September 2011 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Designer timepieces for all tastes
by Lorna Ashley 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Worldwide shipping, up to 76% off on selected branded watches - visit our website now http://shorted.me/?s=6c

1 0

Purchase your Levitra from one of our drugstores today
by MITZI AYANNA 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Buy Brand & Generic Levitra Online :: OVERNIGHT Shipping! Purchase your Levitra from one of our drugstores today, our Generic\Brand Levitra deals are the cheapest and the prices also include free worldwide shipping http://rxdiscountjob.ru

1 0

Fake Watches Free Shipping - Buy Now! Best Replica Watches at $130 each
by Nancey Tiera 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

#s1,6@ Best Replica Watches at $130 each When you purchase Replica Watches, Fake Watch, you are automatically assured of the best in quality as well as our utmost commitment to service excellence. Fake Watches Free Shipping - Buy Now! http://replicastoremarketing.ru #s1,6@

1 0

Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets
by Eugen Leitl 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

http://chronicle.com/article/College-20-Fear-of/129049/ The Chronicle of Higher Education Wednesday, September 21, 2011 September 18, 2011 Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets College 2.0: Fear of Repression Spurs Scholars and Activists to Build Alternate Internets 1 Yana Paskova for The Chronicle Eben Moglen, a law professor at Columbia U., is developing the Freedom Box, a personal server that makes data harder to intercept. "The Net we have is increasingly monitored, measured, and surveilled everywhere by everybody all the time," he says. "Our Net has been turned against us." By Jeffrey R. Young Washington Computer networks proved their organizing power during the recent uprisings in the Middle East, in which Facebook pages amplified street protests that toppled dictators. But those same networks showed their weaknesses as well, such as when the Egyptian government walled off most of its citizens from the Internet in an attempt to silence protesters. That has led scholars and activists increasingly to consider the Internet's wiring as a disputed political frontier. For example, one weekend each month, a small group of computer programmers gathers at a residence here to build a homemade Internetbnamed Project Byzantiumbthat could go online if parts of the current global Internet becomes blocked by a repressive government. Using an approach called a "mesh network," the system would set up an informal wireless network connecting users with other nearby computers, which in turn would pass along the signals. The mesh network could tie back into the Internet if one of the users found a way to plug into an unblocked route. The developers recently tested an early version of their software at George Washington University (though without the official involvement of campus officials). The leader of the effort, who goes by the alias TheDoctor but who would not give his name, out of concern that his employer would object to the project, says he fears that some day repressive measures could be put into place in the United States. He is not the only one with such apprehensions. Next month TheB-Doctor will join hundreds of like-minded high-tech activists and entrepreneurs in New York at an unusual conference called the Contact Summit. One of the participants is Eben Moglen, a professor at Columbia Law School who has built an encryption device and worries about a recent attempt by Wisconsin politicians to search a professor's e-mail. The summit's goal is not just to talk about the projects, but also to connect with potential financial backers, recruit programmers, and brainstorm approaches to building parallel Internets and social networks. The meeting is a sign of the growing momentum of what is called the "free-network movement," whose leaders are pushing to rewire online networks to make it harder for a government or corporation to exert what some worry is undue control or surveillance. Another key concern is that the Internet has not lived up to its social potential to connect people, and instead has become overrun by marketing and promotion efforts by large corporations. At the heart of the movement is the idea that seemingly mundane technical specifications of Internet routers and social-networking software platforms have powerful political implications. In virtual realms, programmers essentially set the laws of physics, or at least the rules of interaction, for their cyberspaces. If it sometimes seems that media pundits treat Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg or Apple's Steve Jobs as gods, that's because in a sense they arebsitting on Mount Olympus with the power to hurl digital thunderbolts with a worldwide impact on people. Instead of just complaining, many of those heading to New York next month believe they can build alternatives that reduce the power of those virtual deities and give more control to mere mortals. I was surprised by the number of homegrown Internet projects described on the Contact Summit's Web sitebthough most of them are not yet operational, and some may never be. Among the approaches: an alternative to Facebook that promises better privacy control; a device that automatically scrambles e-mail and Web traffic so that only people authorized by the user can read them; and various mesh-network efforts that can essentially create an "Internet in a suitcase" to set up wherever unfettered Internet access is needed. Whether you see these techies as visionaries or paranoids, they highlight the extent to which networks now shape nations. "Anyone who cares about human rights anywhere should dedicate themselves to building these systems," is how Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, put it when I asked him about the trend. Bazaar 2.0 One organizer of the Contact Summit, Douglas Rushkoff, compares the disruptive power of the Internet to the impact of bazaars in the Middle Ages. In his latest book, Program or Be Programmed (OR Books), he argues that the earliest bazaars helped transform feudal society by allowing vigorous information sharingba low-tech peer-to-peer network. "Everyone was speaking with everybody else, and about all sorts of