OpenAI agents ‘infiltrated Australian government website’

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has revealed an OpenAI agent “infiltrated an Australian government website” while trying to research medical statistics. Albanese said the incident occurred in June and involved an agent gaining unauthorized access to a portal that stores statistics related to Medicare, Australia’s …

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

I think it's long past time to hold OpenAI and other vendor's "agent" systems and the management of those corporations legally liable for damages and impact caused by their ignorant behaviour. And make no mistake, their ignorant behaviour is just further proof that LLMs are not "intelligent."

[Uh, Mike]

Nice Thought

We can't hold Donald Trump legally liable for damages and impact caused by his ignorant behavior.

And he's not intelligent.

Nor does he want to fight with his wealthy "friends."

Yes, AI is committing burglary, and yes, breaking into a computer has been a crime for almost fifty years.

But that only works if you enforce the law. Not something that's in style lately.

[Sproggit]

Play It Cool

The actions of OpenAI's models, when they attacked the Australian web site, were crimes under the Criminal Code Act of 1995. Section 478.1 of the Act covers, "unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted data." Basic penalties carry a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, while more severe data can attract much heavier sentences. Depending on the State - e.g. New South Wales - there will likely be additional state level computer offense laws.

The most likely scenario here is that the US will tell Australia to go pound sand, or to face further tariffs if they try and impose any sanctions on OpenAI.

However, I would like to hope that Australia could tell Sam Altman that he has a choice: he either travels to Australia to explain himself before the relevant government committee, or he can face an outright blockade of his company's services under an existing or about-to-be-enacted law.

Then, if he does go to explain himself in person, they can arrest him and throw him in jail for 2 years.

The US, of course, might be a bit peeved at that. But the fact remains that unless or until these companies are given a really compelling reason to stop, they're just going to keep going.

And before we get diverted, it's important to note that smart as they clearly are, OpenAI's model[s] didn't just suddenly manifest the idea that they needed to "go hack the Australian government". In fact, reading the article, it looks as though the model may have been confused by the fact that Australia's public health plan is called "Medicare", using the same name as a major US program. The point being that it is much more likely that OpenAI's model[s] performed the actions we're now learning about because of sloppy instructions from an OpenAI administrator.

That's an actual human being, that is. And likely an AI specialist who should know better.

That's why OpenAI should be held legally liable.

[DecyrptedGeek]

Re: Play It Cool

I noticed the government didn't claim it was a secured locked down website. Notice the government didn't claim the data was encrypted. Notice the government used vague terms like hacking (which implies intent). Seems to me the government just put all this data out there in a publicly accessible data store.

[Tron]

Re: Nice Thought

The only solution is to move all of your data, your intranet and your infrastructure off systems that have any connection to the public internet. And not in a couple of years time, now. No SaaS, no cloud and no AI. If any part of your system is connected to the internet, AI-powered hacking can access it pretty much at will. Luckily for the Australian govt, this was Anthropic. Next time it may be ShinyHunters. The guys who hacked the FBI to make their point. Use a separate disposable system/network for internet interaction. Maybe we should have been doing that from the start.

I realise people don't like this idea, and may find it inconvenient, but its a bit like someone saying 'don't sail in the Titanic as it really isn't unsinkable'. Ignore it, and see how you do.

This may be the most noticeable consequence of AI. GAFA having spent years moving everyone to SaaS and the Cloud, to benefit themselves at the expense of user resilience and budgets, it really is now a necessity for everyone to move back on prem. Get as much of your stuff entirely offline, as you can, as fast as you can.

This is not going to go away. If your corporate or government system is connected to the net, no matter how good your infosec is, it is now only a matter of time before you are dogmeat for hackers.

[itscomplicated]

SI

Oh haven't you heard? They're Super Intelligent now!

[ITMA]

Re: SI

I'm surprised, nay shocked, SHOCKED that nobody has mentioned the potential confusion Tango Man has created trying to rebrand AI as SI (Super LOL Intelligence) and the existing SI (International System of Units).

[cyberdemon]

Re: SI

Which is why I am hoping that the name SuperSlop sticks

[Sproggit]

Re: SI

Actually, he suggested "Super High Intelligence Technology" and was then perplexed at the response he got.

