July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

FC: DOJ steps up child porn fight, plan regulates digital cameras
by Declan McCullagh 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/01/2155249 DOJ STEPS UP CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FIGHT Proposal makes digital cameras "childsafe" April 1, 2001 By Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- Citing the explosive growth in child pornography and obscenity, the U.S. Department of Justice aims to rein in the fast-growing digital camera industry. A DOJ project code-named "Indecent Images" plans to implant technologies developed to automatically recognize hard-core Internet sex images into the next generation of cameras. An II-compliant camera will refuse to take illegal photographs or videos, and could even quietly tip off law enforcement to illicit behavior. On Friday, a DOJ spokeswoman confirmed the existence of the II project, and said that the remarkable number of child pornographers now using digital cameras on the Internet underground represents a new challenge to law enforcement that Congress should carefully consider. The spokeswoman declined to provide details, but one DOJ source said the Office of Legislative Affairs has drafted legislation and plans to send it to Capitol Hill next month. The Senate has previously voted to condemn the menace of children and sex. "One we'd prosecute child pornographers who take rolls of film to the corner fot-o-mat for developing," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But now when everything's digital, we can no longer protect America's children. We need a new First Amendment for the digital age." Child pornography appears to be a popular Internet hobby. An Altavista search returns 25,999 pages found that "match your search criteria." A Google search turns up far more child pornography: 425,000 hits. A spokesman for President Bush said the White House supports the II plan, which is consistent with the 2000 Republican Party platform that urged strenuous activity involving "obscenity and child pornography." Bush said last year that: "It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet." Critics said the II draft bill raises free speech concerns. An ACLU spokeswoman said that the II proposal would unreasonably restrict legitimate art and photography, and that the technology to recognize images as child pornography or obscenity is far from perfect. The ACLU and the American Library Association filed suit earlier this month to overturn the Children's Internet Protection Act, which encourages libraries to use filtering software -- some of which uses II-type technology. The bill would likely be sponsored in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Judiciary chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and in the House by Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Hatch and Feinstein co-sponsored the 1996 "morphed" child porn law that is currently the subject of a legal challenge, and an aide said Feinstein viewed this as a logical extension of using technology to thwart inappropriate views and behavior. The DOJ proposal requires the Federal Communications Commission -- which already regulates "indecent" broadcasts -- to police the digital photo and video industry as well. Any manufacturer seeking a license to sell such products in the U.S. after April 1, 2002 would have to demonstrate that they were II-compatible to receive FCC approval under agency rule 602P. Nikon and Canon, which sell digital cameras, could not immediately be reached for comment. Kodak faxed a statement to reporters over the weekend that said: "We never have approved of the use of our products to record intercourse, missionary position or otherwise, with children, and we look forward to working with law enforcement to meet their concerns." The II technology plan, according to an outline provided by the DOJ source, has two phases: II.1, which scans images using advanced neural networks to recognize and delete illicit material. II.2, which would not be mandated until April 1, 2003, is far more high-tech. Some observers believe it will spur development of this kind of advanced artificial intelligence, giving U.S. tech firms a badly-needed boost given the recent stock market downturn. The II draft says that "any variant" of digital still or video camera must include a GPS device and a transmitter that is compatible with U.S. pager networks. When a child pornographer takes an illegal photo, the camera recognizes it and transmits an encrypted message containing the image, the date, and the location to the local police -- who would then raid the home and save the child from continued erotic exploitation. The Family Research Council, which estimates it has been involved in helping police make 83.5 percent of arrests related to child pornography, applauded the II approach. "It's about time Congress did something hard-core on this issue," said FRC spokesman and author Martin Rimm. "The Internet should be more than a place where children can have sex with dogs." The DOJ wants to encourage photo-video manufacturers to license technology from companies such as Exotrope, a firm in New York state that sells porn-recognition software. New York Governor George Pataki has applauded Exotrope's "state-of-the-art technology and PC Magazine gave it an "editor's choice" award. The FRC's Rimm, who conducted a highly-publicized Carnegie Mellon University study into how pornography is marketed on the information superhighway -- an updated version will soon be published in Georgetown University's law review -- says he hopes Congress will act swiftly. "My research shows 'paraphilic pornography' is on the rise," he said. "Our research team has undertaken the first comprehensive study of child pornography on the information superhighway, and let me tell you: Perversion has gone digital, and we need to penetrate this problem now." Compiled from staff and wire reports ### [Note the date on the above report. Caveat lector, and all that. --Declan] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

