- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

instruments of liberation (continuing 'fear' thread)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:22 PM 11/1/98 -0800, Tim May wrote: >"Wired News" carried an article reporting on a plan to (somehow) spread Wired recently had pix/columns on Rivest and Schneier. This is how crypto will get into the popmind: through sophisticated deadtrees like this read by propeller heads *and* suits. The Cryptos talk of the economy, of keeping crackers out, of personal privacy. The list of good uses will grow. The Fascistas will be stuck with only their dealers and the vaporrists, vapornappers, vaporophiles they will continue to worship. Eventually, the Sheeple will grok what's being argued over. The rest depends on your optimism level. --Wasted Hellions Trace my Bugs

1 0

RE: VANGUARD: An Election About Nothing? (fwd)
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric Murray wrote: > Not voting tells the current politicians that you > don't care what they do to you. They'd be happier > if only % of the electorate bothered to vote that's > fewer people to market to. Yep look at it as a market. People who don't or can't vote don't count; jist as people who don't or can't pay don't count in a shop. If you vote or at least if you give a credible threat of possibly voting they might notice. Otherwise you are invisible. > I was thinking as I read the voter pamphlet that an > Absurdist party would be quite amusing and would > point out the silliness of the current politicians. > But I don't think I could come up with anything as > wacky as the Natural Law people can. We used to get "Natural Law" candidates in UK as well. Not so many last time round, maybe they finally spent George Harrison's money. The best track-record for an Absurdist Party in this country is the Monster Raving Looney Party, which used to be mostly Screaming Lord Sutch who stood for parliament again and again but has recently taken on some sort of continuing existence (see http://www.surfbaud.co.uk/loony/) and even has a few town councillors in various places. Sutch may well have almost invented an electoral version of the cypherpunk assasination prototcol - bookies were quoting odds of 15 million to one against him winning a seat once and he pointed out that if he could find a way to pay voters off anonymously he could bet on himself and bribe the electorate with his winnings... I think the odds fell after that. Of course the possibility of easy anonymous bribery makes traditional electoral law much, much harder to enforce (see, this is relevant to Cypherpunks). There are some fun looking parties around. The line up for the UK General Election on the Glorious First of May was (in order of number of seats gained): Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberals, Ulster Unionist Party, Scottish Nationalist Party, Plaid Cymru, Social Democratic and Labour Party, Democratic Unionist, Sinn Fein, United Kingdom Unionist, Madam Speaker Seeking Reelection and Martin Bell standing as an independent; all of whom won something. And Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, British National Party, Rainbow Dream Ticket Party, Green Party, Liberal Party, Mebyon Kernow,Monster Raving Loony Party,National Democrats, Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, Natural Law Party , ProLife Alliance ,Popular Unionist Party, Referendum Party Socialist Labour Party, Socialist Party, Scottish Social Alliance, UK Independence Party, Workers Party, Workers Revolutionary Party; who didn't win anything but all seem to have some sort of continuing existence as parties And Anti Sleaze/Corruption, AntiConservative, Sportsman's Alliance: Anyone But Mellor, Lord Byro versus the Scallywag Tories, AntiPoliticians, Antimajority Democracy, Independent Democracy Means Consulting the People, People in Slough Shunning Useless Politicians, Common Sense Sick of Politicians Party, None of the Above, Drugs Hemp/Cannabis Platforms, New Millenium, New Way, Hemp Candidate, Hemp Coalition, Legalise Cannabis Party, Ind AE Independent Anti Europe, British Home Rule , British Isles People First, Independent Conservative, Independant Christian, Christian Party, Christian Nationalist, Christian Democrat, Christian Unity, Independent Communist, Communist Party of Britain, Communist League, Independent British Democratic Party, Social Democrat, English Democratic Party, Rennaisence Democrat, Independent Democrat, Freedom/Justice/Rights Platform, Justice Party, Freedom Party, Justice and Renewal Independent Party, Pacifist for Peace, Justice, Cooperation, Environment, Charter for Basic Rights, Fellowship Party for Peace and Justice, Human Rights ', British Freedom and Individual Rights, Far Left, Radical Alternative, Building a Fair Society, Full Employment Party, Socialist Party of Great Britain, Socialist Equality Party, Independent Far Right, National Front, Third Way, Independent Green, Scrapit Stop Avon Ring Road, Newbury Bypass Stop Construction Now, Independent Liberal Democrat, Top Choice Liberal Democrat, Independent Labour, and Local Independent; who all seem to have been invented for the occasion. Make up your mind as to which, if any, are absurdist. I suspect none of them bribed the voters much. Roll on the transferable vote! Ken Brown & the Disclaimers.

