Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 390 of 468

Thread: More German Anti-Tech Lunacy

  1. #361
    Thank Allah a tech company like Facebook didn't incorporate in Germany. Otherwise they would be subject to the whims of its meddlesome and numerous anti-tech regulators.

    The only downside is the lack of global successful Internet startups coming out of Germany. With such a wonderful, tech-friendly government, I wonder why that is...

    15 FEB '13
    Facebook wins court battle to keep its real name policy against German privacy watchdog

    Facebook has come out on top in a recent court battle in Germany, after it was challenged by a privacy watchdog for forcing new users to register with their real name.

    Covered by the Associated Press, the problem is that users cannot choose to use a handle or pseudonym to register with the social network – as you can with Twitter and YouTube, for example.

    A data protection body located in Schleswig-Holstein, the northernmost state in Germany, has argued that such a policy breaches German privacy laws, as well as European policy that it supposed to protect users’ freedom of speech on the Internet.

    An administrative court ruled yesterday however that the German privacy rules do not apply to Facebook, because its headquarters for Europe are based in Ireland where the rules are far less stringent.

    The data protection body in Schleswig-Holstein said today it would be appealing the decision, presumably on the grounds that the policy should be considered against EU law specifically – a union which Ireland is most definitely a part of.

    The agency first ordered Facebook to end its real name policy last December, arguing that it violated German laws that give people the right to use pseudonyms online. In a statement reported by the BBC, Thilo Weichert, head of the regional data protection office in Schleswig Holstein said: “It is unacceptable that a US portal like Facebook violates German data protection law unopposed and with no prospect of an end.”

    Facebook immediately responded in a comment given to ITWorld, saying it would fight the order and that it was “without merit” and a “waste of German tapayers’ money.”

    Facebook has argued that by requiring new users to display their real name, it actually protects other users on the social network. That does make sense in some circumstances, as certain users are less likely to bully or harass other people if it’s clear who they really are.

    The flipside to that argument though is that it’s very easy for Facebook users to deceive one another, even with the supposed ‘real name’ policy in effect. As the American documentary film Catfish portrayed in 2010, there are plenty of people who have created entirely false identities through the social network, including profile information, photographs and even their relationship with users.

    Germany has pretty strict privacy rules compared to other countries, which have affected not just Facebook in the past but other technology companies, such as Google, regarding the way in which they use private data.

    http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2013/...l-name-policy/

  2. #362
    That's odd, I thought Germany believed that German laws applied to internet companies no matter where their headquarters may be. Haven't Germans successfully gone after eg. Google before?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  3. #363
    In this case a judge seems to have imposed a rare degree of healthy restraint on those Tireless Teutonic Totalitarians who run the German regulatory apparatus.

    It does seem to stick out. I would have to dig deeper, but it might be because this actually went to court. Instead of the vague pronouncements of "data protection" commissioners, this was actually a cour case and jurisdiction had to be established.

  4. #364
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Well, in other news, Dreadfully Debilitated Dickhead is still a moron.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  5. #365
    The Kübler-Ross model AKA the "stages of grief" applies to Khend's feelings over Germany's relationship with the Internet:

    1) Denial

    2) Anger

    3) Bargaining

    4) Depression

    5) Acceptance

    Methinks we are at stage 2. This is progress.

  6. #366
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Dread, we all know that Khend has an...abrasive...style. Yet you poke him with a stick. Are you trying to goad him into you two replacing Cain and Tear? Khend might be up to it, but I don't think you are.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  7. #367
    I'm not poking him. He is choosing to take this rather personally. I started this thread to point out a trend emanating from Germany that bothers me. The German government and its insane Data "Protection" Commissioners happily oblige with regular fodder.

  8. #368
    you've done an insanely poor job at showing how any of this is a trend thats coming out of Germany. Nearly everything you've linked to has been shown to have started, or been done previously in other countries.

    You've displayed a bias through nearly this entire thread with how badly you're cherry picking tech news.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  9. #369
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You've displayed a bias through nearly this entire thread with how badly you're cherry picking tech news.
    It could be worse. He could be grabbing from Slashdot.

  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    you've done an insanely poor job at showing how any of this is a trend thats coming out of Germany. Nearly everything you've linked to has been shown to have started, or been done previously in other countries.

    You've displayed a bias through nearly this entire thread with how badly you're cherry picking tech news.
    He did the same with his NYT Faux Economics thread. Not sure why a smart guy like Dread can't simply debate the issues, without first accusing a news source of incompetency, or an entire nation of nefarious intent.