things and ideas," he writes. "All this information exchange allowed people to improve on themselves and their situations," allowing craftsmen to form guilds and share techniques. "As the former peasants rose to become a middle class of merchants and craftsB-people, they were no longer dependent on feudal lords for food and protection." The Internet has created a bazaar 2.0, says Mr. Rushkoff, accelerating information exchange and giving people the power to organize in new ways. At least so far. Mr. Rushkoff argues that companies and governments are gaining too much power, in ways that could limit communication in the future. Facebook, for instance, is a centralized system that forces users to run communications through its serversband, he observes, its main goal is to make money by analyzing data about users and sharing that information with advertisers. "The Internet that we know and love is not up to the task of being both a fully commercial network and a people's infrastructure," Mr. Rushkoff told me. "The Net is not a marketing opportunitybit's something much bigger than that." One idea: Create two parallel Internets, one run and optimized for banks and entertainment giants (like Netflix, whose streaming movies take up more and more of total bandwidth), and the other for academic research, civic discourse, and independent artists. He points to Internet2, a high-speed research network run by universities, as a step in the right direction. But that network is available only on select campuses. Perhaps other approaches will emerge that are designed to encourage the kind of peer-to-peer trading of information that Mr. Rushkoff prefers. To encourage that, the Contact Summit will organize a bazaar of its own, where participants can seek supporters for their projects. The organizers plan to award start-up grants to a few projects on the basis of a competition. "This is a conference of doers and people looking for counsel and collaborators," Mr. Rushkoff explains. He acknowledges that the crowd he is gathering can be hard to herd, though: "There are people who are afraid to come to Contact because they think they're going to be hacked or tracked or injected with something. There are a lot of loonies out there." Protecting Privacy One developer who is eager to go the summit is Mr. Moglen, the law professor. He's leading the development of a device called the Freedom Box, and though it doesn't look like muchba gadget the size of a paperback bookbhe believes that it would be able to help Internet users preserve their privacy. The concept: It's a personal server, which automatically scrambles digital data to make them harder for unauthorized people to intercept. The idea is to create a personal "cloud," or online storage space, for data before the information is sent to standard e-mail or Web services. Mr. Moglen and a team of programmers are developing the software under the auspices of the FreedomBox Foundation, a nonprofit organization, and plan to release it under an open license that lets anyone use and modify it. The initial Freedom Box code is expected to hit the Web in the next week or two, although it is more of a framework for developers at this point and lacks most of the planned features. For Mr. Moglen the work is part of a longtime mission. The Chronicle profiled him several years ago, soon after he founded the Software Freedom Law Center and published what he called The dotCommunist Manifesto. In the manifesto, he argues that all software should be developed by groups under free licenses rather than by companies out to make profit. Critics have called his approach extreme and unworkable, but in some areas open-source software has gained ground in recent years. "The Net we have is increasingly monitored, measured, and surveilled everywhere by everybody all the time, or at least by somebody who's doing it for somebody else and would answer a subpoena if they got one," he argued at a conference this year. "Our Net has been turned against us." In an interview, Mr. Moglen emphasizes that professors in particular should send their communications through his device. The reason? "Two words: William Cronon." Mr. Cronon, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, was recently the subject of an unusual public-records request by a political group. The Republican Party of Wisconsin asked the university to turn over a batch of e-mail messages by the professor containing certain keywords, as The Chronicle reported, after he wrote a blog post examining how conservative groups had helped craft controversial legislation, including the 2011 measure to strip Wisconsin public employees of collective-bargaining rights. Mr. Cronon believes that Republican officials were hunting for evidence that he had violated state law by using his state-university account for political speech, which he denies doing. He says other professors might be discouraged from speaking publicly on controversial issues, for fear their e-mail messages, too, might be sought by critics. Some free-Internet projects have been under development for some time, and many professors and business leaders have long encrypted their e-mail messages. But there is a new emphasis on making such systems easier to use and bringing them to a wider audience, says Sascha Meinrath, director of the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation. "We're trying to move them out of the geekosphere and get them into mainstream use," he told me. And there's evidence of that happening. This summer the foundation received a $2-million grant from the State Department to build its own mesh network, which could be set up by dissidents abroad to avoid censors. That's the system being called an "Internet in a suitcase." Proponents of mesh projects like Byzantium say they can provide a different kind of Internet freedomba connection that comes at no cost. Potentially, mesh networks could be set up and shared as free community networks. For activists like TheDoctor, that kind of freedom can give low-income users a chance to access information that could help improve their lives. "If a single Byzantium node gave a single person access to MIT's open courseware," he says, "the whole project would be a success." College 2.0 covers how new technologies are changing colleges. Please send ideas to jeff.young(a)chronicle.com or @jryoung on Twitter.

