Given we pay our taxes to the government, and I would have thought defining policy standards was one of the services we pay tax to have (what better thing for governments to do than what they're naturally geared towards - bureaucracy?), at the very least they would be able to directly and in detail outline the standards they expect and not simply handball the entire definition and auditing off to an international organisation and myriad consultancies with the stroke of a single bullet point requirement in the RFx.
The quagmire of ISO consultancies are often charging exorbitant rates to deliver essentially a set of Excel templates, when the hard work of adopting a standard really is all in-house and any company with a copy of the standards and the templates can pretty much get it all done internally then get certified.
And ultimately when it comes down to it, the standard doesn't really do much to improve quality outcomes, especially for an organisation that doesn't give a fig. A well intentioned company that's on the ball will already be following best practices, a shady company that plays cowboy will do the bare minimum to get the badge.
Anyway, just an axe I tend to grind. Standards definitely are needed and have their place but holy hell is it a mess ATM. There needs to be an independent open source standards body, ISO is a farce IMHO - the standards as they are written are actually decent but their business model and hands-off approach to auditing and verifying standard adherence is a big issue across multiple sectors I think.
My trick is to, for technical stuff, look for working groups and their mailing lists or other collaborative spaces, which are sometimes in the public, and get the latest working draft that they put out before it was turned into an official standard.
That's how I learned C in-depth in my high school days from the C9X (became C99 :)) draft standard.
Edit: clarify that ISO is not paying for the work being done on the standard, instead of that "writers usually do all the work for free".
My dad worked on a couple of standards, and while he wasn't paid by the standards body he didn't work for free. He was employed at a company and the company paid him his salary. Working on those standards was just another part of his day job.
If I donate food to a food bank, would it be fair for someone else to say “That food wasn’t donated for free! A store got paid for that food!” No, of course not.
See also: https://satwcomic.com/every-time
That's exactly my point. The standard _organization_ gets the work for free, but the standard _writers_ are almost always paid for their work and aren't working for free. The original comment made it sound like the standard writers where somehow being exploited or where donating their time to the standard organization.
In your analogy the writer is the food store, and the company is the person that bought the food to donate.
No, I read it as pointing out that ISO does not need to be paid in order to pay its contributors, since ISO does not pay its contributors. The point was about ISO, not its contributors.
It's basically all a wastage, because an electronic record keeping and content management system can be cheaply administered, rather than as an organization.
And? If the authors didn't think they got any benefits—or rather, the companies employing the authors and paying them—didn't think they got any benefit, then they wouldn't make the work on ISO standards part of their job.
Just because the benefit is non-financial does not mean there is no benefit.
People have recognized that having common standards is a general benefit to society. For a history of this see Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting Since 1880 by Craig Murphy and JoAnne Yates (ISBN 9781421440033):
ISO has bills and overhead to cover, just like anyone else. Just because some of its work is covered by 'donated' effort doesn't mean all of it can.
(I wouldn't object to having ISO standards being freely available, it's just that I can see some reasons for why they are not.)
Whether the author needs that money or not is not the point, you would surely feel angry at the pricing, and would wish the author had put it on his website instead (where you could grab it for free), Amazon had priced it more fairly (paying for shipping and some overhead is fine but not $50), or the book had been authored by some GitHub organization in the open.
Not if the author agreed to this arrangement ahead of time.
I'm not against the standards being freely available if it can be arranged, I just find it slightly annoying that many people seem to be acting like ISO is some moustache-twirling, evil mega-corp that is exploiting the workers because it charges a fee currently.
I'm sure the few people that work directly for ISO aren't feeling particularly exploited. neither are the standards authors - at least when I was doing it everyone was a well-paid engineer who enjoyed the travel and the work.
the issue is that the role of standards is best fulfilled by making them as widely available as possible. and its really not clear from an economic perspective what value ISO as an organization independent of its contributors is providing.
the IETF has a pretty reasonable track record technically, and there was never any notion about charging for standards access.
I think the burden of proof here is on ISO to show that the negative impacts of restricting distribution have any positive aspects at all.
edit: you know what, forget that. I'm pretty sure their primary cost is billing and IP enforcement. since they owe their privileged position to international treaty..its very difficult to perceive ISO as anything other than parasitic.
