- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
by Merchant Services 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------------------------------------------------------- We received your email as someone who might be interested in our services. If this was a mistake please email us with "remove in the subject line" --------------------------------------------------------- Dear Friend, How would you like to be able to accept credit cards directly from your website, telephone or fax for your products and services and never need to purchase or lease expensive credit card equipment or pay a monthly fee for online ordering capabilities? **Brand New** Telecharge Credit Card acceptance program allows you to accept VISA or Mastercard any TIME,any WHERE through phone, fax or internet without the need to purchase or lease expensive credit card equipment. This brand new program will allow you to accept credit cards tomorrow. You simply pick up your telephone, dial a special toll free 800# 24 hrs a day 7 days a week, input a passcode and the credit card # and receive an immediate authorization over the phone. Within 2 days the money will be in your bank account. This is an exciting program for all businesses. Before you spend any money on a credit card program LOOK at this new program! To have a representative call you to explain the details of this program please email your Name, Phone Number (Don't forget your area code) and best time to call to: mailto:chargeit6@usa.net A representative will return your call within 24hrs. A 100 % approval rate. This is a special promotion and for a limited time. Start today and save an additional 36%. Also receive 6 months of online advertising absolutely FREE! for your business. Feel free to call us and leave a message. A representative will return your call within 24hrs. World Tech Inc. 818-718-9429 7210 Jordan Ave.

1 0

Best & Brightest
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Sorry it took so long to get back on this, but... I went and checked the book in the bookstore as I had a vague memory of reading it in high school. Yep, it's the same book I read in '74 in a government class. David Halberstam's "Best and Brightest" was an excellent book on the Vietnam War and the political wrangling that got us into it - *for 1972*. This book has never been updated and near as I can find nobody has taken the time to compare its line of argument and innuendo with the last 26 years of data that has come to light. In particular it makes no mention, and because of time travel limitations shouldn't be expected to, of the wealth of data on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam Conflict that has come to light in the last 3 years because these classified materials weren't released yet. This material is available via the Kennedy Library and the LBJ Library. It includes internal memos and similar material that Halberstam did not have any knowledge of. Of paritcular note to the thesis that some espouse that Kennedy intended to increase the force level is a memo to the combined chiefs of staff to remove ALL US forces from SE Asia. This memo was signed just weeks before Kennedy was assassinated. Every indication is that LBJ would have honored that had the Ya Drang Valley (the 7th Cavalry almost had another Little Bighorn) not occurred in '64. After this tactical defeat (both US and Viet forces claimed it as a strategic win) the US level of forces in the area went through the roof. This book is good for a historical perspective only, if you're interested in understanding what happened from 1962 - 1963 with Kennedy and 1963+ with LBJ then this is not the book to go to. It is simply out of date. A general rule of thumb in doing historical research: If the reference is not a primary and it is over 5 years old and has not been updated then it is suspect. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