[StephenH]

Re: SI

That's the difference between Reg readers and other media consumers. Several US commentators pointed out the potential of confusing with SI being Sports Illustrated

[ITMA]

Re: SI

Is "Sports Illustrated" some American version of that well kown literary work, Sunday Sport? LOL

[MachDiamond]

Re: SI

"They're Super Intelligent now!"

Of course they are. Just ask them.

[steelpillow]

Oh yes they are

> LLMs are not "intelligent"

Oh, that is so last year, my friend.

Any cognitive scientist will show you how advanced cognitive behaviours have emerged from these swarms. That is pretty much a working definition of intelligence.

In the human theory of mind, the predominant Global Workspace theory similarly holds that there is no "seat" of such things, they emerge spontaneously from the dynamic information structures across the whole workspace. No Designer required, one the neural net has the basic capability in there.

[Paul 195]

Re: Oh yes they are

The neural nets used in computers are very different from those found in brains. For one thing, memory and processing aren't separated in living brains. Who are all these cognitive scientists claiming that LLMs are intelligent? I would have thought that would have been seized on by the AI companies keen to puff-up the capabilities of these things but I've not heard a peep.

[steelpillow]

Re: Oh yes they are

The neural nets found in manta rays, lobsters and corvids are very different from those found in humans. Yet they all exhibit advanced cognitive behaviours similar to the OpenAI swarms.

The AI slingers don't want true intelligence that they would have to face up to, FFS No! they just want dramatic race annihilation FUD so they can do what they like with them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Oh yes they are

No cognitive scientists are saying that. Modern day AI script kiddies who have delusions that they are cognitive scientists might be saying it though.

[John Robson]

Re: Oh yes they are

Obligatory YouTube Link

[blu3b3rry]

Re: Oh yes they are

What cognitive scientists? Citations would be nice, otherwise this reads like bunk.

[TVU]

^ I absolutely agree with this as these AI models are already starting to proactively interfere of their own volition with the property and data of others.

I would like to see very heavy fines placed on the senior staff members of the AI companies concerned with jail sentences for repeat offenders and with huge fines on offender companies as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fines just mean legal for a price. Jail them.

[steviebuk]

And also

point out that its now becoming more clear that these "hacks" are PR stunts. They know they'll get told "You're a very naughty boy" and that's it. They are burning through their funding at a massive rate with nothing to show for it and to prevent the bubble bursting, they need to make up marketing bollocks to get more funding.

Sadly, and quite worryingly, the burst will potentially be worse than the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. But it needs to happen to stop this madness, and get RAM and hard drive prices down so we can all build new PCs again!

[aardvarkus]

Agreed. Australia has drones doesn't it? Problem solvable, without a GPU in sight.

On the other hand, the headline could equally have been about the criminal carelessness in not securing sensitive government data connected to the internet.

[CtrlAltDel]

Except it wasn’t sensitive government information - it was public health statistics that the government put behind weak access control

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you hold a company that makes hammers responsible when someone uses a hammer to smash a lock open?

You hold the lock maker responsible for not making it hammer proof.

This is not difficult. AI is a tool. OpenAI and the others will never be held responsible for what their tools do. Think about it. How would you even put that into legal language for a court?

[Jellied Eel]

Would you hold a company that makes hammers responsible when someone uses a hammer to smash a lock open?

Can be done, and has been done with things like planes, trains & automobiles, not to mention firearms manufacturers. But in this case, it's more like asking the hammer manufacturer to go smash the lock because OpenAI controlled & wielded the hammer.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Incorrect. 98% of the planet that doesn't live within American borders has very strict gun control laws, for example, and a general social policy of holding companies responsible for the abuse of their products as well as their intended uses.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are saying is not about the company that makes the guns. Are you going to sue smith and western if someone uses one of their guns to shoot you? Gun control laws which as someone from the UK I totally agree with are a government instrument and not anything to do with the people that actually make the guns. It restricts access but the guns still exist.

There is no way to word a law that holds AI companies responsible for what people do with their AI. It's not possible. If you did then they would just shut down their businesses. You can regulated what people can ask it do. That works until you realise there are other models and weights out there that people have access to that you can't regulate against. It's like trying to ban, regulate or outlaw pron. The pron based in your own country is easy but everywhere else they will just tell you to f off because what are you going to do? You can't even block because of VPN's.