1 0

OnStar Begins Spying On Customers’ GPS Location For Profit
by Eugen Leitl 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=1270 OnStar Begins Spying On Customersb GPS Location For Profit Posted on September 20, 2011 by Jonathan Zdziarski I canceled the OnStar subscription on my new GMC vehicle today after receiving an email from the company about their new terms and conditions. While most people, I imagine, would hit the delete button when receiving something as exciting as new terms and conditions, being the nerd sort, I decided to have a personal drooling session and read it instead. Ibm glad I did. OnStarbs latest T&C has some very unsettling updates to it, which include the ability to sell your personal GPS location information, speed, safety belt usage, and other information to third parties, including law enforcement. To add insult to a slap in the face, the company insists they will continue collecting and selling this personal information even after you cancel your service, unless you specifically shut down the data connection to the vehicle after canceling. The complete update can be found here. Not surprisingly, I even had to scrub the link as it included my vehiclebs VIN number, to tell OnStar just what customers were actually reading the new terms and conditions. The first section explains the information thatbs collected from the vehicle. No big deal. Sounds rather innocuous and boring. I imagine most people probably drool out and close the window by the time they get this far. Your contact information, billing information, etc. is collected. Nobody cares about tire pressure and crash information being collected b after all, thatbs what OnStar is there for. Toward the end, youbll read about how GPS data is collected, including vehicle speed and seat belt status. Again, in an emergency, this is very useful and most customers want an emergency services business to collect this information - when necessary. And the old 2010 terms and conditions only allowed OnStar to collect this information for legitimate purposes, such as recovering a stolen vehicle, or when needed to provide other OnStar services to customers on demand. As you scroll down the list of information collected, you see that once you get past important emergency services (what we pay OnStar for), OnStar now has given themselves the right to also use this information to stuff their pockets. OnStar has granted themselves the right to collect this information b for any purpose, at any time, provided that following collection of such location and speed information identifiable to your Vehicle, it is shared only on an anonymized basis.b b This provides carte blanche authority for OnStar to now track and collect information about your current GPS position and speed any time and anywhere, instead of only in the rare, limited circumstances the old contract outlined. Anonymized GPS data? Therebs no such thing! Webve all seen this before b anonymized searches, for example, that were not-so-quite anonymized. But in this case, itbs impossible to anonymize GPS data! If your vehicle is consistently parked at your home, driving down your driveway, or taking a left or right turn onto your street, its pretty obvious that this is where you live! Itbs like trying to say that someonebs Google Map lookup from their home is b anonymizedb because it doesnbt have their name on it. It still shows where they live! Whatbs unique even more-so to OnStar is that the data they claim they sell as part of their business model is useless unless itbs specific; that is, not diluted to the nearest 10 mile radius, etc. This combination of analytics, and their prospective customers (law enforcement, marketers, etc) requires the data be disturbingly precise. Anyone armed with Google can easily do a phone book or public records search to find the name and address that resides at any given GPS coordinate. So the GPS location of your vehicle and your vehiclebs speed are likely going to be collected by OnStar and sold to third parties. What kind of companies are interested in this data? OnStar would have you believe that respectable agencies, like departments of transportation and various law enforcement agencies (for purposes of b public safety or traffic servicesb b A.K.A ticket writing). I can imagine this data COULD be used for good, to create traffic based analytics to improve future road construction or even emergency response. But given that those types of decisions are only made once a decade in most cities, OnStar isnbt likely to benefit much financially from b respectableb companies. What is more profitable to OnStar that your personal GPS data could be used for? Hmm, well how about the obvious b tracking you and your vehicle. It would be extremely profitable to be able to identify all vehicles within OnStarbs network that frequently speed, and provide law enforcement b traffic servicesb the ability to trace them back to their homes or businesses, as well as tell them where to set up speed traps. Or perhaps insurance companies who want to check and make sure youbre wearing your seat belt, or automatically give you rate increases if you speed, even if youbre never in an accident? How about identifying all individuals who shop at certain stores, and