  11. #371
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,313
    Well as it happens, there was a piece on a German website (spiegel I think but I can't find it right now) that basically said, that if American company's weren't so incredibly top down and would just try to understand the markets they are operating in as 'not American' they could save themselves a lot of troubles and money.
    Congratulations America

  12. #372
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Well as it happens, there was a piece on a German website (spiegel I think but I can't find it right now) that basically said, that if American company's weren't so incredibly top down and would just try to understand the markets they are operating in as 'not American' they could save themselves a lot of troubles and money.
    Sounds like a Saudi newspaper complaining that a Western liquor company doesn't "respect local Saudi anti-drinking customs".

    What was the headline? "Tech companies don't pay enough money to German newspapers, says German newspaper"?

    The technology isn't the problem.

    It's a regulatory attitude in Germany that seriously considers insane proposals like ancillary copyright (and exports the idea to France); or bans private websites from using Web analytics software; or bans private Websites from having Facebook "Like" buttons on them. These tech companies can't be expected negotiate with terrorists.

  13. #373
    in another sign of how little dread understands the "how the internet works" department, Firefox announced today that their next browser rollout will ban 3rd party cookies, one reason being to cutdown on the unannounced tracking done by stuff like the facebook like button.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-25-2013 at 12:55 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  14. #374
    An update -- this one isn't from Germany, but from France, which is rapidly testing the waters of imitating it's neighbor to the east.

    Guess what? Every time a site installs a cookie that doesn't fit the approval of bureaucrats, it's going to be taxed! I hope they don't find this forum.

    That said, I think this is actually more of a case of Socialists manipulating people's irrational fears for the sake of taxing people. Anyone who speaks like the guy in the bold section below is an anti-capitalist whacko.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/25/te...a-harvest.html

    French Tax Proposal Zeroes In on Web Giants’ Data Harvest

    By ERIC PFANNER
    Published: February 24, 2013

    PARIS — Only a few weeks after the French Constitutional Council rejected one new tax idea — a 75 percent levy on annual incomes of more than 1 million euros ($1.3 million) — another began percolating through the halls of the finance ministry here: a proposal to tax the collection of personal data on the Internet.

    Google and Facebook know that John Doe “likes” wine, is shopping for a Volkswagen and often e-mails Jane Doe. The new idea would require the companies to pay for gathering that information.

    Nicolas Colin, one of the authors of a report in which the idea of taxing data collection was floated in January, said the immediate goal would be to promote sound practices for data collection and protection.

    While the report does not specify how much revenue the tax would yield, Mr. Colin said it would probably be minimal.

    “It’s meant to incentivize everyone to operate at a higher level, not to raise a lot of money,” he said. “You can’t go from zero to collecting hundreds of millions overnight.”

    Like other European countries, France has been frustrated by its inability to raise significant tax revenue from the billions of dollars in sales and profits that Internet companies, many of them American, generate in Europe every year.

    And despite so-called austerity measures, budget deficits remain large.

    “Every government needs revenues,” Mr. Colin, a government auditor and technology entrepreneur, said in an interview. “If they can’t get them from the most profitable companies, then they have to get them from the rest of us — individual taxpayers and smaller, struggling companies.”

    Internet companies like Amazon.com, Facebook and Google stay largely out of reach of tax collectors in large European countries like Britain, France and Germany by routing their sales through smaller countries, like Ireland and Luxembourg, where corporate tax rates are lower. The companies insist that such practices are permitted under European Union law and international taxation treaties.

    France and other countries have begun talks to change those conventions, so Internet companies could be taxed in the country where a sale takes place, rather than in the location where the transaction is recorded. But that could take many years, with no guarantee of any change.

    On the other hand, France could impose a tax on data collection unilaterally and quickly, Mr. Colin said.

    The prospects for his proposal are unclear. While the report was commissioned by the government, it is not an official policy document, and the finance ministry has yet to take a position on the idea.

    On other issues involving the digital economy, the administration of President François Hollande has sent mixed signals. After threatening Google with a law that would have let publishers charge the search engine for links to their Web sites, for example, the government backed down and accepted a negotiated deal that maintains Google’s existing business model, under which links are free.

    The French data protection agency, which is known by the initials C.N.I.L. and is independent of the government, has been more forthcoming about the taxation proposal.