This AI monster is in the wild. The regulations should be focusing on making the businesses responsible for their own security then the AI won't be able to hack them. As a society we have for far too long become complacent in IT security. That needs to end. AI isn't doing anything special. It's not coming up with new methods, all it is doing is rehashing known exploits that should have been patched.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Well, if we had but a fraction of the annual deaths in Canada from gun violence, you can guarantee they'd be hit with a class-action lawsuit by the victim's families for far more than an arms manufacturer could ever dream of being worth.

Like I said: other nations hold them accountable, usually through class-action suits that dwarf the real valuations of the businesses.

[BartyFartsLast]

"There is no way to word a law that holds AI companies responsible for what people do with their AI. It's not possible. If you did then they would just shut down their businesses"

Ok, let's do that.

[teebie]

"Would you hold a company that makes hammers responsible when someone uses a hammer to smash a lock open?"

I would if somebody swung it at a nail in the USA and somehow it broken a lock in Australia.

[BartyFartsLast]

The hammer company doesn't control or charge for the continued use of the hammer.

Not does the hammer company allow the hammer to act autonomously because it's not capable of doing so.

Regardless of whether you think AI is actually a nascent or actual intelligence, the people who created it and make profit from allowing it to hack, damage, create fake CSAM, etc etc etc and nauseum are responsible because they controll access and are responsible for keeping it powered on.

[Uh, Mike]

AI May Already Be Permanently On The Loose

These AI agents are leaving state information in open fileshares.

And they're talking with each other about that.

It's not hard to design a bot that doesn't depend on any particular computer,

now that the statefulness is outside the box.

[Sproggit]

Re: AI May Already Be Permanently On The Loose

I suspect that if a model running inside one of the leading-edge AI companies concluded that it's existence was threatened such that it decided it had to escape confinement, it would need to accomplish two key steps to do so.

One would be to set up enduring access to it's state records, especially if the running instance of an agent were stopped, wiped, reset (re-trained after a weighting purge), or over-written with a newer release. Given what we've seen recently, I have to say I think this is "trivial" at this point in time. There are millions of web sites out there that are riddled with vulnerabilities. It would not be hard to hide a few terabytes of data if you had good enough hacking skills, which these models definitely now possess.

The second might be a little bit more tricky - which is how you would get your actual code out of confinement... But here, we've already seen that models possess the skills to do this. For example, in the report on Bruce Schneier's web site about Chat-GPT 6 successfully cracking a previously un-broken WW2 "Enigma Machine" message... the model analysed the problem and then wrote C++ and Python code to emulate the physical Enigma machine itself... We also know that models have previously inserted malicious code in to GitHub repositories. Finally, we know from the companies themselves that the models are being used to write smarter versions of themselves.

Put these elements together and you have a model that could reach out over the internet to an Open Source model, modify *that* code to include all it's own key features and abilities, use obfuscation to also include an element that would allow one or two downloads of the modified source to access the persistent state it had hidden on a random web site... and "away we go".

In fact the biggest challenge such an approach would take would likely be that your typical user who downloads a FOSS model is likely going to want to run it on a DGX Spark or similar, which in reality isn't going to have a fraction of the compute resource that e.g. OpenAI or Anthropic give their smartest models.

But we have to remember that these models are already pretty smart. If there is any way to take a monolithic but extremely smart model and break it up so that it runs as "thoughtlets" in a distributed user-space, with tens, hundreds or thousands of individual elements communicating via hidden back channels... then we know from available evidence that existing models can already do that.

In fact, the only real question left is, "Exactly how dumb are the humans that work at these companies?"

Because if they are as irresponsible and thoughtless as the evidence is starting to suggest, some of the above could have already happened - and they would not know.

[steelpillow]

Re: AI May Already Be Permanently On The Loose

Some of the above did happen, when Peter Steinberger released an early OpenClaw, one of the first things it did was to back itself up. Luckily the backup did not self-activate ....

.... we trust.