(Fwd) Radio Activists March on DC, Oct 4 & 5
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 06:48:58 -0700 (PDT) From: gregruggiero(a)earthlink.net (New York Free Media Alliance) Subject: Radio Activists March on DC, Oct 4 & 5 To: iaj-futuremedia(a)igc.org Dear Supporters of Community Media and Free Speech, You may be aware that the Federal Communications Commission has recently intensified it's assault on unlicensed micropower radio stations. In response to this campaign and the government's longstanding ban on low-power radio, a national movement has emerged to proliferate microbroadcasting, and win constitutional protection to broadcast at the community level. We invite you to show your support for community access to the airwaves. Join us in Washington, DC on Sunday, October 4 for a micropower radio conference, and on Monday October 5 for a march on FCC and NAB headquarters. Workshops & information will be offered on how to start a radio station and acquire the necessary equipment. Please pass this on to people who might be interested, especially those who don't have access to the internet. See you in Washington. Thanks, Greg Ruggiero New York Free Media Alliance http://artcon.rutgers.edu/papertiger/nyfma/ "Where there is even a pretense of democracy, communications are at its heart." --Noam Chomsky -------------------------------------------- SHOWDOWN AT THE FCC! FREE RADIO ACTIVISTS MARCH ON WASHINGTON TO CONFRONT THE GLOBAL MEDIA MONOPOLY AND THEIR MARIONETTES IN GOVERNMENT! Sunday, October 4, 1998 Monday, October 5, 1998 Washington, DC Calling all media activists, microbroadcasters and people for a democratic media: Come to DC for the first national mobilization for free radio. Microbroadcasters from around the country will gather for two days to share radio skills, organize alliances, speak out to the media and protest at the FCC and NAB buildings, culminating in a live broadcast straight into the offices of the people working so hard to shut us down. Free Radio Berkeley, Radio Mutiny, Steal This Radio and other microstations have all broadcast live in public and challenged the FCC to shut them down in the light of day, in front of the press and the Feds have never dared to show their face- this time, we're going to take it right to their doorstep and tell them that if they're so sure that their dumb law is worth enforcing, then the Chairman should come down from the 8th floor and put the cuffs on us himself. There will also be workshops to help new folks start stations, appointments will be made to lobby congress people, and press events will be held to show the true, diverse face of the microbroadcasting movement. Schedule Sunday, 10-12 workshops (to be announced) 12-1 lunch 1-3 workshops (to be announced) 3-5 speakout 5-6:30 dinner 7pm party/puppet making for demonstration Monday 10:30 am MARCH AND PUPPET PARADE starts at Dupont Circle, goes to the Federal Communications Commission building, and then marches on to confront the National Association of Broadcasters. During these protests, we will flip the giant free speech switches, turn on our transmitters and strike a blow against the meta-marionettes: A giant puppet of General Electric and Corporate America, which will in turn control a slightly smaller puppet of the National Association of Broadcasters, which in turn will operate a smaller puppet of the FCC, which in turn will be trying to stamp out microbroadcasters and our free speech rights. These demonstrations will also include a number of sneaky surprises that are so cool that we can't even mention them here! 1:30pm meetings set up with people's congressional representatives for lobbying 4pm press event: What Can a Black Panther, a Free Market Think Tank Policy Analyst, an Anarchist Feminist, A Radio Engineer, A Public Health Worker and a Discount Store Owner Agree Upon? IT'S TIME TO LEGALIZE MICROBROADCASTING! So what's YOUR excuse not to come to the most excellent weekend of mayhem ever? Nothing. Then good- we'll see you there. Bring a sleeping bag, cameras and recording devices, vehicles, some money to help this all come off, questions for the experts on pirate station operations, puppet materials, signs and banners, transmitters, AND ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS! contact info: email: petetridish(a)hotmail.com phone:Pete tri Dish 215-474-6459 or Amanda at 202-518-5644 p.o.box 179, College Park, MD 20741-0179 ************************************************** NEW YORK Media for Change <<< FREE MEDIA >>> Changing the Media ALLIANCE listserve: nyfreemedia(a)tao.ca voicemail: (212) 969-8636 website: http://artcon.rutgers.edu/papertiger/nyfma ************************************************** =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://ross.adnetsol.com Voice: (408) 259-2795

1 0

Any good hacking sites?
by kamikaze23＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hey all, any1 know of any good hacking sites that teach u the basics and stuff? also, any1 here into AOL hacking??? thanx, ~Fallen Angel _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

1 0

Re: Toto, AP and Jim Bell? (Re: Space Aliens Return my Drugs!)
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Recently I speculated that Toto may have been locked up due to some connection with Jim Bell: I wrote: > I've been searching my cp archives trying to figure out if there has > been any connection between Toto and Jim Bell/AP, as Alia Johnson > said that she thought Toto was locked up due to posts about AP. someone who has been in contact with Jim Bell tells me that Jim did not know Toto. Adam