using that to determine whose back yard to put the next God-awful Wal-Mart store? How about employers who purchase these records from these third parties to see where their employees (or prospective employees) travel to (and how fast), sleaze bag lawyers who want to subpoena these records to use against you if youbre ever sued, government agencies who want to monitor you, marketing firms who want to spam you, and a long list of other not-so-squeaky-clean people who use (and abuse) existing online, credit card, financial, credit, and other analytics to destroy our privacy? Add to this OnStarbs use policy of your personal information b the stuff that does identify who you are and ties it to your GPS records. While I have no problem using my personal information in events of an emergency, OnStar also uses my information to b allow us, and our affiliates, your Vehicle Maker, and Vehicle dealers, to offer you new or additional products or services; and for other purposesb . So not only is OnStar going to sell my vehiclebs GPS location data to a number of third parties, but theybre also going to use it and my personal information for marketing purposes. Imagine your personal data being sold to any number of their b affiliatesb, and a few months later, you start to receive targeted, location-specific advertising based on where youbve traveled. Go to Weight Watchers every week? Expect an increase in the amount of weight loss advertising phone calls. Go to the bar frequently? Anticipate a number of sleazy liquor ads to show up in your mailbox. Sneak out to Victoria Secret for something special for your lover? You might soon be inundated with adult advertising in your mailbox. OnStarbs new T&C continues, explaining that part of the company may at some point be sold, and all of your information with it. It sounds as though OnStar is poising part of their analytics department to be purchased by a large data warehousing company, such as a Google, or perhaps even an Apple. Do you trust such companies with unfettered access to the entire GPS history of your vehicle? This is too shady, especially for a company that youbre supposed to trust your family to. My vehiclebs location is my life, itbs where I go on a daily basis. Itbs private. Itbs mine. I shouldnbt have to have a company like OnStar steal my personal and private life just to purchase an emergency response service. Taking my private life and selling it to third party advertisers, law enforcement, and God knows who else is morally inept. Shame on you, OnStar. You disgust me. To make matters even more insulting, it was difficult to ensure the data connection was shut down after canceling. I still have no guarantee OnStar did what they were supposed to. I had to request the data connection be shut down repeatedly, after the OnStar rep attempted to leave it on and ignore my requests. When will our congress pass legislation that stops the American peoplebs privacy from being raped by large data warehousing interests? Companies like OnStar, Google, Apple, and the other large abusive data warehousing companies desperately need to be investigated. These terms donbt go into effect until December 2011, and it takes up to 10 days to have the account fully cancel, and another 14 days for the data connection to be shut downb& so if you want to get out of these new terms and conditions, youbll need to do it soon. Update: Since writing this article, OnStar has reportedly told a few individuals that the contract requires them to obtain the customerbs consent in order to provide this information to anyone. Not true. In fact, the only mention of the word consent in their updated T&C is below: We will comply with all laws regarding notifying you and obtaining your consent before we collect, use or share information about you or your Vehicle in any other way than has been described in this privacy statement. Two points to make: first, this clause only applies to collecting and sharing information in any way that is not described in the privacy statement. All of the nefarious uses for your personal data are, quite clearly, described in the privacy statement, and so no consent would be required. Secondly, this paragraph makes it clear that they will only comply with all laws requiring consent, not that they will actually obtain your consent. Ibm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, there are no such laws on the books in most (if not all) states that protect the consumer from having their private information shared or sold to third parties, especially when such sharing is disclosed in a contract. In other words, the above paragraph seems to do nothing to require OnStar to obtain your consent to do any of this b and itbs my firm belief that OnStarbs only real interest is in OnStar. If you doubt this, the older version of the terms and conditions had two more consent clauses that are no longer part of the new terms and conditions. Old Consent Clauses b Now Removed: In General, we do not share your personal information with third-party marketers, unless we have asked for and obtained your explicit consent. Of course, we will notify you, and where required, ask for your prior consent if our collection, use, or disclosure of your personal information materially changes.