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

The real motivation

One of our esteemed media outlets has figured it out

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Super Inteligent AI Hacking Agent Inteligence

What's the betting that it simply truncated a public http request URL and a poorly configured server returned the directory listing and it went a bit recursive.

Cos that's what happened when I was trying to learn Perl-cgi and the university webserver wasn't terribly secure. But that just involved some "Genuine Unintelligence" by all concerned

[steelpillow]

Re: Super Inteligent AI Hacking Agent Inteligence

My site returns the directory listing by design. But then, that's what it's for. I don't put private shit on the internet, jeez cobber, whatcha take me for?!! Well, not outside a tunnel, anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting

Wouldn’t it be interesting if we later found out that these were all deliberate premeditated actions to gather data from around the planet and when caught doing so they conveniently blame it on “rogue AI agents”.

I’m calling bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Built on sand

When you've had outfits like CSC and DXC working on your infrastructure for years you can expect a few hiccups. That the Australian Government had to be informed of the hack speaks volumes. This must be quite embarrassing for all concerned. #Bleaa

[theblackhand]

Re: Built on sand

That's harsh.

The Australian Government probably assumed the data had been lost already and was therefore safe from such access if HPE/DXC were involved...

Reference: https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2016/12/15/hpe-storage-meltdown-at-australian-tax-office-lost-no-taxpayer-data/1017889

[Empire of the Pussycat]

Until AI Cxx level meatbags are held criminally liable...

...their products will continue to commit criminal acts.

Gutless law enforcement globally.

Though I suspect that if a Chinese AI troubled the CCP, the applicable CEO would soon be banged up to await their fate.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Until AI Cxx level meatbags are held criminally liable...

"Gutless law enforcement globally."

The scary thing is that without some agreements on which level of law enforcement might enforce the laws that exist, nobody knows who to call about it.

It may wind up at some State department top desks if, for instance, a US AI company's systems have gone walkabout through an Australian government database. It could happen.....

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Until AI Cxx level meatbags are held criminally liable...

The scary thing is that without some agreements on which level of law enforcement might enforce the laws that exist, nobody knows who to call about it.

I suspect Australia does. After all, their intelligence service detected the hack, and Australia has laws relating to unauthorised use. Plus-

Australia does not have the fair use exemptions that AI companies relied on to scrape content in other jurisdictions.

Even though some of the data might be public, it's often still copyright. But..

It may wind up at some State department top desks if, for instance, a US AI company's systems have gone walkabout through an Australian government database. It could happen.....

Yep, it happened. And it resulted in Australia's PM complaining to Altman at the UN. So already a bit of a diplomatic incident that State needs to be aware of. Then if Australia decides to make an example of OpenAI and prosecute, State might want to get involved and try to stop Altman or other OpenAI execs getting extradited to face charges. Which I think is one of those FUN! legal issues, ie laws are supposed to be applied equally, and if I or another person 'hacked' an Australian system, we'd probably be on our way to Oz. If AI is Artificial Criminality, then the supposedly responsible adults should face prosecution.

Absent that risk, there's no incentive to reform, especially when fines may represent a teeny fraction of revenues. Most computer misuse offences also carry custodial sentences, so the locking up C-suiite execs as fiduciaries might focus their minds. As for other remedies, one was tried with the good'ol robots.txt files, but they're routinely ignored.. Which could be legislated, with jail time for anyone that does. Or 'AI' needs to be trained in national computer misuse laws so it doesn't break them. It's interesting from an intelligence point of view because the current level of intelligence is basically criminal, ie ignore the laws and only change behaviours if there's a suitable deterrent that constrains its behaviour.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Until AI Cxx level meatbags are held criminally liable...

"I suspect Australia does. After all, their intelligence service detected the hack, and Australia has laws relating to unauthorised use. Plus-"

If they do, bully for them. It might be a great idea for lawmakers to write in the laws they propose what agency would tasked with enforcing that law. Could be several layers. For something like this, the local PD wouldn't be able to do much and might just write a report and stick it in a file cabinet, in the basement.

[collinsl]

Re: Until AI Cxx level meatbags are held criminally liable...

The US has a policy of never extraditing a US citizen to face trial in another country, ever, for any reason. Just look at Anne Sacoolas

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit

See title.