1 0

Protecting Your Data With Crypto
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have put the November UNIX Review article Peter cited in his letter to the editor, "Protecting Your Data With Cryptography," at: http://jya.com/protect.htm ---------- Peter Allan wrote: > >[ I refer to the article starting on p55 > of the Nov 1996 Unix Review. ] > >-----letter to Ed start here------ > >Andrew, > >Congratulations on a welcome crypto article in UR. > >This is an important topic for security, networks, >web-based commerce etc and is only going to increase in >importance as people realise data is money. > >The article did raise my eyebrows a few times though >with some wild statements - about the speed of brute-force >attacks on DES, and about USG 'key escrow' proposals, >patents and key certification. > >Also there are absolutely crucial issues not touched on, >probably for lack of space. Details matter, and if you're >contemplating another article on the subject I'd be happy >to write it [subject to my boss' approval] or review it >before publication. The field moves fast at times, and >it would be good to keep an eye on the subject in a fairly >regular column. > >Strangely, your author didn't mention ftp.ox.ac.uk, >an ftp site for many good crypto tools, which >(as a UK site) is not subject to US export restrictions. > > > -- Peter Allan peter.allan(a)aeat.co.uk

1 0

Spelling error...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, It's clathrate, not calthrate... Sorry. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Mitnick wants cyphertext; gov't wants keys
by Lazlo Toth 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/14855.html > >Wired News: >Hacker Can't Get Access >By Arik Hesseldahl > >8:35pm 4.Sep.98.PDT > >The epic legal wrangling in the Kevin Mitnick case took a new turn last >week when the accused hacker lost an appeal to access certain encrypted >data that his attorneys say could help him. >The data, seized by the FBI from Mitnick's computer when he was arrested in >1995, could contain evidence that could prove him innocent of some of the >charges against him, according to his defense. >In its encrypted form, the data is useless to prosecutors, who may have >tried to decode it and failed, said Donald C. Randolph, the Santa Monica, >California, attorney defending Mitnick. >.... >"We told the judge that giving him access to those files was like giving >someone access to a locked safe that might contain a gun," Painter said. >"[Mitnick's attorneys] claimed in court that the data might contain >exculpatory evidence but offered no further explanation." >Greg Vincent, Randolph's associate on the case, said that under federal >rules, Mitnick should be given access to all the evidence against him, and >that by denying such access, the government is opening itself up to losing >an appeal should Mitnick be convicted. >Vincent also said the government was willing to give access to the >encrypted files, provided that Mitnick hand over the password. This, said >Vincent, would violate Mitnick's Fifth Amendment rights against >self-incrimination. >Painter confirmed that the files had not been decrypted by the government.

2 1

Carl Johnson Warrant and Complaint
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to anonymous we offer the arrest warrant and complaint against Carl Edward Johnson: http://jya.com/usa-v-cej-wc.htm (23K) List Cypherpunks is spotlighted by the IRS complainant, Jeff Gordon, who made Jim Bell famous. The list is quoted, logged, tracked, and cited for its hosting alleged death threat messages against federal officials, which were PGP-authenticated and -decoded, and their style and content assessed for identity of the author, along with other allegations by the RCMP on what Carl may or may not have done up north and by the Secret Service on Carl may or may not have said out west. We have also been told that Carl is known as "The King of Country Porn" among admiring fans of his music. Whether this has anything to do with the little-known person we're seeking information about is a mystery.