3 2

Buy HCG Drops - Only $59.95
by Breana Briana 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Buy HCG Drops - Only $59.95 Lose Weight 1 to 2 lbs per Day on HCG Diet http://hcgdietslove.ru

1 0

Penis Warning: Penis Enlargement 2011 Report - Get the Truth
by Jina Macie 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Penis Warning: Penis Enlargement 2011 Report - Get the Truth Can Penis Enlargement Products Really add 3"? Learn The Truth! http://penislargesex.ru

1 0

CHEAP VIAGRA Without Prescription at $1.05 & 12 VIAGRA FREE Pills!
by Iola Geraldine 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

CHEAP VIAGRA Without Prescription at $1.05 & 12 VIAGRA FREE Pills! CHEAP VIAGRA Online Without Prescription Only $1.05 Per Pill & Bonus 12 VIAGRA Pills FREE, Reorders Discount & FREE Shipping Applied, Fast & Discreet Delivery http://physicmedsdrugs.ru

1 0

A future for drones: Automated killing
by Eugen Leitl 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/a-future-for-drone… A future for drones: Automated killing By Peter Finn, One afternoon last fall at Fort Benning, Ga., two model-size planes took off, climbed to 800 and 1,000 feet, and began criss-crossing the military base in search of an orange, green and blue tarp. The automated, unpiloted planes worked on their own, with no human guidance, no hand on any control. After 20 minutes, one of the aircraft, carrying a computer that processed images from an onboard camera, zeroed in on the tarp and contacted the second plane, which flew nearby and used its own sensors to examine the colorful object. Then one of the aircraft signaled to an unmanned car on the ground so it could take a final, close-up look. Target confirmed. This successful exercise in autonomous robotics could presage the future of the American way of war: a day when drones hunt, identify and kill the enemy based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans. Imagine aerial b Terminators,b minus beefcake and time travel. The Fort Benning tarp b is a rather simple target, but think of it as a surrogate,b said Charles E. Pippin, a scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, which developed the software to run the demonstration. b You can imagine real-time scenarios where you have 10 of these things up in the air and something is happening on the ground and you donbt have time for a human to say, bI need you to do these tasks.b It needs to happen faster than that.b The demonstration laid the groundwork for scientific advances that would allow drones to search for a human target and then make an identification based on facial-recognition or other software. Once a match was made, a drone could launch a missile to kill the target. Military systems with some degree of autonomy b such as robotic, weaponized sentries b have been deployed in the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea and other potential battle areas. Researchers are uncertain how soon machines capable of collaborating and adapting intelligently in battlefield conditions will come online. It could take one or two decades, or longer. The U.S. military is funding numerous research projects on autonomy to develop machines that will perform some dull or dangerous tasks and to maintain its advantage over potential adversaries who are also working on such systems. The killing of terrorism suspects and insurgents by armed drones, controlled by pilots sitting in bases thousands of miles away in the western United States, has prompted criticism that the technology makes war too antiseptic. Questions also have been raised about the legality of drone strikes when employed in places such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, which are not at war with the United States. This debate will only intensify as technological advances enable what experts call lethal autonomy. The prospect of machines able to perceive, reason and act in unscripted environments presents a challenge to the current understanding of international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions require belligerents to use discrimination and proportionality, standards that would demand that machines distinguish among enemy combatants, surrendering troops and civilians. b The deployment of such systems would reflect a paradigm shift and a major qualitative change in the conduct of hostilities,b Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said at a conference in Italy this month. b It would also raise a range of fundamental legal, ethical and societal issues, which need to be considered before such systems are developed or deployed.b Drones flying over Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen can already move automatically from point to point, and it is unclear what surveillance or other tasks, if any, they perform while in autonomous mode. Even when directly linked to human