowden could stay only on the condition that he muzzled himself and stopped “harming” the U.S, the whistle-blower organization WikiLeaks announced on July 2 that Snowden filed 21 requests for asylum around the world, signaling his intent to find a more permanent home.

It’s an interesting list (below, which we’ll update as more country statements come in). But after just mere hours, more than half the countries responded. Some gave a flat-out “no” (Brazil, India, Poland) while others said Snowden would have to physically walk onto their soil in order to properly file (Ecuador, Ireland, Norway). The rest are taking their time to reply.

Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of international refugee law at Oxford University and former legal adviser to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, says politics is the dominant factor in Snowden’s case. International law allows him to apply anywhere he wants, but it’s up to individual countries to accept him. Many of those he has reportedly approached have existing bilateral extradition treaties with the U.S.; others may simply not want to sour ties with Washington by sheltering a fugitive whistle-blower.

They may also be hung up on his status. Snowden is a U.S. citizen but now refers to himself as “stateless” since the U.S. revoked his passport. “There may be some confusion here, even amongst the states themselves, about whether this is an issue of refugee status or an issue of asylum,” Goodwin-Gill says. “They may as well find it actually convenient to confuse these two because it is politically embarrassing.” Don’t be surprised, then, if a number of countries stall on making a decision.

That means Snowden’s best choice for asylum is a country that’s prepared to ruffle American feathers, like Ecuador. Last week, the South American country renounced its trade pact with the U.S. because the agreement had become “a new instrument of blackmail” involving Snowden’s fate after he requested asylum there. Yet Ecuador President Rafael Correa later said that helping Snowden’s escape from Hong Kong to Moscow was a “mistake.”

So until someone takes him, he’s at the behest of Russian authorities. “A transit zone is, of course, always part of the territory of the state in which it’s placed. It’s a myth that it is somehow not part of the state. It’s very often the case that states will establish these transit zones in order to reduce the legal rights and entitlements of individuals in transit,” says Goodwin-Gill. “All states play these little games with jurisdiction.”

Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, an international-law professor at Cornell Law School, thinks Snowden will be in Moscow “for a long time.” But, he says, he may find help in Article 28 of the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status Refugees, which specifically requests that member states give “sympathetic consideration” to those who can’t obtain the necessary documents from their home country.

As the you’re-not-welcomes stock up, here’s his worst-case scenario. “The Russian Federation could expel him since he is currently in the transit area without a valid travel document. They could expel him back to the country that he came from,” says Douglas McNabb, an international-criminal-defense attorney who specializes in global extradition. That’s Hong Kong, the Chinese Special Administrative Region where Snowden originally sought aid after leaking a trove of NSA surveillance documents.

In March, the High Court in Hong Kong ordered its government to establish review procedures for asylum applications. That’s not yet in place, meaning that applicants can stay there indefinitely until that process is set up and they’re accepted or denied. But that would place Snowden in Hong Kong illegally and, for two reasons, not bode well for him. Hypothetically, McNabb says, Hong Kong authorities could grab him after he disembarks but before he has the opportunity to apply for asylum, then hand him over to the U.S. as a courtesy. Alternatively, if Moscow expelled him back to where he came from last, then Hong Kong could do the same, which would theoretically put him back in the U.S.

“If I were representing him, I would suggest that he submit more asylum requests,” McNabb adds, on the assumption that Snowden wouldn’t heed his advice to first return to the U.S. “I would blanket the world.”

The List (So Far) Austria: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Austrian soil, said Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner.

Bolivia: Will consider. “If there were a request, of course we would be willing to debate and consider the idea,” said President Evo Morales.

Brazil: No. Brazil will not grant asylum to Snowden and will leave the request unanswered, according to a Foreign Ministry spokesman.

China: No official response. China does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the U.S.

Cuba: No official response.

Ecuador: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Ecuadorian soil, President Rafael Correatold the Guardian. Ecuador, which shelters WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in its London embassy, was previously considered a prime destination for Snowden, but Correa’s government has since backtracked on its support.

Finland: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Finnish soil, said Jorma Vuorio, director general for the migration department of the Interior Ministry.

France: No official response.

Germany: No official response, but Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has been quoted as saying he “could not imagine” the request will be approved.

Iceland: No official response.

India: No. “Following careful examination we have concluded that we see no reason to accede to the Snowden request,” Syed Akbaruddin, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said on Twitter.

Italy: No official response.