    “Personal data are the fuel of the digital economy,” Edouard Geffray, the agency’s secretary general, told the French version of the online magazine Slate. “Given that, it would seem like a natural idea to envision taxing the use of them.”

    While business plans built on mining consumers’ personal information from the Internet are proliferating, so are concerns about the use of the data.

    Last week, the data protection authorities of the 27 European Union countries threatened Google with punitive action over a privacy policy that the company put in effect last year, under which it harvests data from a range of services. The agencies, led by C.N.I.L., gave Google four months to make changes or face legal action. Google insists its policy complies with European Union law.

    A recent study by Ovum, a research firm in London, showed that 81 percent of Internet users in France would use a “do not track” feature on Web sites if it were readily available. That was the highest percentage in any of the 11 countries surveyed.

    “The privacy market is heating up,” said Mark Little, an analyst at Ovum. “There is a move away from what I would call data fracking to consumers’ creating their own contracts governing data use, and corporations’ having to abide by those.”

    Mr. Colin said the main goal of his tax plan would be to reward companies for providing their customers with useful information, while penalizing those that did not do so.

    Internet companies, for example, could be taxed if they collected “cookies” — digital markers of the Web sites that Internet users visit — without enabling consumers to see how the information was used. Companies that did provide that information readily would be exempt.

    Analysts call such a practice “smart disclosure” because it can help consumers make informed decisions. Utilities that provide consumers with more detailed information on, for example, their patterns of electricity or natural gas consumption could help them reduce their bills.

    Mr. Colin said there was no intention to stop Internet companies from collecting data.

    “That would be bad for business, and it would hurt French companies too,” he said.

    While Internet companies are not alone in collecting vast amounts of data, Mr. Colin made it clear that the proposal was aimed at the likes of Google and Facebook, which are making inroads in more and more areas.

    “I’m convinced the telecoms, even car manufacturers, will be disrupted by these companies,” Mr. Colin said. “We’d better learn to tax them before they eat the whole economy.”

    A secondary purpose of the proposal, Mr. Colin said, would be to provide leverage in negotiations for a change in international conventions on corporate taxes. If those were altered so that France could tax foreign Internet companies on their profits, then the data tax could be dropped, he said.

    “In France, we are seen as a nation of tax lovers, which isn’t always good for the French image, and isn’t always true, either,” he said. “But it is true that we are leaders in this area. Maybe the French government has the opportunity to make the case for accelerated negotiations.”

  15. #375
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    The bolded section certainly is worrying. While I don't support taxing for the sake of taxing (and an apparent fear that Google will destroy France), this part
    Mr. Colin said the main goal of his tax plan would be to reward companies for providing their customers with useful information, while penalizing those that did not do so.

    Internet companies, for example, could be taxed if they collected “cookies” — digital markers of the Web sites that Internet users visit — without enabling consumers to see how the information was used. Companies that did provide that information readily would be exempt.
    is somewhat interesting - I do prefer when websites are open about it, and while I have no idea if this is a remotely practical way to get that, this part doesn't sound thát crazy. Though IIRC new cookie laws here already requires websites to inform you that they use cookies, and I've seen the notification on most sites ever since, so maybe that's not even needed anymore.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #376
    Agreed. What I don't like is the idea that the tax authorities will basically be setting privacy laws, IE if your privacy policy doesn't contain such-and-such, you're going to pay for a cookie. The requirement seems destined to either be useless or totally harmful.

  17. #377
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Yeah, IF something like this is done I would prefer it being fines by the privacy watchdog instead of the tax authorities (which might be the way it already is).
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  18. #378
    Sounds neat and tidy to blast nations for being Anti-Tech "lunacy"....but that's just a distraction from dealing with our rapidly changing IT world. Will privacy mean much once everyone has a smart phone (out of necessity), and the technologies, platforms, and advertisers become merged?

    Consumer expectations and sub-conscious complacency is part of product propaganda, ie advertising. It used to take a long time to cultivate, and was fairly insidious. But that's changed with the advent of the internet and social media, where speed feeds.

    Taxation to one nation means Regulation to another. Either way, it's a form of oversight. Pick your poison?

  19. #379
    No, one must not pick your poison. Technological progress is not some kind of zero-sum faustian bargain unless you're an anti-tech lunatic.

    One reason for the explosive growth and utility of the Web is that it has operated with virtually no government interference. It's silly to argue that it should be regulated or taxed "just because".

  20. #380
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    It is also silly to claim it should be completely unregulated "just because", though. Personal information for example is both private and valuable and not particularly well protected.

