Suppose that only about 5 people can do what the FBI wants done. Suppose all 5 refuse, to the point of quitting Apple. Does the FBI now compel them to return to Apple and write the software or go to jail?
And what if one of those engineers says that he doesn't actually know how to do it; Apple only thought he could, but he actually can't. Now we get into territory of proving competency and capability.
They could be fined hundreds of thousands daily for refusing to act. We recently found out this happened to Yahoo in 2008 [1] via the FISA court. Apple shareholders wouldn't like that.
I'm pretty sure Tim Cook and his lawyer mean it when they say they will comply with the law. Apple engineers need not worry so much about quitting their jobs over this. If I were there I would stick with Tim Cook. Consider,
If Apple loses this case, this becomes a gigantic public debate where we scramble to enact legislation that removes this power from the government.
If Apple wins this case, and the government pursues anti-encryption laws, this becomes a gigantic public debate.
If the case is delayed for 2 years and goes to the supreme court, this becomes a gigantic public debate.
Regardless, since this is in the public sphere, whether-or-not-we-put-back-doors-in-phones is going to become a gigantic public debate.
The only way it doesn't become a big debate is if Obama comes out and says he's been informed on the issue and now realizes encryption in our phones is, on balance, a good thing.
* Civil forfeiture. The state can just de facto steal every single item those people have and leave them unable to fight that in court (not that it would make much difference)
* Involuntary commitment. They can just be committed into a psychiatric institution where they can be drugged against their will and even tortured. This can be extended to an arbitrarily long period of time
* They can have their children taken away
* IRS can just accuse them of an astronomical tax debt, take all of their possessions and leave them effectively unable to get legal representation (not that it would make much difference)
#"Illegal":
* Just detain them in a secret facility and do with them as they dam well please
TLDR: The state does with you what it damn well pleases and there's nothing you can really do about it. Granted this usually doesn't happen but that's just because the stakes usually aren't that high.
does the FBI now compel them to return to Apple and write the software or go to jail?
I can't imagine any way in hell that would fly. The only remotely conceivable path to doing something like that would be to have Congress implement a draft, and draft them into the military. Anything else would almost certainly violate the 13th and/or 10th Amendments to the Constitution. And the draft thing is probably a stretch as well, especially in the absence of a declaration of war.
Then again, I never put it past the US government to try anything, no matter how illegal it is.
There are several factors that must be satisfied for the AWA to apply, even in the FBIs interpretations.
One of them is that they have to be closely connected to the case. The arguments for Apple not being far removed are that they license the software, that they designed created and sold the phone, and so on. Most of the don't apply to the individual engineers, so they probably can't be compelled even if the court finds that Apple can.
Another is that it can be too burdensome, and part of the burdensome analysis is if it is "offensive" to them. Considering they quit their jobs over this the court would almost certainly find that it was too burdensome, even if the court doesn't find it is too burdensome to compel Apple.
Apple absolutely needs to comply with the FBI's request.
And then give the same capabilities to the governments of every country they do business in.
Our politicians might actually fight for our interests in digital privacy/security if theirs is directly threatened by the governments of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
If our government needs this to do lawful search and seizure, so do all these others.
I'm tired of our gov acting like they're above reproach and somehow more deserving than any other naive government. History has shown they can't protect us from terrorists 100% of the time, and it shouldn't come at the expense of our civil liberties - at the expense of the principles and detracting from the identity of what makes us American. They can't even protect the information of people who elect to share their privacy with the gov (OPM breach/leak of which I was a victim). They shouldn't have the ability to violate the security of [realistically] billions of phones. It's absurdly overreaching and a massive abuse of the authority we "give" them.
Caveat: Not complying and this other plan of action would both upset stockholders.
There's really no question here. If the engineers refuse to comply with the court order the court can hold them in contempt. This means possible fines or jail time.
This is old territory, really. Courts have been ordering people to do things under the All Writs Act (including skilled labor) since it was first enacted more than 200 years ago. (The government's brief has some examples, starting on page 17. http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016.03.10-1...)