FC: DOJ steps up child porn fight, plan regulates digital cameras
by Declan McCullagh 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

http://www.cluebot.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/01/2155249 DOJ STEPS UP CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FIGHT Proposal makes digital cameras "childsafe" April 1, 2001 By Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- Citing the explosive growth in child pornography and obscenity, the U.S. Department of Justice aims to rein in the fast-growing digital camera industry. A DOJ project code-named "Indecent Images" plans to implant technologies developed to automatically recognize hard-core Internet sex images into the next generation of cameras. An II-compliant camera will refuse to take illegal photographs or videos, and could even quietly tip off law enforcement to illicit behavior. On Friday, a DOJ spokeswoman confirmed the existence of the II project, and said that the remarkable number of child pornographers now using digital cameras on the Internet underground represents a new challenge to law enforcement that Congress should carefully consider. The spokeswoman declined to provide details, but one DOJ source said the Office of Legislative Affairs has drafted legislation and plans to send it to Capitol Hill next month. The Senate has previously voted to condemn the menace of children and sex. "One we'd prosecute child pornographers who take rolls of film to the corner fot-o-mat for developing," said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But now when everything's digital, we can no longer protect America's children. We need a new First Amendment for the digital age." Child pornography appears to be a popular Internet hobby. An Altavista search returns 25,999 pages found that "match your search criteria." A Google search turns up far more child pornography: 425,000 hits. A spokesman for President Bush said the White House supports the II plan, which is consistent with the 2000 Republican Party platform that urged strenuous activity involving "obscenity and child pornography." Bush said last year that: "It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet." Critics said the II draft bill raises free speech concerns. An ACLU spokeswoman said that the II proposal would unreasonably restrict legitimate art and photography, and that the technology to recognize images as child pornography or obscenity is far from perfect. The ACLU and the American Library Association filed suit earlier this month to overturn the Children's Internet Protection Act, which encourages libraries to use filtering software -- some of which uses II-type technology. The bill would likely be sponsored in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Judiciary chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), and in the House by Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Hatch and Feinstein co-sponsored the 1996 "morphed" child porn law that is currently the subject of a legal challenge, and an aide said Feinstein viewed this as a logical extension of using technology to thwart inappropriate views and behavior. The DOJ proposal requires the Federal Communications Commission -- which already regulates "indecent" broadcasts -- to police the digital photo and video industry as well. Any manufacturer seeking a license to sell such products in the U.S. after April 1, 2002 would have to demonstrate that they were II-compatible to receive FCC approval under agency rule 602P. Nikon and Canon, which sell digital cameras, could not immediately be reached for comment. Kodak faxed a statement to reporters over the weekend that said: "We never have approved of the use of our products to record intercourse, missionary position or otherwise, with children, and we look forward to working with law enforcement to meet their concerns." The II technology plan, according to an outline provided by the DOJ source, has two phases: II.1, which scans images using advanced neural networks to recognize and delete illicit material. II.2, which would not be mandated until April 1, 2003, is far more high-tech. Some observers believe it will spur development of this kind of advanced artificial intelligence, giving U.S. tech firms a badly-needed boost given the recent stock market downturn. The II draft says that "any variant" of digital still or video camera must include a GPS device and a transmitter that is compatible with U.S. pager networks. When a child pornographer takes an illegal photo, the camera recognizes it and transmits an encrypted message containing the image, the date, and the location to the local police -- who would then raid the home and save the child from continued erotic exploitation. The Family Research Council, which estimates it has been involved in helping police make 83.5 percent of arrests related to child pornography, applauded the II approach. "It's about time Congress did something hard-core on this issue," said FRC spokesman and author Martin Rimm. "The Internet should be more than a place where children can have sex with dogs." The DOJ wants to encourage photo-video manufacturers to license technology from companies such as Exotrope, a firm in New York state that sells porn-recognition software. New York Governor George Pataki has applauded Exotrope's "state-of-the-art technology and PC Magazine gave it an "editor's choice" award. The FRC's Rimm, who conducted a highly-publicized Carnegie Mellon University study into how pornography is marketed on the information superhighway -- an updated version will soon be published in Georgetown University's law review -- says he hopes Congress will act swiftly. "My research shows 'paraphilic pornography' is on the rise," he said. "Our research team has undertaken the first comprehensive study of child pornography on the information superhighway, and let me tell you: Perversion has gone digital, and we need to penetrate this problem now." Compiled from staff and wire reports ### [Note the date on the above report. Caveat lector, and all that. --Declan] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

[IP] The Surveillance Industrial Complex
by dave＠farber.net 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

