input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The battle lines are drawn once again. U.S. law enforcement agencies and Silicon Valley are getting ready to face off on the issue of privacy. This latest battle is focused on a 30-year-old law on government access to electronic communications and associated data. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was a forward-looking statute when enacted in 1986, but technology has dramatically outpaced the ECPA. The U.S. Congress has been looking into ways to revise the law in order to preserve the privacy of internet users while also preserving the legal tools necessary for government agencies to enforce the law and protect the public. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called privacy "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is considering an amendment to the ECPA that would expand the government's ability to collect data using a National Security Letter, which doesn't require a court order. The amendment would authorize the FBI to demand a person's internet browser history and internet protocol address, enabling investigators to see what websites a person visits, how much time is spent on a particular site and the location of the internet user all without judicial oversight. The FBI contends that such data is covered implicitly under current statute, which was written years ago and only explicitly covers data normally associated with telephone records. FBI Director James Comey has said the amendment is needed to fix "a typo" in the ECPA that has hindered the bureau's ability to work in "a very, very big and practical way." But a letter sent earlier this week warned Congress that such an amendment is opposed by tech giants and civil liberties organizations. "This expansion of the NSL statute has been characterized by some government officials as merely fixing 'a typo' in the law," the letter said. "In reality, however, it would dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users' online... Question: The FBI probably believes: Answer:
OPTIONS:
- it is not spying
- the data they look at is covered under the ECPA
- not enough information
- there are only minor 'typos' in the ECPA
output: the data they look at is covered under the ECPA

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: U.S. President Donald Trump is sending a $4.4 trillion budget request to Congress that includes money for a southern border wall and building up the military, but is projected to increase the federal deficit by more than $1 trillion. White House officials all but acknowledged the proposal unveiled Monday has little chance of becoming law Congress alone controls federal government spending. But the White House insisted the budget proposal still sends an important message about Trump's priorities. "This is a messaging document," White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters at a briefing Monday. The Trump budget calls for major cuts to domestic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. But the plan would still not balance the federal budget, in part because of reduced federal revenue due to tax cuts passed last year. Democrats widely rejected the plan. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the proposal a "brutal collection of broken promises and staggering cuts." The proposal's failure to eliminate debt is also likely to upset some Republicans, who have traditionally opposed budget deficits. "It's simply adjusting to the Washington, D.C., we live in," Mulvaney said, stressing that the new budget plan would help "turn the tide" on national debt. The White House proposal builds on the massive, two-year spending bill passed last week by Congress and signed by the president. That bill includes a major boost for the military, as well as domestic programs. Mulvaney, a former lawmaker and long-time opponent of federal debt, has acknowledged he likely would not have supported the bill were he still in Congress. But he said the new White House proposal does not mean that all of the money approved by Congress must be spent. "These are spending caps, these are not spending floors," he said. Under the two-year budget deal reached last week by Congress, the Pentagon will get a record-high $700 billion for 2018 fulfilling a Trump campaign pledge. "We took care of the military like it's never... Question: When was the military taken care of? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- after federal tax cuts
- in a deal made last week by congress
- not enough information
- after eliminating some debt
output: in a deal made last week by congress

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: This is a beauty myth that I have been wanting to bust for a while as I am surprised how many people actually believe it. I am quite vain so hate having visible grey hairs. Having naturally dark brown hair means that even a single grey hair is very noticeable. From the age of about 22 or 23 I discovered that I had about five grey hairs floating about. As soon as I could see them I'd pull them out. Then, a few months later when they were rearing their ugly heads again - pluck, out they'd come again! Up until I was about 27 or 28 I only had these 5 grey hairs, well that was all I could find anyway. Then from 28 onwards they have been inviting their friends and relatives to move in and I am slowly losing the plucking battle (side note: this increase in grey hairs at 28 was also the year that I got married...I wonder if their is any correlation between getting married and going grey??). Whenever I was having a conversation with someone about grey hairs and I'd mention that I pull mine out, they'd look at me horrified - 'you can't do that, seven more will grow back in its place' they would all warn me. Even my hairdresser was horrified that I plucked my grey hairs. One day when she was straightening my hair I could see a stray grey sticking up and it was driving me crazy. I asked her to pull it out and she refused saying that I'd end up with more if she pulled it out. I have never believed this old wives tale, mostly because for five years I kept plucking my greys yet they didn't increase in number. Plus it made no sense to me. Why would plucking greys cause more greys to grow when the same is not true for your coloured hair. Imagine if it were true - that would mean that the cure for baldness would be to pluck out your hair as each hair you pluck causes seven more to grow in its place - doesn't really make sense, does it? Or worse, each time you waxed your legs, seven hairs replaced each pulled one - what state would your legs be in now? Question: Who was having a conversation about grey hairs Answer:
OPTIONS:
- The narrator's wife
- The narrator
- not enough information
- The hairdresser
output:
The narrator