If an employee claimed he or she did not have the skills to comply with he order then, yes, there could be some sort of hearing to determine whether this was true. But establishing the requisite level of competence probably would not be as hard as you think.
""Suppose that only about 5 people can do what the FBI wants done."
Maybe 5 people now can do that, but give a smart programmer (I'm sure Apple has more than a bunch of those) source code and I'm sure he will figure how to do what government requests in max few weeks time. It's not a rocket science.
What if now developers start quitting en-mass. Developers refuse to join apple because they would be required to do something morally objectionable to them.
Ah who am I kidding, there's always a dude willing to give away his baby's kidney for money. Systems that screw people over are built by humans.
If a password is considered testimony and protected by the 5th Amendment, software also appears to be testimony and covered by the same. If not, then software is just speech and protected by the 1st Amendment. Not speaking is then a valid choice seeing as to how this is not testimony and one is not compelled to speak by the court. But this is just theoretical...
they could likely force Apple to hire the engineers required even to the point of designated engineers of the government's choosing. The damage that would be done to Apple worldwide would be inestimable
No matter what happens in this case, to the individual engineers or to Apple, the problem runs much deeper:
- Government power and rights > individual power and rights.
- Mass surveillance of their own people.
- Constitution consistently ignored.
- Civil liberties viewed as an annoyance.
- Militarized police force.
- Secret court systems that "OKs" any government action.
- Mainstream media little more than an arm of government propaganda.
- Whistleblowers treated like criminals.
- Indefinite detention laws ready to be used for any reason.
- Can justify any action in the name of "national security".
- Political class rules all.
We have a word for this type of government but but no one is talking about it yet. Whatever the outcome to Apple, a government like this will try again and find other ways to do what they want.
I honestly feel that engineers need not fall on their swords over this. The decision is up to them, of course. But ultimately, shareholders would expect someone to comply with the court order should the DOJ win. Note that Yahoo was threatened with daily fines of $250,000 for failing to comply in a FISA court case in 2008, and we only just learned this in 2014 [1].
I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications.
I really don't want to see Apple lose this case, or any sort of anti-encryption bill. I also wouldn't want to see someone throw away working at Apple over it. Apple can maintain its integrity by complying with the law as it has publicly stated. Engineers can remain true to an employer they respect knowing said employer did everything they could to resist the government. There aren't many great employers out there like this. Don't take it for granted.
> I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications.
I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd only have to live with pat-downs on every plane flight for so long? That the government would eventually realize that terrorists couldn't hijack planes once passengers knew that the proper response was to storm the cockpit rather than waiting for the usual ransom demand to be acquiesced to? That the terrorists would find other ways to cause terror?
If the US Government gets what it wants with this case they will use it as a wedge to permanently deny us any semblance of electronic privacy. You will get to choose between using paper and having some random police officer [1] decide that it's time for you to go down and he's absolutely sure he can find something you've done wrong [2].
This move is one of the last things standing in the way of that future. Apple's engineers are threatening to destroy one of the most successful, profitable organized entities in human history in protest. A sort of technological mutually assured destruction. I hope their threat works, and that they don't have to follow through on it, and that if they do, their statement is understood.
Back in the days of the PalmV I was aghast at the terrible "technique" they used to store the user password to unlock the device. I was young and very stupid, but I pushed through proper, for that time, handling of the password.
With a court order, LE asked to unlock a device, and I was able to do it, did it and they sent me a letter of thanks which I still might have somewhere. I remember being happy to help, it was a drug case, drugs are bad mmmmkay.
In thinking about it I'm embarrassed at my younger self, but also cognizant that anyone familiar with the art could break it. It was a terrible, reversible scheme. After I pushed through the change to store the password I was confident that it could not be reversed and that it was "safe" and that I could no longer break it.