1 0

JIM MARTIN---NC Supreme Court (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This spam was received earlier today. One has to wonder just how stupid this guy is. Hint: I live at least a thousand miles from North Carolina. This guy is running for a position as judge, but thinks that it is more important to tell people about how many kids he has as opposed to his actual qualifications for the office. He might also want to learn how to use English, that people in the other 49 states cannot vote for or against him, and what the term "theft of service" means before he attempts to occupy such an office. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ineedyourhelp(a)yourvote.com Subject: JIM MARTIN---NC Supreme Court Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:42:32 JIM MARTIN NC Supreme Court My Friend: I needy Your Help when you vote on Tuesday. Your vote for me to represent you on the NC Supreme Court would really be appreciated by me. I'm not a politican. I have a Family, 3 kids in college and I can and will make a difference if you give me the chance to work for you.. When elected, I promise you that my Door will always be open TO YOU. I Thank You, Jim Martin

2 1

internet
by Rusik 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi. i need to crack my internet provider. he use windows 95 operation system. can you help me??? have you any crackers?? or you know where i can find them or any literature that can help me??? BYE with my best wishes Rusik

1 0

Re: Hayek and Foucault
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 04:27:52 EST Reply-To: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Stephen Carson <SWCarson(a)AOL.COM> Subject: Re: Hayek and Foucault To: HAYEK-L(a)MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Clearly, Hayek's analysis of power & the state has been superseded by a far more nuanced view. But, just for old time's sake, I would like to try arguing that Hayek's (and, in fact, the Old Whig/classical liberal) perspective may still have something to offer us that these new views, as explicated by Williams & Davis, don't seem to have. Please chalk up unrelated attempts to defend Hayek to my current fascination with "pietas", now that I've finally figured out what my Latin teacher meant by that. Julietwill(a)AOL.COM (Juliet Williams) wrote: >given everything Hayek knew about the perils facing the planning state, he >nonetheless feared it. Hayek's own arguments about the obstacles to >planning and centralizing power should have suggested to him that the real >danger in the future lies not with a centralized state (which is doomed to >fail) but rather with a government that recognizes the need to >decentralize its power in order to maintain hegemony. Then Hayek might >have understood that a state which dissipates and, hence, masks its power >can threaten liberty equally if not more so than a state which tries to >maximize its direct control. Hayek was perfectly positioned to >understand, as Foucault did, that total state poses much less of a threat >in these times than does the post-modern one in which state power is so >thoroughly diffused as to be unrecognizable. Perhaps I'm thinking about the wrong time horizon, but it seems to me that the 170 million or so that were marched out to the killing fields in this century might have had some not entirely irrelevant fears of the "planning state". Certainly, despite my understanding of the inherent instability of the Total State, I thank God regularly that the US hasn't yet gone through that awkward transition period between the birth of the Total State & its demise. Foucault is probably correct that we are beyond the centralized state. But I can't help recalling to mind my re-reading the other night of the first chapter of R. J. Rummel's _Death By Government_ in which he details the numerous slaughters (most by centralized states) that have occurred throughout history prior to the 20th century. I hope very much my pessimism about human nature will be disproven, but I think I'll keep my eyes open just in case. >Foucault thus offers us something Hayek does not, namely, an imperative to >resist power. Hayek is primarily concerned not with promoting resistance, >but rather with preventing the need for it in the first place. It is true >that Hayek concedes a place for participation by his admission that >democracy is one of the most important safeguards of freedom (LLL3, 5). > But Hayek hardly offers a resounding endorsement of participatory >politics. In his words, democracy is one of those paramount though >negative values, comparable to sanitary precautions against the plague. Given all this I'm not quite sure what to make of Hayek's personal efforts, like the Mont Pelerin Society, or of the rumours that Hayek's writings have had & continue to have an influence on those suffering under totalitarianism & looking for a sign of hope. To be sure, this may be very distant from the sort of participatory politics that Foucault understands to be effective, but it seems unfair to say that Hayek had no strategy of resistance at all. My own reading of Hayek is of a man who was (since roughly 1922) engaged in a lifelong resistance against state power. Admittedly, his strategy may seem extremely subtle & long-term, but I might even go so far as to claim that his strategy has already had some effectiveness in its own small way... And that his intention was that its greatest impact wouldn't hit until well after his death. daviserik(a)HOTMAIL.COM (Erik Davis) wrote: >Liberals in general tend to limit discussion of "power" to discussion of >the state, and perhaps Hayek often did the same. One might even say that, in the context of a classical liberal political discussion, the term "power" is short for "state power", (or, perhaps, coercive power). >This will seem paradoxical to a liberal--and even more so to a >conservative (esp. those of Hobbesian persuasion)--because if the rule >of law must ultimately be "enforced" endogenously then this means >that--if it were ever to be completely upheld--one could say (1) that >the state will cease to exist [because there would not be a need for >exogenous enforcement of rules] or (2) that the "state" will be ALL >PERVASIVE [because every agent is committed to the rules]. (Certainly, >just what is "endogenous" and what is "exogenous" should itself be >brought into question--that would be Foucault's point, no?). The >liberal will say (1), the postmodernist