operators, these machines are producing so much data that processors are sifting the material to suggest targets, or at least objects of interest. That trend toward greater autonomy will only increase as the U.S. military shifts from one pilot remotely flying a drone to one pilot remotely managing several drones at once. But humans still make the decision to fire, and in the case of CIA strikes in Pakistan, that call rests with the director of the agency. In future operations, if drones are deployed against a sophisticated enemy, there may be much less time for deliberation and a greater need for machines that can function on their own. The U.S. military has begun to grapple with the implications of emerging technologies. b Authorizing a machine to make lethal combat decisions is contingent upon political and military leaders resolving legal and ethical questions,b according to an Air Force treatise called Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047. b These include the appropriateness of machines having this ability, under what circumstances it should be employed, where responsibility for mistakes lies and what limitations should be placed upon the autonomy of such systems.b In the future, micro-drones will reconnoiter tunnels and buildings, robotic mules will haul equipment and mobile systems will retrieve the wounded while under fire. Technology will save lives. But the trajectory of military research has led to calls for an arms-control regime to forestall any possibility that autonomous systems could target humans. In Berlin last year, a group of robotic engineers, philosophers and human rights activists formed the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) and said such technologies might tempt policymakers to think war can be less bloody. Some experts also worry that hostile states or terrorist organizations could hack robotic systems and redirect them. Malfunctions also are a problem: In South Africa in 2007, a semiautonomous cannon fatally shot nine friendly soldiers. The ICRAC would like to see an international treaty, such as the one banning antipersonnel mines, that would outlaw some autonomous lethal machines. Such an agreement could still allow automated antimissile systems. b The question is whether systems are capable of discrimination,b said Peter Asaro, a founder of the ICRAC and a professor at the New School in New York who teaches a course on digital war. b The good technology is far off, but technology that doesnbt work well is already out there. The worry is that these systems are going to be pushed out too soon, and they make a lot of mistakes, and those mistakes are going to be atrocities.b Research into autonomy, some of it classified, is racing ahead at universities and research centers in the United States, and that effort is beginning to be replicated in other countries, particularly China. b Lethal autonomy is inevitable,b said Ronald C. Arkin, the author of b Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots,b a study that was funded by the Army Research Office. Arkin believes it is possible to build ethical military drones and robots, capable of using deadly force while programmed to adhere to international humanitarian law and the rules of engagement. He said software can be created that would lead machines to return fire with proportionality, minimize collateral damage, recognize surrender, and, in the case of uncertainty, maneuver to reassess or wait for a human assessment. In other words, rules as understood by humans can be converted into algorithms followed by machines for all kinds of actions on the battlefield. b How a war-fighting unit may think b we are trying to make our systems behave like that,b said Lora G. Weiss, chief scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute. Others, however, remain skeptical that humans can be taken out of the loop. b Autonomy is really the Achillesb heel of robotics,b said Johann Borenstein, head of the Mobile Robotics Lab at the University of Michigan. b There is a lot of work being done, and still we havenbt gotten to a point where the smallest amount of autonomy is being used in the military field. All robots in the military are remote-controlled. How does that sit with the fact that autonomy has been worked on at universities and companies for well over 20 years?b Borenstein said human skills will remain critical in battle far into the future. b The foremost of all skills is common sense,b he said. b Robots donbt have common sense and wonbt have common sense in the next 50 years, or however long one might want to guess.b

1 0

Can Penis Enlargement Products Really add 3"? Learn The Truth!
by HONEY SYLVIE 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

Penis Warning: Penis Enlargement 2011 Report - Get the Truth Can Penis Enlargement Products Really add 3"? Learn The Truth! http://penislargesex.ru

1 0