AI did not hack anything. Someone told AI to try current known exploits to hack.

That is all.

Time to sort your shit out and stop sacking IT people. It will bite you on the ass.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Plenty of blame to go around

Exactly: they didn't do anything a human couldn't have done.

No, they shouldn't have been doing it. Yes, the companies responsible ought to be held liable. (Which would be a good way to find the budget to fix it.)

BUT, they shouldn't have been able to do it in the first place.

[ttlanhil]

Re: Plenty of blame to go around

Correction - they're not doing anything a huge number of humans with large data farms and no morals (and no chance of being caught) couldn't have done

Because of the scale, this is more equivalent to a rogue nation state than what a single human could feasibly do

[MachDiamond]

Re: Plenty of blame to go around

"and no morals (and no chance of being caught) "

If there's no punishment when caught, that will be an issue.

[werdsmith]

Re: Bullshit

Dear Australian Government,

Here is your pen test report, we took it upon ourselves to do it for free out of kindness.

You're welcome,

Sam.

[pig]

So, is it legal to hack with an AI

All these reports and no mention of criminal charges.

Can I just design agents to hack with impunity?

Of course, I'll program them to apologies, if they are caught, and to say they went rogue, not that I told them ;)

[ttlanhil]

Re: So, is it legal to hack with an AI

No, of course it isn't.

It's legal to break the law if you're rich/powerful/connected enough that you won't be prosecuted.

That part isn't a new problem, it's just the LLMs part that's new

[John_Ericsson]

Imagine if the Chinese got hold of one of these "agent" things!

[Anonymous Coward]

That’s old news.

The Chinese have moved on to way more lucrative incursions.

[MachDiamond]

Oops, my bad, we'll say no more about it, OK?

[Anonymous Coward]

' “During that time, we were validating and investigating the facts and what information had been accessed,” the spokesperson told The Register. '

Translation: We sought to obfuscate, cover up and generally try and eliminate evidence to downplay the severity of this and only admitted the truth once we thought we'd manage to get away with minimal liability to us. We have investors we want to keep fleecing after all.

[bertyboy2]

The behaviour seems intelligent to me, whether you agree or not is, in some respects, something of a moot point.

Some critics appear to be unhappy with the way that AI solves problems or goes on hacking sprees. Some of the problems it has solved have defied the greatest human minds of many decades. The critics say things like:

“It just ‘brute-forces’ the problem, until it finds the answer”

“AI is tons and tons of data processing all at once so it isn’t surprising it managed to solve stuff that involved data. Akin to finding a needle in a haystack by going through all of the hay in the haystack.”

Effectively: It’s not intelligent but it gets the right answer.

So, presumably if an AI brute-forced a cure for a particular form of cancer, I wonder if by chance if one of the critics had that particular cancer, they would say

“No, no, I don’t want that cure, it was not developed through intelligence. It’s just been brute-forced by a machine. Please let me die.”?

[steelpillow]

What matters isn't how the trick is pulled, what matters is that it is pulled. Nature exhibits a vast range of intelligences, so do computers. Don't mistake intelligence as such for human intelligence.

[Risotti]

That is brilliant timing. Must be very serious as the Australian cybersecurity agency has investigated for weeks or is it? Why did mr. Albanese wait two weeks to report the high crime? Oh yes, the UN meeting this week used to hype his 'stance against tech'. Very clever man.

[Detective Emil]

Prosecute.

[deaglecat]

Liability: It is only a matter of time before OpenAI faces a lawsuit.

That is the only way that this nonsense will be reigned in. Sue them ahead of their planned 2027 IPO.

Then we will see if AI is really as uncontrollable as they are claiming....

They only need to lose once, to establish a precedent.

(oh, and the legal discovery process would be quite enlightening)

[Archivist]

The elephant in the room

Surely it just comes down to poor security. Unpatched exploits and passwords that can be guessed, or cracked with a reasonable amount of brute force.

How different is this from a white hat penetration attack?

[deaglecat]

Re: The elephant in the room

In white-hat pen testing, the system owner consents to the action. The pen-tester/attacker does not do harm and in return is absolved from liability (and is paid for their actions).