will say (2). It's probably just six of one, half dozen of another, as you imply. Though it occurs to me that Rummel's particular concern about the state, (that it will slaughter its citizens and whoever else comes under its power), would be allayed in the situation described. So in this particular sense, (1) might be the most useful claim to be made. It further occurs to me that if Rummel is right, that a society in which the rule of law is diffused & widely practiced will not kill its citizens, then would could conjecture that such a society might even afford more liberties than just to retain one's life. >If we read Hayek with (2) in mind, Hayek does at times seem to >politicize EVERYTHING. For example, in his "Why I am Not a >Conservative", the Party of Life is not tied to a state. > >I wanted to emphasize this in my earlier post (in reply to Gus DiZerega >and Stephen Carson) by pointing out the analogies between common law >(tied to state action) and custom (not necessarily tied to the state). >Common law is a system of precedents which determines where and when >force can be legitimately applied; customs ("rituals" [INSTITUTIONS! >{see below}]) function in a completely analogous way. The POLITICAL >character of these customs (as, in one form, a "perverse system of >rituals")--and of challenges to them--is precisely the argument of >Vaclav Havel's THE POWER OF THE POWERLESS. I think this is an excellent point. Perhaps it's just taste, but I'm a bit bothered by speaking of the political character of customs. Certainly customs, (and non-state institutions, like the family & friendship), have political implications, but to talk about their political character seems to me to let politics eat too much up. And I think we've had quite enough of that. Stephen W. Carson <mailto:SWCarson@aol.com> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" -Donald Knuth --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Praetoriani Novi
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 06:17:44 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: New Powers for Secret Service Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Salt Lake City Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/11031998/utah/utah.htm IT'S CLASSIFIED: The Secret Service Will Have a Hand In 2002 Security BY GREG BURTON THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE A classified executive order signed by President Clinton during the summer has altered the way the Secret Service prepares for security at national events, a change already affecting the blueprint for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Presidential protection, often a hectic, hodgepodge operation, has been the jurisdiction of the Secret Service since John Wilkes Booth shot President Lincoln. Now, the presidential directive orders the Secret Service to take an active role in planning security for major national events, whether or not presidents, vice presidents, ex-presidents, their spouses or other dignitaries attend. Called Presidential Decision Directive 62 (PDD 62), the order also reportedly alters a range of national security considerations, although the directive's internal hardware is top secret. PDDs, like executive orders, do not require the approval of Congress but come through the National Security Council. For Salt Lake City, PDD 62 means Secret Service agents already are planning for the orchestration of executive ogling at the Winter Olympics without knowing who the president of the United States will be or if that person will attend. At the 1996 Summer Games, when the same shadowy squad led then-first-term Clinton through the magnolia trees in Atlanta, security experts with the Secret Service did not begin preparing for the executive visit until after Olympic organizers and the FBI had completed their security plan. ``The public has this perception of the Secret Service as a strange institution that rides in and rides out with black glasses on,'' says Dennis Crandall, resident agent in charge of the Secret Service for Utah and Idaho. ``This is kind of a new era for us.'' PDD 62 now enters a vault of classified security directives. Among other PDDs is No. 29, issued in 1994, that established the Security Policy Board, a secretive agency with authority over information systems' security and safeguarding classified information. The National Security Council has refused to release details of PDD 29. PDD 62 likely will remain equally veiled. ``PDD 62 is not classified, but the contents are,'' says David M. Tubbs, the recently appointed special agent in charge for the FBI's Utah, Idaho and Montana command. Says Crandall: ``Portions of it are still sensitive.'' According to several national security experts, the major event clause in PDD 62 is an outgrowth of a perceived lack of security planning for the president's visit to the Atlanta Games. Because of PDD 62, the Secret Service has been involved nearly from the onset of security planning for the 2002 Winter Games. ``We are designated to take a more aggressive upfront role in major events,'' says Crandall. Currently, the FBI and the Secret Service are hammering out a memorandum of understanding that clarifies the division of labor between the two federal security teams in accordance with PDD 62. The Secret Service's role -- although a topic that has reportedly led to turf wars in Washington, D.C. -- has been welcomed by most Salt Lake City organizers. Tubbs does not see their involvement as a threat to the FBI, the lead federal security agency for the 2002 Olympics. ``I have not had a turf war with anyone. Period,'' says Tubbs, who was one of several agents with direct security oversight during Atlanta. ``We are all involved in the planning stages here, so what has happened in the past is unimportant. What is important is what happens in 2002.'' ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Registration
by Total Telecom Web 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thankyou for registering with Total Telecom Your username is: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Your password is: cypherpunks If you haven't already done so, you can set a 'cookie' to make entry easier - go to - http:www.totaltele.com/register/help.asp If at anytime you wish the change your user profile - go to - http:www.totaltele.com/register/edit.asp We recomend you keep a copy of these details in case you forget your password or your 'cookie' is lost.