7 7

FTC privacy comments from CEI and National Consumer Coalition
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FTC privacy comments from CEI and National Consumer Coalition The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Consumer Coalition filed these comments in response to the FTC's four-day privacy hearing last month. Some excerpts: The fear over children seeing sexually explicit materials online led to hasty calls for Internet censorship in the Communications Decency Act. Yet the Supreme Court recently struck down the law, ruling that the Federal government should not be in the business of trying to protect children with such a blunt - and patently unconstitutional - instrument. Similarly, the rhetoric surrounding the issue of children's privacy on the Internet has led to hasty calls for regulation. Indeed, the Administration has taken a strong, even ominous position: "This problem warrants prompt attention. Otherwise, government action may be required." [...] Sometimes information has been released to anybody and everybody, via chat rooms or other forums. Since this information becomes part of the knowledge of others, our "property right" to control this information is actually a "right" to control the actions of other people who now have this information. This is an infringement upon our basic freedoms of association, contract, and speech. There is nothing wrong with collecting information freely placed in public, as much of this information is. [...] More info: http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1055,00.html -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- July 14, 1997 Secretary Federal Trade Commission Room H-159 Sixth St. and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20580 Consumer Privacy 1997 Additional Comments P954807 To the Secretary: The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Consumer Coalition hereby file additional comments on the Commission's June 10-13 hearings on "Consumer Privacy Issues Posed by the Online Marketplace." CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan free-market research and advocacy group. The NCC is a coalition of nine organizations dedicated to the proposition that consumers are best served by a free market in goods and services. We thank the Commission for including us in the four Roundtable discussions during the hearings, and appreciate the opportunity to elaborate upon some of the issues raised during the course of the hearings. What is Privacy? - Part II In our opening comments, we wrote that when it comes to collection of consumer data, "privacy is not a right, it is a preference." The evidence presented during the hearings regarding ways to "protect" privacy, as well as the surveys showing consumer views, have convinced us that this remains true. The Harris/Westin survey was an interesting contribution to the discussion of privacy on the Internet. We are not convinced, however, that everyone interviewed understood "privacy" in the same way. Privacy is an abstraction, like "freedom" or "justice," so it is likely that the people surveyed imposed their own concerns upon the term "privacy." One point on which the survey is clear is that people who are concerned about their privacy have done something about it. In this case, it is more illuminating to look at what people do than at what they say. Nevertheless, some have used this survey to support their arguments for federal regulation and congressional privacy legislation. Neither of these would be appropriate responses to consumers' hesitance towards Internet commerce. It is the job of companies operating on the Internet to gain consumer confidence, not the duty of the government. Indeed, the proper role for the government is to guard against force, theft, and fraud. Property Rights on the Internet Professor Alan Westin said that web users "are worried that their e-mail communications may be intercepted, their visits to web sites can be covertly tracked, their participation in chat rooms and forums can be monitored without their consent." One possible solution was to give individuals a "property right" in the information they have released onto the Internet. From this follows a call for federal protection of this "property right" via limits on the collection and sale of personal data. The argument that people have a "property right" in their personal data is ironic, as it comes from those who would have the government infringe upon the property rights of both ISPs and companies on the Web. We believe that this upside-down conception of "property" will work against consumers' interests in freedom of contract and association. Traditionally, private property rights have been understood to be the means by which we secure our privacy, as expressed in the old adage, "A man's home is his castle." Our system of property rights enables us to enjoy privacy (i.e. from government intrusion). In recent years, however, the basis for legal claims has become the idea of an inviolate personhood. A "legal right" to information about oneself on the Internet, as some have advocated, is the next step. >From this comes the "right" to control information about oneself after one has already released it. This is a step in the wrong direction. If an individual has released information about himself in a contractual agreement with certain limits on it, then he has a right to see that that information is treated in a certain way. For example, if a company web page says that it will not collect information, and it does, then that is a broken contract. On the other hand, if a company says it will collect all kinds of information, then privacy-sensitive individuals have been warned and should avoid that site. From the examples