Write a question from the passage such that it identifies a character (a person or a thing) in the passage.

[EX Q]: You may have read some of the scary research recently that links parabens (a preservative ingredient found in loads of health and beauty products) with breast cancer, and whilst there is no evidence yet to prove that using parabens causes breast cancer more and more people are choosing to ditch parabens in favour of something more natural. I'm gradually trying to replace all of my old skincare and bodycare products with natural alternatives so that my body comes into contact with less parabens and other nasty chemicals.
One of the types of products which seems to be very late to the natural table is deodorant, there isn't a wide variety of paraben-free products available yet but I was really pleased to see that Soft & Gentle, a well-known household brand, had brought out this new 0% Aluminium Dry Deodorant. It's free from parabens, allergens and aluminium and uses astringent plant extracts that shrink the sweat pores to reduce perspiration whilst natural herb sage acts as a deodoriser.
Available in three fragrances – Active, Floral and Care – I've been using the Floral Soft & Gentle 0% Aluminium Dry Deodorant for over 2 weeks and I've really put it through its paces as the temperature has been fairly hot and humid for the last fortnight. With a deodorant there are 2 main factors that we can look at to evaluate its success – dryness and odour control. So how did this paraben free Soft & Gentle deodorant fare?
With regard to dryness I found that it kept me dry all day. I've been walking 2 miles or more most days and the weather has been warm, over 25 degrees some days, and I've been feeling generally a bit hot and sticky. But not on my underarms, they've been dry and I feel confident that this deodorant controls my sweat. In the first couple of days I did notice a little bit of unpleasant odour, but then I increased the amount that I was spraying under each arm and after this I've experienced no problems whatsoever, even after doing exercise or going on a long walk.
[EX A]: Who is trying to eliminate parabens?

[EX Q]: The filming was kind of a long process, but maybe it didn't need to be? Or maybe it did?
The first night of filming at the Thornbury Bowls Club was for a test shoot with mine and Rosie's camera, to work out which one we wanted to use for her film. The second night of filming involved us getting establishing shots of the location. The third night of filming involved us mainly shooting Rosie's script. And the fourth night of shooting involved us mainly shooting Bell's script and getting any other shots we needed to get.
Perhaps we didn't need an entire night of filming just to get establishing shots and filler shots, but it certainly made it a lot easier having multiple shots to choose from. For the two nights of shooting we certainly didn't get that much coverage, which meant in the edit we were somewhat stuck using certain shots because we didn't have other options. This was mainly because of time limitations with actors and batteries on cameras dying and such. I'm so neurotic I would have happily spent two nights shooting establishing shots and filler shots and two nights on each shoot, but not everyone wants to rearrange the rest of their life to fit around such projects. I get a tad obsessive if I'm allowed, which can often benefit me, although I do become a giant pain in everyone else's ass.
The main thing I learnt from the filming process was that you can plan out exactly what you want to do, and how your going to do it, but once you get into the location with the actors this plan often changes – however, you are still much better of having the plan than none at all! As the neurotic freak I am, I had all the shots I wanted to use storyboarded. I had originally planned to shoot all the establishing shots, stick them in a timeline and then also shoot the other shots (with fill in actors) and add them to the timeline to see how it looked. Of course no one else was interested in spending an entire night shooting the film – but with them as stands in – just so I could complete my psychotic endeavour of creating the faux film, then reflecting on it, then shooting the real thing.
[EX A]: Who had all the shots?

[EX 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 activities without court oversight."
It was signed by Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union and others.
[EX A]:
Who said that privacy is the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."?