___ Dave Farber +1 412 726 9889 ...... Forwarded Message ....... From: Barry Steinhardt <Bsteinhardt(a)aclu.org> To: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:02:24 -0400 Subj: The Surveillance Industrial Complex Dave, The ACLU is releasing a new report today on the "Surveillance-Industrial Complex," an in-depth look at all the ways that the government is conscripting or recruiting private companies for its war individual privacy and liberty . The report is online at: www.aclu.org/surveillance In conjunction with the release of the report, we have created a new action Web page asking consumers to help us ask companies to take a "no-spy pledge" that they won't willingly cooperate with government demands for their customers' data. The action page is online at:www.aclu.org/privatize The No Spy Pledge says: 1. You will not turn individually identifiable data on your customers over to the government for security purposes unless legally required to do so. 2. You will use every legal means to fight government demands for data that are not authorized by current law, or which violate your Constitutional rights or those of your customers. 3. If the government serves you with a legally binding request to turn over customer information, you will notify customers that our information has been turned over (unless you are subject to a gag order prohibiting you from doing so under the Patriot Act or other legislation) In addition, companies called data aggregators are increasingly becoming a means by which the government accesses information on individuals. I would also like to ask whether you provide information about your customers to data aggregators or any other companies that are in the business of consolidating customer information. If so, which ones Thanks, Barry Steinhardt Director Technology and Liberty Project American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 125 Broad Street NYC 10004 www.aclu.org ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
by Jay Ashworth 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

"The proposal comes from Alex Stamos of research firm iSec Partners, and would appoint Artemis Internet as the gatekeeper of .secure. Artemis would require registered domains to encrypt all web and email traffic (except for HTTP redirects funneling connections towards the appropriate TLS-encrypted site), use DNSSEC, and deploy DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) for spam prevention. In addition, Artemis would employ a rigorous screening process to verify registrants' identities (including reviewing articles of incorporation and human interviews), and routinely conduct security scans of registered sites. The venture has $9.6 million (US) in funding provided by Artemis' parent company NCC Group, a UK-based IT security firm." https://lwn.net/Articles/497254/ Discuss. Debate. Digress. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[IP] The Surveillance Industrial Complex
by dave＠farber.net 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

___ Dave Farber +1 412 726 9889 ...... Forwarded Message ....... From: Barry Steinhardt <Bsteinhardt(a)aclu.org> To: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:02:24 -0400 Subj: The Surveillance Industrial Complex Dave, The ACLU is releasing a new report today on the "Surveillance-Industrial Complex," an in-depth look at all the ways that the government is conscripting or recruiting private companies for its war individual privacy and liberty . The report is online at: www.aclu.org/surveillance In conjunction with the release of the report, we have created a new action Web page asking consumers to help us ask companies to take a "no-spy pledge" that they won't willingly cooperate with government demands for their customers' data. The action page is online at:www.aclu.org/privatize The No Spy Pledge says: 1. You will not turn individually identifiable data on your customers over to the government for security purposes unless legally required to do so. 2. You will use every legal means to fight government demands for data that are not authorized by current law, or which violate your Constitutional rights or those of your customers. 3. If the government serves you with a legally binding request to turn over customer information, you will notify customers that our information has been turned over (unless you are subject to a gag order prohibiting you from doing so under the Patriot Act or other legislation) In addition, companies called data aggregators are increasingly becoming a means by which the government accesses information on individuals. I would also like to ask whether you provide information about your customers to data aggregators or any other companies that are in the business of consolidating customer information. If so, which ones Thanks, Barry Steinhardt Director Technology and Liberty Project American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 125 Broad Street NYC 10004 www.aclu.org ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
by Jay Ashworth 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