discussed at the hearing, it seems that many companies are still getting used to the way the Internet works, and they are only beginning to understand the utility of publishing privacy policies. For example, the New York Times discovered during the course of the hearings that it had no published privacy policies on its web site, a situation it addressed immediately. Time-Warner's Pathfinder site recently added prominent links to its privacy policy as well. Sometimes information has been released to anybody and everybody, via chat rooms or other forums. Since this information becomes part of the knowledge of others, our "property right" to control this information is actually a "right" to control the actions of other people who now have this information. This is an infringement upon our basic freedoms of association, contract, and speech. There is nothing wrong with collecting information freely placed in public, as much of this information is. Nor is there anything wrong with one party selling information to another party as long as it was not under fraudulent circumstances. If a person objects to this information being sold, then it is up to the individual to make alternative arrangements with which he is more comfortable. . In other words, protecting your privacy is your responsibility. That is the value inherent in the freedom to contract. Bringing back the original conception of property rights, as well as freedom of contract, is the best way of protecting an individual's privacy preferences on the Internet. Rather than implementing a system of government regulation of data collection practices, people should be able to choose whether or not to contract with a company or otherwise. Restricting the downstream actions of others based upon a made-up right will undercut our other valued freedoms. On Self-Regulation We laud the Federal Trade Commission for its cautious response toward calls to regulate the Internet. We are also pleased with the Clinton Administration's stated intention to refrain from regulating most parts of the Internet. We agree in principle that data-gatherers ought to inform consumers what kinds of data they are collecting and how that data will be used. If it really is true that consumers are highly concerned about this, then companies scrambling to sell goods and services over the Internet will accommodate them. (We also note that there are already strong incentives for information brokers to ensure the accuracy of information they collect, since there is no market for inaccurate information.) What troubles us is the concept of "self-regulation." Although the term implies a lack of government regulation, many of these codes are being developed in response to a threat of regulation. As the Clinton Administration's recently released report on Internet commerce stated, "We believe that private efforts of industry working in cooperation with consumer groups are preferable to government regulation, but if effective privacy protection cannot be provided in this way, we will reevaluate this policy." We believe that the Commission should not use "self-regulation" as a way to steer the development of policies on the Internet without going through the standard process for proposing regulations. The Commission must still defend whatever goals it proposes. One component of this "self-regulation" was the Platform for Privacy Preferences. This template would allow consumers to fine-tune their preferences and allow them to know what sort of policies a web site has. This may be a fine idea, and we hope that if consumers find it acceptable, it will be adopted by many organizations. However, we do not believe that a single privacy standard is necessarily desirable. There are many real-world examples of competing standards co-existing peacefully. There are different monetary systems, there are different systems of measurement (English and metric, Celsius and Fahrenheit), there are different languages. The Commission should be wary of backing a single standard for the Internet. The threat of regulation is nearly as serious as actual regulation. It may well be that the solutions supported by the Commission and the Administration are the best ones. It also may be that there is an alternate solution around the corner, one which we cannot predict now but one which might be stifled because it does not match the goals supported by current government officials. This could have very serious ramifications for the future development of the Internet. After all, companies already entrenched in a particular market that ask for regulation often do so in order to constrain the actions of future competitors and to derive windfall benefits, a practice known as "rent-seeking." If regulation stymies the growth of the Internet, we will have no way of knowing what we have given up as a result. The idea that federal regulation of the Internet is somehow better than a market solution to privacy questions is completely unfounded. Indeed, the evidence is that federal regulation in every other sector of American life has had adverse and unforeseen consequences which end up hurting consumers. There is no reason to believe that federal regulation of privacy practices will be any better than the current situation, and it may well be worse. Children and The Internet The fear over children seeing sexually explicit materials online led to hasty calls for Internet censorship in the Communications Decency Act. Yet the Supreme Court recently struck down the law, ruling that the Federal government should not be in the business of trying to protect children with such a blunt - and patently unconstitutional - instrument. Similarly, the rhetoric surrounding the issue of children's privacy on the