If they had suggested removing the other safeguards e.g. allowing any number of tries, etc. That would be this Apple situation and I really hope my younger self would have had the sense to plead "ignorance," refuse or whatever because my principles have not changed that much, and I am 100% on Apple's side on this issue.
Interesting parallel with Lavabit pointed out at the end of the article. Would the DOJ be willing to risk shutting down the biggest and most profitable corporation on earth over this?
The DOJ couldn't shut down apple. Apple has $200,000,000,000 in cash and marketable securities. DOJ's budget is only 27 billion. That's a lot of lawyer time. It's a huge waste of money, but there it is.
Way less likely, but Apple could move HQ to another country. And take their secret source code and keys with them.
I believe when the government twisted Yahoo's hand and they put up a fight, Yahoo was given a fine that increased exponentially every day they didn't comply.
Yahoo would have owed the US gov. a sum equivalent to the GDP by the end of a month.
No, because it's a publicly traded company. Apple's size, value, and market penetration are a few of the reasons why the feds didn't go the NSL route. This is one ugly fight, but if they went the NSL route Apple could finally disprove their constitutional validity; DOJ would neeeeeever want to put that on the table.
I don't think Apple shareholders will go along with shuttering the company, nor will they lose all that many customers over the outcome where they produce a bypass.
(If Apple can't resist the government request, neither can anyone else, only the crankiest of people will punish them for being the test case.)
Question, does Apple employ any engineers that are not US citizens? Or are telecommute workers living in other countries? If so and they were one of the key engineers, what would happen if they refused? What type of international laws would come into play here?
Even putting the engineers in the position to have to make a choice to resist means that you damage their career prospects whichever way they choose. To be known as 'that guy' who {supported a corrupt government/supported terrorism} polarizes future job choices. There's no real upside. As someone asked to do this, I'd be asking for all future earnings up front from the FBI, so the economic worth of this is really 8 or 9 figures.
>You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.
He said that in the 20th century. Imprisoning the mind is the province of the 21st century. Both governments and pseudo-"activists" now seek to do this by leveraging the Internet.
Ghandi got away with his stunts because because he was up against the British, and they had comparatively okay ethics. Try that shit on someone who's actually bad and at best you'll just end up digging your own grave at gunpoint, then being "shot while escaping".
While publicly the U.S. government probably wants to keep on the good side of popular opinion, they've proved time and again that in private they have little to no compunction about doing "whatever it takes" to get their way.
Meh. The FBI has already suggested that it might request the code signing certificate and the full source tree. With those in hand, I'd expect the NSA programmers could get this done in a few months.
This case is bad ground for arguments against backdoors.
The government doesn't want a backdoor. They want Apple to remove barriers slowing and limiting the number of guesses at the key. If the key were longer, those barriers wouldn't be needed. So this isn't about strong encryption, without backdoors. It's about some sort of right to short, memorizable keys, and technical barriers protecting them.
Now maybe we have such rights. (I don't think so, I do think we have a right to strong encryption and strong keys.) But that's a very different argument than "backdoors are bad". If Apple's case is "no backdoors", they make that argument look not like a technical argument but a preference to not comply with a warrant. Non-technical people could easily get the idea that technical people say "no backdoors" when they just don't agree with the government's ability to execute warrants, and that all the technical arguments about real security are mumbo jumbo to avoid obeying laws they don't care for.
Using strong encryption with phones is a usability issue. If the phone were somehow protected by a strong key, Apple could easily comply with this order and the government still could't read the phone. But they haven't figured out how a user can deploy a strong key in some usable fashion. Well, that's obviously a challenge to phone data privacy. I expect it is solvable. And it is much less an issue in contexts like desktops and laptops.
But we have a right to encryption. We don't have a right to usability. Claiming the two are the same weakens the case to the right we do have.
> “It’s an independent culture and a rebellious one,” said Jean-Louis Gassée, a venture capitalist who was once an engineering manager at Apple. “If the government tries to compel testimony or action from these engineers, good luck with that.”
Funny to see Jean-Louis's name out of the blue again. He was the creator of BeOS back in the days.