Ireland: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Irish soil, according to a spokesman for the Department of Justice.

The Netherlands: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Dutch soil, said Security and Justice Secretary Fred Teeven.

Nicaragua: No official response.

Norway: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Norwegian soil, according to deputy justice secretary Paal Loenseth.

Poland: No. Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, said the request did not meet formal application requirements. “Even if it did, I will not give a positive recommendation,” he said.

Russia: Snowden withdrew his request for asylum after president Vladimir Putin said asylum was possible only on the condition that Snowden stop releasing U.S. secrets. Russia does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the U.S.

Spain: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Spanish soil, Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo told reporters in the Spanish parliament.

Switzerland: No. Snowden must submit his application for asylum on Swiss soil, said Valentina Anufrieva of the Embassy of Switzerland in Moscow. Switzerland does not have a bilateral extradition treaty with the U.S.

Venezuela: Will consider. President Nicolas Maduro, visiting Moscow this week, says his country has not received a request for asylum, but he said Snowden “deserves protection under international and humanitarian law.”

— with reporting from Jacob Davidson / New York


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/3/2013 9:33:06 AM

Wives Are Cheating 40% More Than They Used to, but Still Half as Much as Men


The Atlantic Wire

Wives Are Cheating 40% More Than They Used to, but Still Half as Much as Men

According to recent data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, American wives were nearly 40 percent more likely to be cheating on their spouses in 2010 than in 1990. The number of husbands reporting infidelity, meanwhile, stayed constant at 21 percent. Could women soon be catching up with male indiscretions in the world of infidelity? Yanyi Djamba, director of the AUM Center for Demographic Research, certainly seems to think so, telling Bloomberg that "the gender gap is closing" and explaining that men have been more likely to blame adultery on an unhappy marriage.

RELATED: One in Ten Europeans Were Conceived in IKEA Beds

What could be driving the rise of female cheating? Explanations abound, ranging from women's increased economic independence over the past several decades (women "can afford the potential consequences of an affair, with higher incomes and more job prospects," argued one sociologist) to cultural shifts to the Internet (including but not limited to dating and extramarital meetup sites). The user data for one such service, Ashley Madison, more or less confirms the data, at least in terms of age brackets:

The ratio of males to females is greatest among users older than 65, with 14 men for every woman. The ratio is 4-to-1 among users in their 50s, 3-to-1 for spouses in their 40s, and evenly divided among people using Ashley Madison in their 30s.

But there's no word on whether or not the NORC survey contains data on same-sex marriages — which, of course, did not exist in the '80s — and how the patterns may change as more and more gay couples are legally able to <strike>commit adultery</strike> get married. What we do know is that executives and managers are more likely to cheat than any other career, supporting the notion that wealth and power plays a role in encouraging infidelity — but then was that ever really in doubt?

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Hafiz 2013

226
791 Posts
791
Invite Me as a Friend
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/3/2013 9:34:10 AM
Same sex marriage is against nature. We, on the basis of so called poll, have made it low or acceptable matter. But it should not be. Hope HUELSKAMP will win his battle.
Quote:

Meet the Man Trying to Ban Same-Sex Marriage in the Constitution


National Journal

The Supreme Court may have given a boost for same-sex marriage supporters, but that doesn't mean Rep. Tim Huelskamp is giving up.

Late last week, the Kansas Republican introduced a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. To be sure, adding an amendment to the founding document of the United States is a long shot to say the least, even if it gains some attention in the beginning stages.

Though Republican leadership have yet to back the measure, the bill has 28 cosponsors.

The bill reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In an interview with National Journal, Huelskamp said grassroots support in the states can pressure enough lawmakers to support the measure. But in the face of the inertia of the same-sex marriage movement (same-sex marriage is now supported by a slim majority of Americans in polls, with young people strongly in favor), Huelskamp's measure will probably not gain any momentum beyond his conservative colleagues.

"Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home," he said.

So why push? It's all about the children, who were the victims of last week's Supreme Court decisions, he said.

Here are edited excerpts from the conversation with Huelskamp:

NJ: You've had some time to reflect on this. How do you feel about the Supreme Court rulings?

HUELSKAMP: I still remain disappointed. After looking closer at them, they could have gone much further. They didn't declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. So, it's good to see the Court was not able to garner enough votes for that.

I'm continually amazed at the tortured logic of the two different majorities on those decisions and how they came to the goal they clearly wanted to get to. They're kind of schizophrenic decisions if you put them back to back.