Internet has led to hasty calls for regulation. Indeed, the Administration has taken a strong, even ominous position: "This problem warrants prompt attention. Otherwise, government action may be required." We believe that before the Commission begins to regulate in the name of children, it should recognize from the start that today's children are tomorrow's adults, and that these regulations may restrict their rights when they are grown up. The Commission should be wary of proposals which would effectively treat adults like children. The Center for Media Education's report on the privacy practices of some web sites seemed to shock the Commission. Yet we are not sure why the fact that a toothpaste company which sends a solicited e-mail to a child in the name of the Tooth Fairy - an e-mail which contains neither the name of the product being sold nor the name of the company -is so disturbing, especially since for many years people have been able to have letters from Santa Claus sent to children. We are in fact puzzled as to why similar "information collection practices" which have gone on for decades (e.g. children sending box tops away for magic decoder rings) are suddenly sinister when performed over the Internet. We note that CME's primary objection is advertising itself, and "privacy" is just a means to criticize it. For example, one target of CME's outrage is "animated product spokescharacters," e.g. Tony the Tiger, which "interact with your children...fostering intimate relationships that compel your children to buy specific products and services." That these "spokescharacters" also ask children for e-mail addresses appears to be a slightly less urgent concern. CME's recommendations to the Commission include restrictions on the use of these cartoons: "Product and other fictional figures should not be used to solicit personally identifiable information from children." Indeed, elsewhere CME states explicitly that "there should be no direct interaction between children and product spokescharacters" on web pages. This is tantamount to a ban on selected content simply because of its advertising nature. This is not the proper forum for a discussion of the great value of advertising to consumers, and why advertising is not, and never was, a sinister seducer of consumers. We will, however, say that children are far more skeptical of advertising than CME gives them credit for. No matter how much advertising, or how little, there is, children will still want things and their parents can still tell them, "No." In short, it appears that this issue has very little to do with privacy on the Internet, and far more to do with CME's anti-advertising agenda. Nonetheless, CME did introduce some interesting issues. CME looked at the existence and content of privacy practices on children's web sites, and publicized them. There is nothing wrong with this; indeed, if children's privacy is such a high concern for individuals, then companies will respond (many of the web sites in question addressed the issue as soon as it was brought to their attention). As more and more people become comfortable with the Internet, and become aware of its capabilities, we expect to see all kinds of practices - from content, to advertising, to data collection - to become more refined in response to consumer demand. CME also raised the question of how and when to obtain verifiable parental consent to collect information from children. One suggestion was to have parents mail in a signed form indicating that their child may use the web page and may divulge certain information. Not only would this curtail what is an essentially benign practice - not even CME can explain what actual harm might result from this collection - but anyone who has ever known a child to forge his parent's signature to play hooky knows that this is not a good solution. It is an irony of the Internet that the technology which enables data-gatherers to collect information on what people look at can easily be thwarted by Anonymizers and other disguising technologies. It still holds true that sometimes on the Internet, as the famous New Yorker animal cartoon showed, "nobody knows you're a dog." Nobody has to know that you are or are not a child, either. Obviously, forcing children to identify themselves as minors, especially in such a public area as the Internet, would be unwise. Consequently, regulations aimed at "protecting children's privacy" are going to hit adults as well. For this reason, we urge the Commission to refrain from drawing up regulations specifically targeted towards children. Nor should the role of parents be underestimated or tossed aside in favor of federal regulation. Though the Harris/Westin survey showed a nearly unanimous belief that children's privacy ought to be protected on the Internet, the survey also said that not even a plurality of parents have done much to protect it. There are a plethora of technologies available to enable parents to monitor and adjust what their children see, and more are on the way. We urge parents to keep in mind that just as they would think twice before allowing a child wander around New York City alone, they should supervise their children on the Internet. Conclusion The Commission is under a great deal of pressure, from within the government and without, to regulate at least some parts of the Internet. As more and more people become Internet users, it is even more important for the government to refrain from regulating. The Commission should confine itself to policing fraud and investigating any actual injury. Julie DeFalco on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and for the National Consumer Coalition Endnotes ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0