If Apple continues to resist, the FBI will simply take the source code and signing keys and hand them over to some contractor to do the work. Is that better? Apple's source code and signing keys in the FBI's hands?
I'm amazed to think that in only a short number of years the work that has been done at Apple R&D in the US might have to go off shore because of our own government...
Guess what happens if the FBI wins this, and Apple is forced to comply, and actually does decrypt this one phone, and probably later on hundreds or thousands of other iPhone 5 phones. Guess what: Apple will make the system so secure that this can never happen again.
This whole discussion has led me to reconsider the much too expensive iPhones, and my next phone might very well be an iPhone 6 or newer.
What sort of decryption task would even be needed if ? Suppose Apple can update the phone signed backdoored update, the DOJ order never asked for decryption, only a way to bruteforce the phone.
Independent of the outcome of this case, maybe it is time for Apple to leave their current jurisdiction. I heard Island is lovely this time of the year.
[+] [-] kstenerud|10 years ago|reply
Suppose that only about 5 people can do what the FBI wants done. Suppose all 5 refuse, to the point of quitting Apple. Does the FBI now compel them to return to Apple and write the software or go to jail?
And what if one of those engineers says that he doesn't actually know how to do it; Apple only thought he could, but he actually can't. Now we get into territory of proving competency and capability.
[+] [-] studentrob|10 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure Tim Cook and his lawyer mean it when they say they will comply with the law. Apple engineers need not worry so much about quitting their jobs over this. If I were there I would stick with Tim Cook. Consider,
If Apple loses this case, this becomes a gigantic public debate where we scramble to enact legislation that removes this power from the government.
If Apple wins this case, and the government pursues anti-encryption laws, this becomes a gigantic public debate.
If the case is delayed for 2 years and goes to the supreme court, this becomes a gigantic public debate.
Regardless, since this is in the public sphere, whether-or-not-we-put-back-doors-in-phones is going to become a gigantic public debate.
The only way it doesn't become a big debate is if Obama comes out and says he's been informed on the issue and now realizes encryption in our phones is, on balance, a good thing.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
[+] [-] da1|10 years ago|reply
#Legal:
* Judge orders them to comply, if they refuse they can be considered to be in contempt and incarcerated for a de facto arbitrary period of time at the judge's discretion (vide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick incarcerated for contempt for 14 years just because the judge suspected he had funds that apparently he didn't have, also Terrell Geiger http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-07/news/ct-met-lo...)
* Civil forfeiture. The state can just de facto steal every single item those people have and leave them unable to fight that in court (not that it would make much difference)
* Involuntary commitment. They can just be committed into a psychiatric institution where they can be drugged against their will and even tortured. This can be extended to an arbitrarily long period of time
* They can have their children taken away
* IRS can just accuse them of an astronomical tax debt, take all of their possessions and leave them effectively unable to get legal representation (not that it would make much difference)
#"Illegal":
* Just detain them in a secret facility and do with them as they dam well please
TLDR: The state does with you what it damn well pleases and there's nothing you can really do about it. Granted this usually doesn't happen but that's just because the stakes usually aren't that high.
[+] [-] madaxe_again|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindcrime|10 years ago|reply
I can't imagine any way in hell that would fly. The only remotely conceivable path to doing something like that would be to have Congress implement a draft, and draft them into the military. Anything else would almost certainly violate the 13th and/or 10th Amendments to the Constitution. And the draft thing is probably a stretch as well, especially in the absence of a declaration of war.
Then again, I never put it past the US government to try anything, no matter how illegal it is.
[+] [-] jacquesm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gpm|10 years ago|reply
One of them is that they have to be closely connected to the case. The arguments for Apple not being far removed are that they license the software, that they designed created and sold the phone, and so on. Most of the don't apply to the individual engineers, so they probably can't be compelled even if the court finds that Apple can.