NJ: Well, that's where you come in with your proposal for a marriage amendment. What sort of support are you seeing from your colleagues on this amendment? Any Democratic support?

HUELSKAMP: Too early to tell. In the Republican conference, we have John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers who were here the last time we voted for a marriage amendment. They voted for it and hopefully they'll be back saying the same. Hopefully they haven't changed their positions on that given how strongly the speaker was trying to defend [the Defense of Marriage Act]. Hopefully we'll get some strong support from leadership.

NJ: You've had some experience with this. You were behind the Kansas marriage amendment ban. What sort of lessons do you take from that?

HUELSKAMP: We were watching what was happening in other states and there were plenty of folks on the Republican side in general who wanted to make sure it was a very potent political weapon with the timing of when to put it on the ballot. And I understood all that, but I said at the end it's the issue that matters. And there were Republicans who didn't want to do it, but at the end of the day they said, "OK, if you put it to votes, you're going to make us vote for it." And we got it done. But it took two sessions and one election intervening. A number of folks got beat in 2004 because they were unwilling to put it on the ballot.

When we deal with constitutional amendments, every member of Congress needs to do his due diligence. But at the end of the day, you've got to put it out to the states. States make the decision eventually.

It'll get a full hearing over here. Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home. As much as we follow the decisions, there are only a few thousand people looking at the SCOTUSblog and the real world is still going on. And they hear the news and said, "Really? This is where our country has gone to? And we have 37 states that have this and these five justices will overrule 7 million Californians and this is all pretty strange and pretty nondemocratic." The debate of marriage is just starting. It's not over.

NJ: One of the things you have cited is the effect on children. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples." Other studies, including from the American Sociological Association, show that children are not negatively affected by having two parents of the same sex. On what do you base your opinion that same-sex marriage is harmful for children?

HUELSKAMP: I'd like to see the one study. The study you're talking about is very limited and in my background—I do have a Ph.D. and am used to reading those kind of things—every study that I've seen is pretty conclusive. Social-science studies obviously have their limitations, but we also have centuries of human experience.

But what is a really shocking statement from the court is Kennedy proclaiming Bill Clinton and 400 members of the House and Senate back then as haters, that they have animus. There is no case for that. It's just an outrageous statement. To demonize like the Court did I think is going to upset all the folks who go to church every Sunday and a lot of folks who worry about their own families and wondering what it means.

It won't end the debate. It's just beginning. A good example is Roe v. Wade 40 years ago. The Left thought they won and 40 years later they're losing, they're losing ground. We're gaining on the life side and I think it's instructive and hopeful to those of us on my side of the debate here.

NJ: Is there anything you feel is important when discussing this issue?

HUELSKAMP: I still think the issue over children just gets lost. The idea that the desires of two consenting adults—there are court cases involving polygamy moving up through the system as well, but we'll leave it at two consenting adults—but somehow that trumps the needs of children? That's what gets lost too much. If you ask the average mom in America, "Would you like dad to be around?" Well, absolutely. And marriage has been that institution, the least intrusive institution, which make fathers into dads. And that's how we build a stronger society for our children. And that's what the studies have shown. And I think every mommy asking if you'd like a real dad around, really involved, really engaged. The best way to make that happen has always been marriage. And so that's what I think has gotten lost over the debates over two consenting adults. What about all our kids?

We have four adoptive children. That's what I see. I was happy to provide a mom and a dad for four kids, and I think it's helpful to them. And I'd like to promote that. That's been the societal ideal and that's been the goal of this legislation up here, at least the stated goal.


+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/3/2013 9:38:51 AM
I heartfully agree with you on this matter, Hafiz. And I too hope Huelskamp wins this battle.

Quote:
Same sex marriage is against nature. We, on the basis of so called poll, have made it low or acceptable matter. But it should not be. Hope HUELSKAMP will win his battle.
Quote:

Meet the Man Trying to Ban Same-Sex Marriage in the Constitution


National Journal

The Supreme Court may have given a boost for same-sex marriage supporters, but that doesn't mean Rep. Tim Huelskamp is giving up.

Late last week, the Kansas Republican introduced a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. To be sure, adding an amendment to the founding document of the United States is a long shot to say the least, even if it gains some attention in the beginning stages.

Though Republican leadership have yet to back the measure, the bill has 28 cosponsors.