1 0

Sensar knows!
by X 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<the last line of this is a funny double entendre> HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU, SENSAR By Peter D. Henig <mailto:peteh@redherring.com> Red Herring Online November 3, 1998 You walk out the door and down the street to find the closest ATM machine, but reaching into your wallet -- "oops" -- you forgot your cash card. Don't you hate that? Well, if Sensar, a biometrics manufacturer of iris identification products has anything to say about it, you'll soon be tossing that ATM card in the can. Sensar has announced the world's largest ever combined equity investment in the field of personal electronic identification -- which is actually a bigger deal than you might think. Moving a step closer, as the company puts it, "toward making PINs and passwords obsolete," Citibank, NCR, J.P. Morgan, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch's wholly-owned subsidiary, KECALP Inc., and others have invested an aggregate of $28 million in Sensar as the company attempts to further roll out its iris identification pilot programs around the world in the hopes of owning this futuristic segment of the biometrics market targeted at the financial services and banking industries. Who cares? Who cares about equity stakes in biometrics companies? Good question, and the same one we asked when the company came a-pitching us their story. It turns out, however, that biometrics is -- as Sensar likes to remind us -- an emerging technology that could soon turn into a hot, if not huge, market around the globe. With the initial results of their European pilot program (set up in a small city outside London), it's "going very, very well, and I do mean very well." According to Per-Olof Loof, Senior Vice President of NCR's Financial Solutions Group, Sensar is pumped to push forward with its iris recognition products, shooting for commercial roll out in 1999, and a real ramp up of shipping product by 2000 and 2001. The Sensar Secure Iris Identification System is currently being used in NCR ATMs and at teller stations at Nationwide Building Society, the United Kingdom's largest savings and loan. Sensar's Iris Identification product was also used by professional athletes for access control and security at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Citibank, an equity investor, has also launched an in-house pilot program using its employees to test iris scan technology. And just how big is this market? While company officials wouldn't be pinned down on specific forecasts, Mr. Olof noted that there are 20 billion customer transactions annually on NCR ATM machines alone, and that NCR has 37 percent market share. That's not a bad partner for a private company like Sensar to have. Moreover, Tom Drury, president and CEO of Sensar noted that there are currently 900,000 ATMs worldwide and 160,000 new machines shipping each year. Smile! The unique aspect of Sensar's products is that you may not even be aware you're being watched. Sensar's iris identification products use standard video cameras and real-time image processing to acquire a picture of a person's iris (the colored portion of the eye), digitally encode it, and compare it with one on file -- all in the space of a few seconds. It allows for highly accurate identification (comparing features across a whole database) and verification (comparing features with a single template) in a user friendly environment; second in accuracy only to retina identification using sans-laser beams. In layman's terms, this might mean opening up an account at your local bank by simply sitting down, having them take a snapshot of your eyeballs, and then hitting the ATMs or tellers for some cash. According to the company, iris recognition uses digitally encoded images of the iris to provide a highly accurate, easy-to-use and virtually fraud-proof means to verify a customer's identity. With 266 identification characteristics, the iris is the human body's most unique physical structure. And unlike other measurable human features in the face, hand, voice or fingerprint, the patterns in the iris do not change over time; receeding hairlines be damned. They're not alone "This landmark agreement puts iris identification light years ahead of any other personal electronic identification technology," said Mr. Drury. "Clearly, this agreement validates Sensar's product as the most accurate, customer-friendly, cost effective personal electronic identification product ever developed." That's not bad cheerleading, but Sensar is clearly not the only biometric firm in the identification market's field of vision. According to the Gartner Group (IT <http://www2.nordby.com/herring/returnquote.asp?SYMBOL=IT>), Miros and Visionics were the first companies to enter the facial recognition market, although facial recognition tends to be a less accurate means of identification. These two companies offer far cheaper products than Sensar, and are targeting applications to such markets as PC and network access and online transactions. Sensar, however, will also be designing for and marketing to the online environment, as it envisions iris technology hitting the desktop environment. While the Gartner Group forecasts that the more widely accepted fingerprint recognition techniques will be the remote access standard of choice through 2001, it also predicts that "aggressive financial organizations will begin full-scale rollouts of iris recognition for tellers and ATMs by 2000." Hence, the $28 million equity stake in Sensar by this highbrow club of financial institutions. By 2002, Gartner analysts predict iris recognition will be the biometric of choice, an area where IrisScan Inc. holds an exclusive patent. (Sensar uses the iris recognition process developed and licensed from IriScan, Inc., and has the exclusive use of that technology for all financial services transactions.) And as far as exit strategy goes, everybody, including Sensar, still has dreams of Silicon Valley dollars dancing in their heads. "We have a classic Silicon Valley entrepreneurial team," said Mr. Drury, who is located in New Jersey, "and we consider an IPO as a definite exit strategy." We'll be watching.