Another is that it can be too burdensome, and part of the burdensome analysis is if it is "offensive" to them. Considering they quit their jobs over this the court would almost certainly find that it was too burdensome, even if the court doesn't find it is too burdensome to compel Apple.
[+] [-] caf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cortesoft|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coroutines|10 years ago|reply
And then give the same capabilities to the governments of every country they do business in.
Our politicians might actually fight for our interests in digital privacy/security if theirs is directly threatened by the governments of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
If our government needs this to do lawful search and seizure, so do all these others.
I'm tired of our gov acting like they're above reproach and somehow more deserving than any other naive government. History has shown they can't protect us from terrorists 100% of the time, and it shouldn't come at the expense of our civil liberties - at the expense of the principles and detracting from the identity of what makes us American. They can't even protect the information of people who elect to share their privacy with the gov (OPM breach/leak of which I was a victim). They shouldn't have the ability to violate the security of [realistically] billions of phones. It's absurdly overreaching and a massive abuse of the authority we "give" them.
Caveat: Not complying and this other plan of action would both upset stockholders.
[+] [-] pdabbadabba|10 years ago|reply
This is old territory, really. Courts have been ordering people to do things under the All Writs Act (including skilled labor) since it was first enacted more than 200 years ago. (The government's brief has some examples, starting on page 17. http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016.03.10-1...)
If an employee claimed he or she did not have the skills to comply with he order then, yes, there could be some sort of hearing to determine whether this was true. But establishing the requisite level of competence probably would not be as hard as you think.
[+] [-] kbart|10 years ago|reply
Maybe 5 people now can do that, but give a smart programmer (I'm sure Apple has more than a bunch of those) source code and I'm sure he will figure how to do what government requests in max few weeks time. It's not a rocket science.
[+] [-] Justsignedup|10 years ago|reply
Ah who am I kidding, there's always a dude willing to give away his baby's kidney for money. Systems that screw people over are built by humans.
[+] [-] atonse|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citizensixteen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joesmo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harryh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naaaaak|10 years ago|reply
- Government power and rights > individual power and rights. - Mass surveillance of their own people. - Constitution consistently ignored. - Civil liberties viewed as an annoyance. - Militarized police force. - Secret court systems that "OKs" any government action. - Mainstream media little more than an arm of government propaganda. - Whistleblowers treated like criminals. - Indefinite detention laws ready to be used for any reason. - Can justify any action in the name of "national security". - Political class rules all.
We have a word for this type of government but but no one is talking about it yet. Whatever the outcome to Apple, a government like this will try again and find other ways to do what they want.
[+] [-] citizensixteen|10 years ago|reply
What is the word to describe what we now have in the US?
[+] [-] studentrob|10 years ago|reply
I don't think we would live in a forced back door world for too long. After another 2, 4, or 8 years, we will eventually realize that giving the government a back door to the iPhone did not give it a back door to the myriad of other encrypted communications tools out there. Terrorists will find other ways to hide their communications.
I really don't want to see Apple lose this case, or any sort of anti-encryption bill. I also wouldn't want to see someone throw away working at Apple over it. Apple can maintain its integrity by complying with the law as it has publicly stated. Engineers can remain true to an employer they respect knowing said employer did everything they could to resist the government. There aren't many great employers out there like this. Don't take it for granted.
That's just my 2c.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...
[+] [-] saulrh|10 years ago|reply
I'm going to disagree with you here. Didn't we think, back in 2001, that we'd only have to live with pat-downs on every plane flight for so long? That the government would eventually realize that terrorists couldn't hijack planes once passengers knew that the proper response was to storm the cockpit rather than waiting for the usual ransom demand to be acquiesced to? That the terrorists would find other ways to cause terror?
If the US Government gets what it wants with this case they will use it as a wedge to permanently deny us any semblance of electronic privacy. You will get to choose between using paper and having some random police officer [1] decide that it's time for you to go down and he's absolutely sure he can find something you've done wrong [2].