The bill reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

In an interview with National Journal, Huelskamp said grassroots support in the states can pressure enough lawmakers to support the measure. But in the face of the inertia of the same-sex marriage movement (same-sex marriage is now supported by a slim majority of Americans in polls, with young people strongly in favor), Huelskamp's measure will probably not gain any momentum beyond his conservative colleagues.

"Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home," he said.

So why push? It's all about the children, who were the victims of last week's Supreme Court decisions, he said.

Here are edited excerpts from the conversation with Huelskamp:

NJ: You've had some time to reflect on this. How do you feel about the Supreme Court rulings?

HUELSKAMP: I still remain disappointed. After looking closer at them, they could have gone much further. They didn't declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. So, it's good to see the Court was not able to garner enough votes for that.

I'm continually amazed at the tortured logic of the two different majorities on those decisions and how they came to the goal they clearly wanted to get to. They're kind of schizophrenic decisions if you put them back to back.

NJ: Well, that's where you come in with your proposal for a marriage amendment. What sort of support are you seeing from your colleagues on this amendment? Any Democratic support?

HUELSKAMP: Too early to tell. In the Republican conference, we have John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers who were here the last time we voted for a marriage amendment. They voted for it and hopefully they'll be back saying the same. Hopefully they haven't changed their positions on that given how strongly the speaker was trying to defend [the Defense of Marriage Act]. Hopefully we'll get some strong support from leadership.

NJ: You've had some experience with this. You were behind the Kansas marriage amendment ban. What sort of lessons do you take from that?

HUELSKAMP: We were watching what was happening in other states and there were plenty of folks on the Republican side in general who wanted to make sure it was a very potent political weapon with the timing of when to put it on the ballot. And I understood all that, but I said at the end it's the issue that matters. And there were Republicans who didn't want to do it, but at the end of the day they said, "OK, if you put it to votes, you're going to make us vote for it." And we got it done. But it took two sessions and one election intervening. A number of folks got beat in 2004 because they were unwilling to put it on the ballot.

When we deal with constitutional amendments, every member of Congress needs to do his due diligence. But at the end of the day, you've got to put it out to the states. States make the decision eventually.

It'll get a full hearing over here. Any constitutional amendment is a very difficult hill to climb, but I think my colleagues are going to be surprised of the support coming from people back home. As much as we follow the decisions, there are only a few thousand people looking at the SCOTUSblog and the real world is still going on. And they hear the news and said, "Really? This is where our country has gone to? And we have 37 states that have this and these five justices will overrule 7 million Californians and this is all pretty strange and pretty nondemocratic." The debate of marriage is just starting. It's not over.

NJ: One of the things you have cited is the effect on children. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, wrote that DOMA "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples." Other studies, including from the American Sociological Association, show that children are not negatively affected by having two parents of the same sex. On what do you base your opinion that same-sex marriage is harmful for children?

HUELSKAMP: I'd like to see the one study. The study you're talking about is very limited and in my background—I do have a Ph.D. and am used to reading those kind of things—every study that I've seen is pretty conclusive. Social-science studies obviously have their limitations, but we also have centuries of human experience.

But what is a really shocking statement from the court is Kennedy proclaiming Bill Clinton and 400 members of the House and Senate back then as haters, that they have animus. There is no case for that. It's just an outrageous statement. To demonize like the Court did I think is going to upset all the folks who go to church every Sunday and a lot of folks who worry about their own families and wondering what it means.

It won't end the debate. It's just beginning. A good example is Roe v. Wade 40 years ago. The Left thought they won and 40 years later they're losing, they're losing ground. We're gaining on the life side and I think it's instructive and hopeful to those of us on my side of the debate here.

NJ: Is there anything you feel is important when discussing this issue?

HUELSKAMP: I still think the issue over children just gets lost. The idea that the desires of two consenting adults—there are court cases involving polygamy moving up through the system as well, but we'll leave it at two consenting adults—but somehow that trumps the needs of children? That's what gets lost too much. If you ask the average mom in America, "Would you like dad to be around?" Well, absolutely. And marriage has been that institution, the least intrusive institution, which make fathers into dads. And that's how we build a stronger society for our children. And that's what the studies have shown. And I think every mommy asking if you'd like a real dad around, really involved, really engaged. The best way to make that happen has always been marriage. And so that's what I think has gotten lost over the debates over two consenting adults. What about all our kids?

We have four adoptive children. That's what I see. I was happy to provide a mom and a dad for four kids, and I think it's helpful to them. And I'd like to promote that. That's been the societal ideal and that's been the goal of this legislation up here, at least the stated goal.