2020 annual report, finances:
Expenditures were 35M CHF, income was 40M CHF, for a net result of 5M CHF. "Royalties received from members selling ISO standards" was 12M CHF.
If they can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.
* the ISO needs to pay the bills
* part of their income is charging for standards
* the folks that work to together to write the standards agree not to ask for a cut of the proceeds of the sale
* some folks want ISO standards to be free
If the ISO can make up that money elsewhere then they could stop charging.
Authors get paid a small royalty; publishers set the price and get most of the scratch
this is a nonsense claim - in almost all cases they’re paid by their employers.
Yes, the writer is typically employed by a relevant company. They're not working for free. But the body from which you must buy the standard is getting it for free.
This is exactly the same problem academia is facing. The big journal companies charge huge amounts for access to journals, but don't pay for their production. That's funded by universities.
In both cases, the bodies collating these documents are rent seekers making far more money than their services are worth.
The standards body _is_ its members. It's not practically a separate company - it's a vehicle for the members.
For details, check out their 2020 financials page: https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances
I am only highlighting how proceeds from the sale of ISO standards are not being distributed to ISO members, including national standardization bodies, nor any contributors.
I'd hope that country ISO members would push for their membership fees to cover for distribution of standards for free (even if it meant increasing those fees) — that'd be a much more sensible approach IMHO. Or they could optimize slightly not to need those royalty fees in the first place.
To add insult to injury, some of those "employers" actually pay further fees to standardization bodies.
Just because the benefit is non-financial does no mean there is not benefit.
I guess what we perceive differently is how much work is "donated": I'd say most of it is (which does not make your statement untrue, but "some" implies a lesser part of it).
Nobody is doubting the need for common standards and the need to pay for them: this is why there are membership fees, and ISO has collected half of its revenue on those — https://www.iso.org/ar2020.html#section-finances. IMHO, it should optimize in a way to make its entire operations possible on that revenue (if that involves increasing fees or becoming more frugal is up to them).
Nobody is acting as if they are exploiting anyone, but many are unaware of the situation above. Whether one finds that fair is up to everyone individually, but perhaps you can allow that finding it unfair is a reasonable viewpoint as well?
Isn’t this normal in life? Most people are paid salaries or contracts for a job, not a proportion of sales.
An engineer at Google is paid to build an advert system but they don’t get a proportion of the advert fees.
> some of those "employers" actually pay further fees
Why have you put employers in scare quotes? Do you doubt they’re employing anyone?
And they don’t have to put anyone on the committee writing the standard if they don’t want to.
The company may have employees that write the standard, that's immaterial. You're equating "Author" with "Employee" rather than "Company"
It's not supposed to be a money-making opportunity.
Or they could become more frugal. Eg. simply by removing the overhead of managing *sale" of electronic documents, they could optimize at least a little bit.
Membership fees are stable, yet royalties are fluctuating. As a non-profit, they've got to end the year on 0, so they'll always spend whatever they earn.
(1) The law books were pretty expensive...but some minimum number of public libraries had copies of the books in their Reference (may not be checked out) sections?
(2) The expensive law books were pretty much all in subjects that didn't concern you - building code for steel mills, regulations for operating an ocean freighter, depreciation rules for oil refineries?
(3) "The letter of the law" was freely available - but it's a muddled mess of vagueness, insider jargon, "gotta be a lawyer to understand the mental framework here", and just so hellishly long that you would have to devote your life to some sub-sub-sub-section of the law (plus the administrative regulations based on it, rulings in related court cases, etc.) to have any chance of knowing and understanding it?
(2) See my other comment.
(3) That's bad.
You seem to present this as a trilemma, when it's not.
(4) Pay for the creation in some more sensible way, e.g. the same way more pedestrian laws are created. The law that says you aren't allowed to shoot people at will was also made by someone, and that work was not free.
But in the end, to me it is much simpler than that: This is a minor annoyance at worst. Imagine losing a family member due to ignorance or recklessness of others. Or prolonged, acute illness due to a misdiagnoses and subsequent medication complication. An engagement ending without notice because you answered a question innocently and honestly and it caused them to re-think the whole thing.
These are real problems.
When life is rosy cosy a three inch thick book costing $350 may seem like an outrage, but it really isn't.
This tactic is underhanded though in that it favors those who don't pay the tax and take risks without knowing the code (they have more money left if they win the gamble).