"The proposal comes from Alex Stamos of research firm iSec Partners, and would appoint Artemis Internet as the gatekeeper of .secure. Artemis would require registered domains to encrypt all web and email traffic (except for HTTP redirects funneling connections towards the appropriate TLS-encrypted site), use DNSSEC, and deploy DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) for spam prevention. In addition, Artemis would employ a rigorous screening process to verify registrants' identities (including reviewing articles of incorporation and human interviews), and routinely conduct security scans of registered sites. The venture has $9.6 million (US) in funding provided by Artemis' parent company NCC Group, a UK-based IT security firm." https://lwn.net/Articles/497254/ Discuss. Debate. Digress. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [tor-talk] Tor as ecommerce platform
by Maxim Kammerer 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:27 AM, morristan <morristan(a)tormail.org> wrote: > Perhaps the Silk Road people should donate to Tor. Perhaps they should fund > hidden service improvements in Tor. Perhaps both. I doubt that the Tor Project will ever acknowledge such support. Tor developers (or at least policy people) like to pretend that Tor is used for purposes that they consider morally right, and ignore the uses that are morally wrong [1]. I believe it's an american thing b one typical tell-tale sign is treating criminals as some masterminds who can already easily achieve what they want [2] (americans are used to doing the same in gun control debates), and ignoring the fact that the project facilitates anonymity for criminals just as well, if not more, as for non-criminals. Personally, I don't understand what's the big deal about the make-believe game, and it probably detracts from the project's credibility, but it's fun to watch nevertheless. I actually intend to write a Tor server patch to be able to gather .onion access statistics on relays, once I am sufficiently bored, just for the fun cognitive dissonance potential (expecting drugs and CP forums to top the list). [1] https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html [2] https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq-abuse.html#WhatAboutCriminals [3] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/vdhs8/hi_iama_we_are_core_members_of_… -- Maxim Kammerer LibertC) Linux: http://dee.su/liberte _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[tor-talk] Tor, Facebook and Google+ - my point of view
by Andrea St 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

I've thoroughly read the blog post about the position of Tor regarding the Online presence within Facebook and G+ and I'd like to use these short lines to express my point of view. Let me state in advance that I'm not particularly fond of neither FB nor G+ policies, but that does not prevent me to strongly think that Tor should be present whithin both these SN. First of all telling Twitter is a better place to stay and others should be avoided is not a suitable answer: Twitter has been known to censor HashTags, to sell the entire feed, just for example. On the second point I strongly believe in Tor's educational mission: avoiding a widespread used medium insetad of using it in the best possible way is IMHO very wrong. On the third point it should be taken into consideration that an unofficial BF Fan page is already present with 5000+ fans: the newborn one is in less than a week 300+ fans strong and there are numerous other unofficial smaller ones. In these pages users ask for help, write comments and feedbacks. The same is true for G+, where 100+ people has added Tor page in their circles. These numbers alone should demonstrate without further doubt that there is a more than sizable part of the users who strongly prefer to interact with the Tor Project using these SM channels instead of IRC. Even if some people strongly object to the use of these channel, I strongly believe that democracy itself is based on allowing users the same chance to express themselves in their preferred form, giving all the same chance to obtain what seem to be just and fair. It is not time to understand if Tor Project is ready or not to embrace these prerogatives and to open up to Social: if no-one cares likes and following a page is not mandatory, but for those who are eager to follow the chance to talk to the Tor Project will be there, even in "the enemy territory". You can even look at this as opening a representative place, a safe harbour, a little outpost directly within the enemy's line, giving chance to talk to users about our views of the SN and what we think is evil within their policies. It's time to take a strong and sure direction, without dubts. That, of course, will add-up to other more worldly problems of not being present: some people will surely think Tor is anachronistic, not fit for the new generations, and someone other could open up a fake "official" page with could lead to scams, wrong downloads etc... This is only my very humble opinion, open for discussion and, why not, for disagreement with me. Best, Andrea _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk(a)lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: [liberationtech] Google Bows Down To Chinese Government On Censorship
by Karl Fogel 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Maxim Kammerer <mk(a)dee.su> writes: >On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Martin Johnson <greatfire(a)greatfire.org> wrote: >> This latest move was fully controlled by Google and can as such only be described as self-censorship. > >The impression I am getting from my contacts at Google is that this is >not true. That is, Google apparently lost to Chinese Cyber experts in >being able to keep this censored keywords system up, and decided to >drop it altogether. PR team then, for whatever other reasons, decided >to keep complete silence on the subject. > >Of course, one can then ask why didn't Google simply force HTTPS on >Chinese users to begin with, but they probably considered complete >block of Google by GFC too real a possibility, and were too afraid to >lose market share. [not directed at Maxim, just a general thought on this topic] Rushes to judge Google about its handling of China should probably be tempered by the knowledge what the Chinese government really wants is to push local companies like Baidu. The government's protectionist policy for Chinese web & technology companies just happens to mesh nicely with their censorship policy in this case. So if Google pushes too hard, the overall result will just be to give more market share to Baidu, which doesn't really help the cause of freedom for Chinese Internet users either. Google's executives understand this very well. There's a good argument to be made that the things they could do to look brave and principled are not the things that would actually help information freedom in China in the long run. Please note that I'm not making a "shades of gray" point, just a "complexity" point. Best, -Karl -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[FoRK] "Your papers, citizen"
by Russell Turpin 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

This was on Slashdot's political feed. Here's the jaw-dropper: McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints. Here's the article: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5415111.html _________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ FoRK mailing list http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0