    Also I think it's interesting how you single out Europe and some of its countries trying to protect their newspaper's interests (granted, in stupid ways) while you completely ignore the way the US government bends over trying to protect music and film industry, in often even more stupid ways. While you often do have a point here, the one sided way you single this out makes it seem like some kind of sad vendetta or trying to make some point nobody even cares about. I mean, if you actually cared about the internet, where are your complaints about Australia, where they have a government blacklist that blocks sites that include information about euthanasia, (alleged) racist sites, a spoof about their own government, tried to blacklist sites complaining about said blacklist and banning the most famous video from the Iran protests? To the point that The US state departement considers it censorship possibly breaching the UN UDHR? Or Italy, where setting up a Wi-Fi hotspot is restricted and the government attempted to censor blogs? Or your own government, which blocks sites of travel agencies offering trips to Cuba, and frequently proposes legislation that undermines the internet like undermining DNS (which would make the internet less secure as well), censorship, having the power to fully block the internet, barring elementary school teachers from using services like Facebook, killing sites based on user content, and severely harming internet business (and you claim to care about the explosive growth and utility of the internet, this would hamper that far more severely than any thing you posted here). Or where cell phone and mobile internet has been blocked to prevent protests (You'd think that only happened in places like Iran or Egypt).

    But sure, focus only on Germany and France, if you want to show what you actually care about..

  21. #381
    I don't think anyone has suggested the net should be regulated just because. In fact, nearly everytime its brought up in this thread its related to privacy. Problem is that Dread ignores privacy as a concern.

    I'm surprised Dread hasn't ranted about the French banning hashtag.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    while you completely ignore the way the US government bends over trying to protect music and film industry, in often even more stupid ways.
    It hasn't come up recently but Dread, like every other American on here with the exception of Lewk has derided and ridiculed those organizations and efforts in the past.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #383
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    I'm just somewhat astounded that Dread dares to call us "totalitarians" while his own country actually implements the brownshirts with stuff like Homeland Security and the jackbooted thugs called the TSA, is stomping all over human rights with Guantanamo and its like, openly tortures people, kills innocent people through the death penalty and abducts foreign citizens illegally...

    ... and then dares to call us "totalitarians" because some politicians think about protecting citizens' private data or other stupid politicians think about implementing a stupid tax.

    Yes, of course, it's us who're totalitarians here. He's a moron and is too demented to see how much below zero his IQ really is. I still haven't heard a single convincing argument why this voidheaded and mentally challenged troll still possesses the moderator status.

    I always understood moderators' role to be that which the name stems from: To show moderation. What this imbecile does is pouring flames on an argument. That's NOT moderation.

    Frankly, I'm not far from doing what Nessus did and walk out of here. Some may view this with relief. I don't really care anymore. If this bonehead wants to continue his circle jerk alone, let him have it.

    You're asking yourself why I'm so abrasive? This. This is it. Because frankly, I don't see any moderation going on here. I don't see the other mods calling him to the carpet for his frankly inacceptable tone. I don't see the mods calling me out. I don't see anything here. This is why the atmosphere is so hostile here. There's no moderation.

    This is the natural consequence of a place with no rules at all. This place only makes me angry now.

    I would stick with the Community Chat but even there the idiot's stupidity persists with stuff like those abominable haikus which he doubtlessly finds hilarious.
    Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 02-28-2013 at 08:11 PM.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  24. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I'm just somewhat astounded that Dread dares to call us "totalitarians" while his own country actually implements the brownshirts with stuff like Homeland Security and the jackbooted thugs called the TSA, is stomping all over human rights with Guantanamo and its like, openly tortures people, kills innocent people through the death penalty and abducts foreign citizens illegally...

    ... and then dares to call us "totalitarians" because some politicians think about protecting citizens' private data or other stupid politicians think about implementing a stupid tax.

    Yes, of course, it's us who're totalitarians here. He's a moron and is too demented to see how much below zero his IQ really is. I still haven't heard a single convincing argument why this voidheaded and mentally challenged troll still possesses the moderator status.

    I always understood moderators' role to be that which the name stems from: To show moderation. What this imbecile does is pouring flames on an argument. That's NOT moderation.

    Frankly, I'm not far from doing what Nessus did and walk out of here. Some may view this with relief. I don't really care anymore. If this bonehead wants to continue his circle jerk alone, let him have it.