1 0

is it real?
by z�R� 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>for your info, please. >> >>>>Just in case....... >>>>......... basically.... don't install Windows 98 ..... since they >have >>>>this "added" function..... =) >>>> >>>> Microsoft slapped two more lawsuit against one teenager and one >>>>retired worker for using pirated Windows 98 software. >>>> >>>>For your information on how Microsoft actually trace PIRATED / >>>>COPIED / UNLICENSED Windows 98: >>>> >>>>Whenever you logon into the internet, during the verifying >>>>password duration. Your ISP (Internet Service Provider >>>>eg:SingNET,PacNET,CyberNET,SwiftNET) will download a >>>>SUB-REGISTRY ENCRYPTED HEXADECIMAL (containing all your >>>>PROGRAMS serial numbers installed into Win98!!) file from >>>>your Windows 98 registry. Then they send this SUB-REGISTRY to >>>>Microsoft for verification. And ONLY Microsoft knows how >>>>to decode this encypted hexadecimal file. >>>> >>>>If Microsoft verified that the serial numbers are authentic, >>>>then they WILL REGISTER THOSE NUMBERS FOR YOU >>>>A-U-T-O-M-A-T-C-A-L-L-Y !!! >>>> >>>>And if Microsoft denied those serial numbers, then they will send >>>>an E-Mail to the ISP you dialled into and your ISP will start >>>>tracing everyone who logons to their systems. That's why during >>>>sometime for no reason your internet started slowing down. >>>>And if your ISP verified that the SUB-REGISTRY ENCYPTED HEXADECIMAL >>>>file is yours, they will send your information over to Microsoft >>>>Singapore. And there they will decide whether to take actions or not. >>>> >>>>There is already 54 cases in Singapore regarding uses of PIRATE >>>>/ COPIED / UNLICENSED Windows 98. >>>> >>>>I do not wish to see any of my friends get into this million dollar >>>>tangle from Bill Gates, not that I hate this guy, but it really >>>>sucks when they made such anti-piracy move into the software itself >>>>- thus forcing everyone to buy Microsoft original's Windows 98, if >>>>not they'll slap you with a lawsuit. >>>> >>>>Forward this mail to as many people you know, and who knows >>>>you may just save one of your friends from getting sued by Microsoft. >>>> >>>>

3 2

Re: e$
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Dixon says: > In message <9408091402.AA23089(a)snark.imsi.com> perry(a)imsi.com writes: > > > point. The US government does not object to the use of financial > > > instruments so long as they are backed by the US $ (or another > > > accepted currency). > > > > Yes it does. Bearer bonds are illegal in the US. > > Perhaps my use of terms was insufficiently precise. Bearer bonds do not > actually represent money in the same sense that a check does. Perhaps you don't actually know what it is that you are trying to say? > If A writes a check to 'cash', pays B with it, and B passes it on to > C, and so forth, are you saying that this is or will one day be illegal? If the check is written to "cash" and is used to avoid federal transfer reporting requirements, it is CURRENTLY illegal. I suspect that checks made out to "cash" would be illegal in all cases if they were widely used to avoid reporting requirements. Perry

1 0