EDIT: plus, a "buy this law" tax is regressive: those who do the least work subject to this tax will bear the highest tax/unit of work costs. E.g. a private person remodelling their house will pay the same 300$ as the huge construction company.
It also creates a hurdle for new entrants, who don't have any existing connections from whom they could borrow the book.
When it comes to financing the research on law, there are ways that have better properties than those above (like a tax on work done).
ISO standards are often mandated and required to do business. The documentation can be large portion of the certification.
If anyone wants to know the history of ISO, its predecessors, and the history of writing public standards, see Engineering Rules: Global Standard Setting Since 1880 by Craig Murphy and JoAnne Yates (ISBN 9781421440033):
> Private, voluntary standards shape almost everything we use, from screw threads to shipping containers to e-readers. They have been critical to every major change in the world economy for more than a century, including the rise of global manufacturing and the ubiquity of the internet. In Engineering Rules, JoAnne Yates and Craig N. Murphy trace the standard-setting system's evolution through time, revealing a process with an astonishingly pervasive, if rarely noticed, impact on all of our lives.
> This type of standard setting was established in the 1880s, when engineers aimed to prove their status as professionals by creating useful standards that would be widely adopted by manufacturers while satisfying corporate customers. Yates and Murphy explain how these engineers' processes provided a timely way to set desirable standards that would have taken much longer to emerge from the market and that governments were rarely willing to set. By the 1920s, the standardizers began to think of themselves as critical to global prosperity and world peace. After World War II, standardizers transcended Cold War divisions to create standards that made the global economy possible. Finally, Yates and Murphy reveal how, since 1990, a new generation of standardizers has focused on supporting the internet and web while applying the same standard-setting process to regulate the potential social and environmental harms of the increasingly global economy.
Edit: Presentation from one of the co-authors:
> Craig Murphy, Betty Freyhof Johnson ’44 Professor of Political Science, gives a book talk with insights into the realm of global standard setting that has shaped global industries such as technology, trade, construction and the environment. He reveals the ways in which the committees of global stakeholders, which include manufacturers, users, and unaffiliated engineers collaborated to develop these standards of compliance, and the impact of these standards on human livelihoods worldwide.
But I agree that making some proprietary standard compulsory goes against any fair law, if there is no way to obtain that information easily from the Government.
I am for legislation that defines standards as such. If you want a standard to be applied within the jurisdiction the first bar should be that it is publically readable.
And I say this as a SA contributor.
Isn't that part of the point of having a standard? That the bare minimum done by shady companies is actually enough to prevent adverse outcomes?
Ironically, Excel itself being another proprietary standard that's accepted as a necessity.
What used to be one document is now over a dozen -- it seems that part 2 (SQL/Foundation) deals with the SQL language basics, which is what I need right now.
It's about USD 250 via the Estonian web site (https://www.evs.ee/en/iso-iec-9075-2-2016)
It's about USD 215 from ISO directly: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:9075:-2:ed-5:v1:...
I am a member of the ACM and I reached out to them but it's not in their digital library.
I am looking for a legal yet economical way to obtain the standard. I am willing to pay $20 but not $200.
On EVS, what you normally want to do is look up the EVS version, not the ISO/IEC version (because they also resell the original).
The EVS version is the regional version, which is for all intensive purposes identical to the original version (the topic has been covered before on HN, I'll try to find the link to the original).
But in your case it looks like unfortunately there isn't a regionalised version of 9075-2. ;-(
But just to demonstrate my point, let's take ISO9000 ...
ISO9000:2015 at EUR197.77 
EVS-EN ISO 9000:2015 at EUR33.49 
Just checking the resident Grammar Police Officer is awake and not eating doughnuts. ;-)
I don't know if there are any requirements for access (like an address in the Netherlands, or Dutch citizenship) but it seems like you can just grab the standard from here completely legally.
: https://www.nen.nl/en/nen-iso-iec-9075-9-2016-c1-2019-en-263... https://www.nen.nl/en/nen-iso-iec-9075-4-2016-c1-2019-en-263...
The rest is around 200 euros per part:
I'd just pirate the damn thing if you weren't doing it for professional purposes.
Note that to get a non-DRM PDF from EVS, you need to select a multi-user license which makes it €28 minimum (inc. tax). But the paper version is also €19 + shipping.