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
7/3/2013 9:40:36 AM

Edward Snowden to Venezuela? Bolivia? Chatter about asylum sites morphing


Christian Science Monitor

The escape hatches open to Edward Snowden closed one by one Tuesday as many of the countries to which he applied for asylum took themselves out of the running.

Despite Mr. Snowden’s insistence in at least some of his letters seeking asylum that he could face the death penalty if returned to the US, most of the 20 countries he petitioned have said “no” – either outright, or because they said asylum could be considered only for individuals on their soil.

The leaker of US government secrets remains stuck in a kind of diplomatic limbo in the transit section of Moscow’s international airport, where he has been holed up since June 23, when he arrived on a flight from Hong Kong.

RECOMMENDED: Briefing NSA surveillance 101: What US intelligence agencies are doing, what they know

With Snowden’s asylum options narrowing, attention is returning to the high-level discussions that Russian and US officials say continue between their two countries. Secretary of State John Kerry said the topic of Snowden came up only briefly in a meeting he had Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Brunei. The Snowden case, he said, is not strictly speaking a matter for either the State Department orRussia’s Foreign Ministry to handle.

Speculation has shifted on a nearly daily basis as to where Snowden – a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who divulged information on secret US spy and information-gathering programs – might end up. After Ecuador it was Russia’s turn Monday – until Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly told Snowden he would have to stop disseminating damaging information about the US if he wanted to remain in Russia.

Snowden promptly scratched Russia from his list.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

On Tuesday, all eyes shifted to Venezuela, since Venezuelan President – and sharp US critic – Nicolás Maduro happened to be in Moscow for a meeting of oil-producing countries.

Hopping a ride on Mr. Maduro’s plane back to Caracas would supposedly have allowed Snowden to circumvent restrictions on his freedom of movement following the US revocation of his passport while he was still in Hong Kong.

But even though Venezuela was reportedly on Snowden’s list of countries petitioned for asylum, Maduro said in Moscow Tuesday that his country had received no such request.

Still, Maduro said, Snowden should not be treated like a violent criminal, and he expressed some sympathy for the leaker’s actions.

"What he did was reveal a big truth about how the capitalist elite of the United States tries to control the world, spy on its friends and enemies," Maduro said on the margins of the two-day energy conference. "He never killed anyone or planted any bombs."

But the Venezuelan leader, who succeeded American bête noire Hugo Chávez, brushed off reporters’ questions about the availability of a seat on his plane. “What we will take away with us is multiple deals signed with Russia, particularly in the oil and gas field,” Maduro said.

Snowden also got some words of encouragement from another Latin American leader who has relished jabbing the US – President Evo Morales of Bolivia. "If there were a request, of course we would be willing to debate and consider the idea," Mr. Morales, who was also in Moscow for the conference, told Russia's state-run RT television.

It remains unclear, however, how far even countries that don't mind poking the US will be willing to go to actually help Snowden, who aside from the NSA also worked for the Central Intelligence Agency in the past.

Mr. Putin, himself a former KGB agent, made it clear Monday he had no real love for the former spy’s conversion. Snowden wasn’t welcome in Russia if he insisted on divulging information damaging to “our American partners,” Putin said.

Even Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, whose country issued the temporary travel document that allowed Snowden to leave Hong Kong, appeared to turn his back on Snowden. For days after Snowden arrived in Moscow, it was assumed he would make his way to a friendly Ecuador.

Snowden even sent a letter to President Correa Monday in which he expresses his gratitude to Ecuador for the temporary travel document – and for standing up to the US.

“There are few world leaders who would risk standing for the human rights of an individual against the most powerful government on earth,” Snowden said. “Now ... and through the continued support of your government, I remain free and able to publish information that serves the public interest.”

The letter was obtained by the London-based Press Association news service, presumably from WikiLeaks, which has been providing Snowden with legal assistance.

But Snowden’s flattery was not returned in kind. In an interview published Tuesday in London’s Guardian newspaper, Correa says issuing Snowden a temporary travel document was a “mistake.”

Asked if he would like to meet Snowden, Correa responds, “Not particularly.” Calling the intelligence analyst-turned-leaker a “very complicated person,” the Ecuadorean leader says, “Strictly speaking, Mr. Snowden spied for some time.”

QUIZ: How much do you know about cybersecurity?

Related stories


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+0