Write the right answer to the question based on the context passage.

Q: Luckily I was not the target or victim of this road rage, but I was a first hand witness.
Back in the mid 1990s when I worked in Southern California, I was returning from lunch one day with a coworker when we noticed two pickup trucks driving erratically. This was on Valley View Blvd in Cerritos which is a large roadway divided (by a large, planted median strip) with 3 lanes on either side.
One truck seemed to be chasing the other when suddenly the lead truck made a quick U-turn and was followed by the second truck. But the second truck came to stop just after making the turn. This was when the driver of that truck got out, walked to the front of his vehicle, raised his arm holding a semi-automatic handgun, paused, and then fired a single shot.
At this point, I was parallel with the shooter's truck and only about 5060 feet from where he was standing. I remember my coworker exclaiming, "Oh sh*t! Did he just shoot at the something?!"
I floored my accelerator and sped off to my workplace which was about a 1/2 mile down Valley View Blvd. I parked and my coworker and I got into the building as quickly as we could.
While he started telling our other coworkers about what we had just witnessed, I ran to my desk, called 911, and reported the shooting. The dispatcher kept me on the line after my initial report and then transferred me to a detective in order to take down my information.
As it turns out, my information and the fact that I called 911 immediately resulted in the arrest of the shooter.
I was later asked to testify in court which resulted in the shooters conviction.
I lived in Southern California for 10 years and now I drive a commercial truck several days a week so I have PLENTY of other "road rage stories", but this is still the craziest one. Question: Who called 911?

A: the driver
****
Q: SEOUL North Korea's sudden threat to pull out of the upcoming summit with the U.S. raises new doubts of whether a denuclearization deal is possible.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un agreed to meet with U.S President Donald Trump in Singapore on June 12 to work out an agreement to end the North's nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees and an end to punishing international sanctions.
But on Wednesday North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Kwan released a statement through the state-run KCNA news agency that criticized "unbridled remarks" made specifically by the U.S. president's National Security Adviser John Bolton demanding that Pyongyang completely decommission its entire nuclear arsenal, along with its ballistic missile program and chemical weapons stockpile, before receiving any compensation or concessions.
He expressed "indignation" at the U.S uncompromising position and said North Korea might pull out of the Trump-Kim summit, unless the Trump administration acts with "sincerity" to improve relations through dialogue.
"If the United States is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to the North Korea-U.S. summit," the statement said.
The vice foreign minister also said it was "absolutely absurd" that Bolton would compare Libya's experience dismantling its relatively rudimentary nuclear program as a model for dealing with the North's more advanced and expansive capabilities.
He also denounced the Trump administration for "miscalculating the magnanimity" of Kim Jong Un's decision to suspend further nuclear and missile tests, and his willingness to engage in nuclear talks, as "signs of weakness," that were the result of what the U.S. administration has dubbed its "maximum pressure" campaign that led international efforts to impose punishing sanctions banning 90% of North Korean trade.
The vice minister's remarks came shortly after the North abruptly canceled inter-Korean talks planned for Wednesday, citing ongoing joint military drills between South Korea and the U.S.
Last week American and South Korea forces began their two-week Max Thunder exercise that involves 100 aircraft, including eight F-22 radar-evading jets, as well as F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. The North derided the drills as a rehearsal for invasion that undermines improving inter-Korean ties. Question: Who expressed indignation?

A: Kim Kye Kwan
****
Q: Facebook has a long track record and sordid history of abusing their users' trust and privacy, including the most recent and egregious cases currently making headlines with Cambridge Analytica as well as election meddling in the US and Britain. As if that wasn't enough, it then came to light that they have also been tracking and storing users' phone call and text message data, including "who contacted whom, what time, and how long the conversation was."
This is nothing new, as we can see from this 2012 "study" in which they deliberately manipulated news feeds to influence users' emotional state. And again with their settlement with the FCC back in 2011 (that they likely violated with their recent offenses) over deceiving consumers by telling them their information was private, but then repeatedly sharing it and making it public.
And then there's The Ugly Memo, in which a FB exec justifies growth at any cost in the name of connecting people, even if that results literally in people dying:
We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly.
We connect people.
That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools.
And still we connect people.
The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good.
And up until this most recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was negotiating with various healthcare organizations to share patients' health data with FB so they could match it up to your social circle to allegedly provide better health care. Um yeah right.
Each time this stuff happens, they issue an apology (or a justification for their behavior) and promise they will take steps to better inform users and protect their privacy, but it's clear that this is just lip service at this point. Question: What is nothing new?

A:
Facebook abusing their users trust
****