I am very angry that standards that were paid for by taxpayers around the world were then given by governments to the ISO who then charge for very minimal work done afterwards.
For example, BS3939 was created by the UK Government for electronic symbols and as far as I know, has not been updated since 1991 when an ISO document took it over. Why would they, therefore, be charging $250+ per copy for it?
I think there should be a phrase like "immoral bureaucracy" which pertains to the extraordinary amount of money a quango burns through compared to what they actually produce. Since most ISO docs are produced by experts and not by the ISO themselves and since many of these do not change frequently, the cost is immoral imho.
"Quasi-NGO" doesn't have anything for the 'A' (OTOH, none of the expansions offers an explanation of the 'U', I guess)
"Quasi" means "like", or "fake". It's the autonomy of a QUANGO that is fake, not its non-governmentalness.
But many standards that people need to be able to refer to are not referenced in legislation; this includes many standards that are needed for interoperability. In that respect, ISO is providing big companies with an anti-competition 'moat'.
To make it publicly available, you need to strip it. That means the file must be modified, and the tampered copy must be stored somewhere.
Sci-hub has a different model: it is decentralized because it lends credentials to download protected articles. It does not store them. It cannot remain decentralized if it stored or cached the content.
I looked into it to write a QR-code tool. Getting the standard was a bullshit process and I wasn't going to pay that much for a side-project. I did not write the tool as a result, even though I'm not happy with the one existing on linux (though, thanks a lot to its author, who did so using the standard at personal cost for public benefit).
The solution I found was to buy it properly, but go through eastern-Europe countries, to make it cheaper. Still bullshit to have to buy a standard for common tooling necessary to interact with everyday life.
> Getting the standard was a bullshit process and I wasn't going to pay that much for a side-project.
I was once in a similar situation. Needed the document in order to understand QR codes so I could contribute to the zbar project. Was forced to use some outdated draft I found online.
I simply don't understand the point of this gatekeeping. IETF RFCs are how things should be done.
If $500 for a copy on an iso about home network security is true (as another commenter pointed out), I'm sure they charge similar if not more for the popular ones companies rely on.
Yes. They should be free. No. They never will be.
But you can easily pass an audit if you actually READ the standards...
I worked in automotive manufacturing at one point. We had to follow an automotive specific extension (ISO/TS 16949 at the time) to the ISO 9001 standard in addition to a set of AIAG Automotive Core Tools (a set of 5 books). Our auditor was being audited by one of the people who was on the extension work group and the Core Tools work group. We definitely read the standards and were found to have 13 major non-conformances. We were told there are courses the working group offers to "teach the proper way to read the documents."
Maybe it's different in other industries, but my experience is you have to buy the documents, buy the courses to learn to read the documents, buy the courses to learn how to do internal audits, and then maybe you'll have the knowledge to complete the certification. But as you say, it will be quicker to use a consultant, so you add on consulting fees after all of those other expenses. Then you pay annually to be audited so you can maintain the license.
It's the cost of doing business and definitely had a huge ROI where I worked.
Oh man I love this audits where you can get all nitty-gritty over the interpretation of the Standard...but most of them are straight forward. I am sorry that you had such a hard time with yours
It was a good experience for me. I went through some seriously easy audits and then one when the book was thrown at us, so to speak.
1. it's not necessarily ISO themselves who insist on fees; rather, often times it used to be spec authors who negotiate rights to publish standard text as a book with much needed commentary beyond the bare spec text, as a way to get any financial compensation at all for experts in the field. The conflict here being a high price for standards pushing buyers into purchasing the book instead.
2. ISO, ITU-T, etc. are delicate international agreements between national standard bodies, (former) national telecoms, non-profits, etc. with diverse legal status and legacy. Reaching consensus through any process involving as many parties is easier said than done; our self-acclaimed "standardization bodies" in IT/Web aren't exactly examples of progress, participation, and representation, to say the least, given that we've reached a stadium of defacto monopolization and stagnation
Now if companies want to make gentleman's agreements to follow each others' paywalled standards.. by all means. But they don't get to complain if others violate these standards left and right.
At the same time, I don't buy in the narrative that sees the ISO organization not wanting precisely that. Therefore I suspect that the current way of promoting standards is unfortunately the best system we've came up to achieve such goal.