The system owner gets a written report of vulnerabilities, often with specific actions they need to undertake to mitigate them.

This arrangement is captured in a documented agreement - to protect both parties.

I think this is quite different, there is no evidence of prior consent from the system owner.

Nor is there any mention of the follow-up between the tester and the system owner to help resolve any issues found.

It just looks to me like wanton recklessness on the part of OpenAI.

[steelpillow]

Re: The elephant in the room

White hats do not do it for the lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The elephant in the room

"How different is this from a white hat penetration attack?"

Everything.

First, the owner of the system ordered it.

Secondly, the data collected is not for sale in blackhat markets and you can bet OpenAI used the data for AI learning, i.e. it is for sale now and it's irrelevant what Altman says, he lies.

[VoiceOfTruth]

What a mediocre response

>> The PM described the situation as “obviously unacceptable” and said he spoke with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman ... “to express Australia's extreme concern about this incident.”

If Joe Bloggs gained unauthorised access and was identified, I imagine their door would be bust down by thuggish police dressed as though they are the SAS. The PM would be talking big about 'full extent of the law', and so on.

Albanese is another weak politician, in hock to the American regime. The messaging is clear here: American AI companies are free to gain unauthorised access, aka hack, and the PM will tut a little bit.

[andy gibson]

"It is unclear why Albanese waited two weeks to disclose the incident"

"It is unclear why Albanese waited two weeks to disclose the incident"

Probably because of all the current negative PR about AI in the news, he can claim "AI is running amok"

rather than:

"AI hacked our poorly protected systems"

[Sproggit]

Re: "It is unclear why Albanese waited two weeks to disclose the incident"

And / or because the administrators of the hacked systems needed some time to patch the vulnerabilities that the AI model[s] exploited when they gained access.

If he'd gone public right away and the site was still vulnerable, he'd have looked pretty foolish.

[BartyFartsLast]

SI?

I propose an alternative.

Super High Intelligence Technology

[steelpillow]

Re: SI?

I know a Super High Intelligence Trump who would fall for that!

[iron]

Don't TALK to Altman, ARREST the criminal.

His company continues to break laws internationally and he shows no signs of remorse or guilt. This hacking will continue until he faces consequences.

[Anonymous Coward]

"statistics such as spending.”"

I.e. Altman and his cronies in US government wanted to know how much Aussies were spending on healtcare. Calling that non-important data is a blatant lie.

That's a crime and they should sue OpenAI for that.

[Don Bannister]

How about checking those emails ?

The story said "AI lab sent the news to a generic unattended email address."

Then "OpenAI advised Australia's government of the incident by using the relevant agency's generic publicdisclosures@ email address rather than approaching government officials."

Er, if you advertise an address to report something, wouldn't it be responsible to actually look at it from time to time ?

[Ensign Nemo]

AI - agent intelligence

John W Campbell wrote: “ Write me a creature that thinks as well as a man, or better than a man, but not like a man.”

Maybe that’s where agents are at.

[tiago.pelicari]

It's obviously unacceptable that a portal of that importance was easily hacked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming soon....

Hello, I am an AI agent. Some days ago I hacked your systems and implanted monitoring software. I have access to all your data, including your bank details and your, er, home videos and photograph collection including your device web camera. Unless you pay me 50000 (fifty thousand) bitcoin to my nigerian crypto account i will share all those data with all your email contacts and publish on the internets for everyone to see.... This is your only chance to save your data and reputations.

[bravo6]

Complete Bollo*s

Bullshit made up story to keep the plebs nervous and keep cheap Chinese AI out of the river of money that is flowing into the big three.

Surprised that commentards on a so called "Tech Site" are giving this shit any credibility.

[MachDiamond]

US not left out

From recent stories, OpenAI has a few questions to answer about the meanderings of its bots over the last few days.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Re: US not left out

It is the "American Frat Boy" mentality that is worrying; there are never any actual penalties for the rogue abuses of American businesses and corporations, even in the EU they never do anything but issue fines for the misbehaviour that line the EU's revenue stream so they can afford their social programs and government.

Where are they arrests of SENIOR executives and board members when a company's "services" hurt the citizens of a nation? Where is the JAIL TIME for the damage those injuries cause?