This move is one of the last things standing in the way of that future. Apple's engineers are threatening to destroy one of the most successful, profitable organized entities in human history in protest. A sort of technological mutually assured destruction. I hope their threat works, and that they don't have to follow through on it, and that if they do, their statement is understood.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/03/10/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
[+] [-] cpt1138|10 years ago|reply
With a court order, LE asked to unlock a device, and I was able to do it, did it and they sent me a letter of thanks which I still might have somewhere. I remember being happy to help, it was a drug case, drugs are bad mmmmkay.
In thinking about it I'm embarrassed at my younger self, but also cognizant that anyone familiar with the art could break it. It was a terrible, reversible scheme. After I pushed through the change to store the password I was confident that it could not be reversed and that it was "safe" and that I could no longer break it.
If they had suggested removing the other safeguards e.g. allowing any number of tries, etc. That would be this Apple situation and I really hope my younger self would have had the sense to plead "ignorance," refuse or whatever because my principles have not changed that much, and I am 100% on Apple's side on this issue.
[+] [-] moioci|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoutz|10 years ago|reply
Way less likely, but Apple could move HQ to another country. And take their secret source code and keys with them.
[+] [-] orik|10 years ago|reply
Yahoo would have owed the US gov. a sum equivalent to the GDP by the end of a month.
[+] [-] ohyeshedid|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonydiv|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|10 years ago|reply
(If Apple can't resist the government request, neither can anyone else, only the crankiest of people will punish them for being the test case.)
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zippergz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hysan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshka|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] staunch|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] evan_|10 years ago|reply
http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics/
Nothing is stopping you from just affirming yourself to live by them without paying the dues, if you want.
[+] [-] yarou|10 years ago|reply
As Gandhi states:
>You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.
[+] [-] stcredzero|10 years ago|reply
He said that in the 20th century. Imprisoning the mind is the province of the 21st century. Both governments and pseudo-"activists" now seek to do this by leveraging the Internet.
[+] [-] taneq|10 years ago|reply
While publicly the U.S. government probably wants to keep on the good side of popular opinion, they've proved time and again that in private they have little to no compunction about doing "whatever it takes" to get their way.
[+] [-] ww520|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbobby|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chernevik|10 years ago|reply
The government doesn't want a backdoor. They want Apple to remove barriers slowing and limiting the number of guesses at the key. If the key were longer, those barriers wouldn't be needed. So this isn't about strong encryption, without backdoors. It's about some sort of right to short, memorizable keys, and technical barriers protecting them.
Now maybe we have such rights. (I don't think so, I do think we have a right to strong encryption and strong keys.) But that's a very different argument than "backdoors are bad". If Apple's case is "no backdoors", they make that argument look not like a technical argument but a preference to not comply with a warrant. Non-technical people could easily get the idea that technical people say "no backdoors" when they just don't agree with the government's ability to execute warrants, and that all the technical arguments about real security are mumbo jumbo to avoid obeying laws they don't care for.
Using strong encryption with phones is a usability issue. If the phone were somehow protected by a strong key, Apple could easily comply with this order and the government still could't read the phone. But they haven't figured out how a user can deploy a strong key in some usable fashion. Well, that's obviously a challenge to phone data privacy. I expect it is solvable. And it is much less an issue in contexts like desktops and laptops.
But we have a right to encryption. We don't have a right to usability. Claiming the two are the same weakens the case to the right we do have.
[+] [-] ekianjo|10 years ago|reply
Funny to see Jean-Louis's name out of the blue again. He was the creator of BeOS back in the days.
[+] [-] marricks|10 years ago|reply
It might very well help public appeal if there was a person resisting the government compared to a large corporation.
Then again, if they get to the point of ordering Apple to break their security seems like they already lost the case at that point.
[+] [-] superuser2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bunkydoo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollander|10 years ago|reply
This whole discussion has led me to reconsider the much too expensive iPhones, and my next phone might very well be an iPhone 6 or newer.
[+] [-] nxzero|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] muddi900|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neugier|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schwarze_pest|10 years ago|reply