So if you want the documents to be free, the sovereign entities are going to have to pay for that. In practice, I can already tell you that if they were supposed to pay for this the United States will have some excuse for why it doesn't want to pay or its fees will always be late. But even if you aren't a US citizen, this is something your government chooses not to pay for.
Of course that definition might not be particularly convenient for someone who just wants to measure a meter accurately.
> that definition might not be particularly convenient
The same way the standard for MPEG wouldn't be useful for someone who just wants to watch a video :)
There, that's free.
I understand yours is likely just a joke, but you're paying for the tool, not the definition.
GP: "Imagine you had to pay to find out what a meter is." I posted a link to a device that'll tell you whether something is a meter, or more, or less. Now, that wasn't what GP had in mind, but it matches the words. So what did GP have in mind?
Perhaps something more like a definition? Wikipedia supplies that (and wants you to pay, there's a promiment banner at the top of the page). Britannica supplies a definition (and requires you to pay). Your school books supplied a definition (and the school paid for that, and for the teacher who made you read it, and more). ISO supplies that, and requires you to pay, like all the others.
I like free stuff as much as the next guy, but having to pay isn't "imagine that", it's the normal case. In the case of ISO the readers pay around half the cost and the writers pay the other half. You can argue that the the costs should be split differently, but please not by saying "imagine that".
Wikipedia asks you to pay for hosting, staff and further development (if you want to).
But no one has copyright on the definition of a metre.
You are free to type it on a paper and give it to as many people as you'd like.
That's what free means.
Can I copy ISO standards freely?
In the case of Wikipedia, people sit in offices and print letters, for example its lawyers who respond every time someone sues the foundation. I don't believe that printing letters to the courts forms a major part of fighting those lawsuits, though. Britannica itself hasn't been published on paper for almost ten years now, but even when it was, printing was a small part of the cost. The editors cost much more. The school paid for the school books and the teachers, and again, the actual printing of the school books is a minor part. The teacher's salary is much, much more, and even the school book publisher's authors and editors are paid more than the printers.
Focusing on some minor cost and insisting that it's unreasonable, and therefore the whole is unreasonable, is stupid.
Britannica or Wikipedia or any publisher of most facts/definitions/similar don't actually own those facts or definitions, you pay them for their work in packaging it and, I guess, phrasing.
The definition of a metre, to circle back, is free, and yet people seem to still pay for it in various ways, by your own account. People can still be paid for work.
Edit: Seen another way, if I paid someone specifically for the definition of a metre, anyone could produce a product for me, but in this case only ISO can (at least with current phrasing, layout, etc). I imagine the cost for the metre definition wouldn't be very high, and there would probably be accurate enough open information alternatives. We don't even have to imagine.
Hopefully clarifies my OP.
=== Opinion section ===
Locking standards/laws/facts behind paywalls and copyrighting it breeds a society with even more inequality where the haves and have-nots have different access to basic information we all have to adher to.
Standards are a type of information where if you have to adher to it it should be open to any to use as they need.
> Focusing on some minor cost and insisting that it's unreasonable, and therefore the whole is unreasonable, is stupid.
No cost is minor for everyone, especially not in aggregate with all other "small costs".
But to clarify, the argument is regarding what we pay for, not my stance on how it should be (which might be too prominent).
ISO needs to pay its costs. The licensing it has chosen delivers about 50% of the necessary income. The copying is cheap, that's true, but ISO needs to pay all of its costs, not just the copying.
Whether or not ISO needs to be paid for the work it does or not is irrelevant to the discussion on whether their standards are free (they're not) and the definition of a metre is (it is).
If governments use them for eg regulation, maybe they should be funded by governments and be a non-profit.
Someone's intention is that something should be free (in some way in which it is not), the effect of the proposed change would be to stop the work to produce that something. It's a good intention every time, but I'm tired of having it stop there. Wake me up when the proposal is one that doesn't disrupt the funding. And remember that when any one stakeholder thinks two things are related, then they effectively are.
The lesson from that is that if you want to change ISO's ways, you have to not sound like n previous people and trigger that reflex. Because ISO employs people who are much more polite than I am, but they too will stop listening if you sound like too many people they've rejected before, because that's a human reflex.
