Question: Trisha dreamed of being a Playboy Bunny since the days she still had buck-teeth and fried egg boobs. She blu-tacked page threes above her bed-head and had me snap topless Polaroids till they littered the floor. She told me to imagine she had 36DDs and peroxide blonde hair. I used to wish like hell that she wasn't my cousin. When she was fifteen Trisha started putting out for the boys in the Kwik-Save car park for a tenner a time. She said she was an entrepreneur, not a prostitute. She started going steady with a kid called Keith. He was a fryer in the fish and chip shop. He had a future and a Ford Cortina. She got a job waitressing and she worked all the hours she could. Keith couldn't handle me and Trisha being as close as we were. Especially the time he caught Trisha bending over me in nothing but a frilly market stall thong while I worked the angles best I could to get a dangle-shot. Next night he took her in the car park woods and doped her up to the eyeballs. He took out a bottle of India ink and told her he would etch the love-heart she'd always wanted. Instead, he safety-pinned the word 'inbred' into her arse. Trisha's step-dad tracked the spits of blood and found her sobbing in the bathroom of their long-stay static. It didn't take him long to slap out the truth. He went straight round to Keith's place with a crow-bar and did enough damage to make sure he'd need more than laser treatment to put things right. Keith wasn't rolling in spare change so Trisha's step-dad took the Cortina as payment in lieu of her getting herself fixed up. Trisha got me to stash the Cortina up the lane at the back of Boyes' farm. Weekend nights, I drove her out to the dual carriageway truck-stop where she found a faster way to make her fortune in the fogged-up cabs. Question: what does the author think of keith? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- he is invalid now
- he is a scum
- not enough information
- hes probably dead by now
Answer: he is a scum

input with options: WHITE HOUSE The United States is escalating trans-Atlantic and North American trade tensions, imposing a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports from the European Union, Canada and Mexico beginning on Friday. The U.S. also negotiated quotas or volume limits on other countries, such as South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Brazil, instead of tariffs, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross also told reporters Thursday by telephone. China's foreign ministry said on Friday all countries should protect the normal trade order, when asked about U.S. decision. President Donald Trump said Thursday that the days of the U.S. being taken advantage of in trade deals "are over'" in a harshly worded statement responding to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's criticism of new steel and aluminum tariffs. He intensified his criticism of Canada Friday for what he says are the country's "highly restrictive" trade practices. Trump has repeatedly said measures such as tariffs are necessary to protect American jobs and industries in key manufacturing sectors. "The president's actions are about protecting American steel, American aluminum," a White House spokesman, Raj Shah, said on Fox News. "They're critical for national security." But the negative reaction from some of America's most important strategic allies has been quick and fierce. European Union Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said shortly after the tariffs took effect they were illegal and the 28-nation bloc would initiate a settlement dispute case with the World Trade Organization. "We can do so. We have the right to do so. I think we must do so, as well, to show that we cannot just take these tariffs and stand silent and we do not accept these kind of imposed illegal tariffs," said Malmstrom. Without elaborating, Malmstrom also said the EU would explore "rebalancing measures," which typically are retaliatory actions. Trudeau called the tariffs "totally unacceptable" and vowed retaliation. "This decision is not only unlawful, but it is... Question: When did Trump go to Paris? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- after Trump came to France
- now trump in france
- after came will go paris
output: after Trump came to France

Q: 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: Why is the Senate Judiciary Committee considering an amendment to the ECPA? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- they think the FBI has too much access to individuals' personal records
- not enough information
- they think there is not enough judicial oversight
- they think the FBI is invasive

A:
they think the FBI has too much access to individuals' personal records