IMO, it doesn’t. OP asked for what a meter is, not for what object is a meter. The latter has an implied “long” or “in size”.
What makes something a standard is when people agree to use it and design against it.
If no one uses it, even if it's openly available, is it really a (practical) standard?
Things don't even have to be written down, they're simply "the way we do things":
For example, I might read parts of a dozen different cross-referenced IETF RFCs just to decide what flavor of URL syntax I should accept in my API. At other times I might not even know whether a relevant standard already exists, so I skim a bunch of standards just to confirm it is necessary to invent a new thing. This would be very expensive in ISO Land, and the reality would be that the standards are never used.
Non-free standards for software and networking impede innovation. I can't imagine what the internet would look like today if the IETF and W3C charged for access to standards.
The PDF standard is another standard that is locked up, despite the earlier versions being fully open before Adobe gave it up.
Because people agree to use it and design against it.
I won't say which ISO member company was pushing hard for their concept of Cat-7, but it was a large European technology company in-and-around Germany, and they had an idea to introduce new cable connectors for which they owned the patent. The new connectors improved interference, and thus improved bandwidth, etc... but were not the backwards compatible traditional RJ-45 style connector the Americans in the TIA were keen to preserve.
This was the most down-played and suppressed drama of all time. Both parties played it very diplomatically, and made absolutely zero public fuss about the issue of ISO attempting to assert itself into another standards body's domain. You may have noticed one or two belligerent nerds on IRC chatting pedantically about this topic every few years. Mostly one clueful nerd saying there is no such thing as Category-7 cable, as if to say that if the TIA doesn't make the standard for cable, it doesn't exist, etc... while another would say that any standards body can make a standard, etc... implying that they didn't care who makes the standard. Regardless, it was well outside the zeitgeist of Networking professionals in the industry, meaning your average network administrators. That is why the ISO thought they could get away with the scandal.
Ultimately the issue was resolved when the TIA established Cat-6a, and then Cat-8, thereby re-establishing their line in the row of category cables. Cat-7 was simultaneously ignored by most-all the members of the TIA member companies, and not certified by many vendors for interoperability. That said, Cat-7 was interoperable using RJ-45 style connectors. It was a sort of industry wide scarlet-letter, the TIA was going to make Cat-7 irrelevant by having the previous standard adopt sub-categories, E.G. cat-6a, cat-6b, etc... And of course reasserting itself sequentially in the versioning scheme they themselves created.
Finally, the ISO was going to do the same thing to networking cables, lock the standard away behind closed doors, but they had misappropriated the technology from an open standard. It's probably unethical, or at least shady. To them it was a new potential revenue stream, and pursing the interests of one of their committee member. All around it stank of collusion, conspiracy, and cronyism.
We dont have a policy problem. We have a business problem. Or a Go to market problem ( so to speak ). And this document doesn't seems to outline any solution.
It's reality for IETF (and many other organizations) and I don't see why it couldn't work elsewhere. Somehow we need to find a way to upset the status quo, the same way Let's Encrypt has done for TLS certs and the way open journals are slowly gaining mindshare over extortionist publications.
The challenge with standards is that they remain useful for a long time and you need interoperability (unlike with certs that you renew every year or three and which you can get from any number of CAs). Everyone wants to use the existing and established standards instead of reinventing the wheel, and we can't just copy the existing standards (though maybe we could "recreate" fully compatible standards because you can't copyright facts?). This is not a business problem, this is an entrenchment problem. And I guess there are some (big) companies that benefit from entrenchment and regulatory capture so it's in their interest to maintain the status quo. Naturally, everyone on ISO/IEC/IPC/etc payroll has an interest in maintaining the status quo.
People directly employed by ISO ?
Note that those who benefit from the existence of a standard is not only the participating companies, but also often the public at large, over a long period of time. This is why the government should contribute to the funds necessary to develop those standards.
If there are standards which would not save enough money for either the companies involved or the public at large, those standards have no business being developed.
On one hand I wish a single government, EU or US will fund the whole thing and be proud and say it is such a pathetic small amount of money for so much good we are doing it anyway. Gets point for some international recognition or political power or whatever politicians wants.
On the other hand you know this wont happen.
Here is an example for fire resistant classification:
Edit: I scrolled down and saw a picture of a very young child (clothed thankfully) and a decapitated penis. I would suggest people avoid the document