    You're asking yourself why I'm so abrasive? This. This is it. Because frankly, I don't see any moderation going on here. I don't see the other mods calling him to the carpet for his frankly inacceptable tone. I don't see the mods calling me out. I don't see anything here. This is why the atmosphere is so hostile here. There's no moderation.

    This is the natural consequence of a place with no rules at all. This place only makes me angry now.

    I would stick with the Community Chat but even there the idiot's stupidity persists with stuff like those abominable haikus which he doubtlessly finds hilarious.
    It's the moderators fault that you can't be bothered to maintain a civil discussion?

    I'm enjoying your take on personal responsibility.

  25. #385
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Methinks you were a tad bit abrasive before Dread went to the dark side. It was just overshadowed by the Tear/Cain Hatefest.
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  26. #386
    I'm paraphrasing here, but: "How dare Dreadnaught call anyone totalitarian. He has no right to do that until he becomes a totalitarian moderator." -Khendraja'aro



    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    It is also silly to claim it should be completely unregulated "just because", though. Personal information for example is both private and valuable and not particularly well protected.

    Also I think it's interesting how you single out Europe and some of its countries trying to protect their newspaper's interests (granted, in stupid ways) while you completely ignore the way the US government bends over trying to protect music and film industry, in often even more stupid ways. While you often do have a point here, the one sided way you single this out makes it seem like some kind of sad vendetta or trying to make some point nobody even cares about. I mean, if you actually cared about the internet, where are your complaints about Australia, where they have a government blacklist that blocks sites that include information about euthanasia, (alleged) racist sites, a spoof about their own government, tried to blacklist sites complaining about said blacklist and banning the most famous video from the Iran protests? To the point that The US state departement considers it censorship possibly breaching the UN UDHR? Or Italy, where setting up a Wi-Fi hotspot is restricted and the government attempted to censor blogs? Or your own government, which blocks sites of travel agencies offering trips to Cuba, and frequently proposes legislation that undermines the internet like undermining DNS (which would make the internet less secure as well), censorship, having the power to fully block the internet, barring elementary school teachers from using services like Facebook, killing sites based on user content, and severely harming internet business (and you claim to care about the explosive growth and utility of the internet, this would hamper that far more severely than any thing you posted here). Or where cell phone and mobile internet has been blocked to prevent protests (You'd think that only happened in places like Iran or Egypt).

    But sure, focus only on Germany and France, if you want to show what you actually care about..
    Fuzzy alluded to my opposition to some of the things you mention.

    However, the reason I created this thread is because I think it's too easy to oppose things like SOPA or bizarre Australia censorship. Very few people here actually support government censorship or intrusive spying on people. More generally, the fight against government censorship and spying is an ongoing and never-ending battle -- that battle is not unique to the Internet.

    The kinds of laws emanating from certain EU countries (especially Germany) are attempts to restrict commerce and consumer choice. The regulators claim to be working on behalf of "privacy" or "fairness" or "ancillary copyright/leistungsschutzrecht", but I find their excuses to be pitiful. They are regulating based on irrational fear, xenophobia, Neo-Luddism or a greedy desire for power. And I think they are constantly trying to do an enormous amount of damage to the Internet by specifically targeting commercial activities.

    In case it's not obvious from my posts, I believe that open commerce is an important right. I also believe that the benefits of open commerce fuels our wealthy, diverse and tolerant societies. Intolerance and backwardness flourishes places where commerce and communications is heavily restricted. When the Bundestag votes on an ancillary copyright bill tomorrow, they are voting to legally cripple one of the most revolutionary communications and technology platforms ever created.

    Similarly, when I see German Data "Protection" Commissioners ban Facebook extensions, Web analytics or third party cookies, it's yet another government attempt to destroy an important form of commerce and communication that fuels our modern world.

  27. #387
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    The kinds of laws emanating from certain EU countries (especially Germany) are attempts to restrict commerce and consumer choice.
    You just bragged about Facebook winning a case that forces users to use real names. Thats a hell of a choice.

    and its amazing how you take the concept of a user's privacy as a product that needs mined and sold and twist it into a commerce that fuels the modern world. its that type of thinking thats the root of your problem.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  28. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    You just bragged about Facebook winning a case that forces users to use real names. Thats a hell of a choice.

    and its amazing how you take the concept of a user's privacy as a product that needs mined and sold and twist it into a commerce that fuels the modern world. its that type of thinking thats the root of your problem.
    Who forces people to use Facebook? Time and time again you seem to assume that you have the right to use everyone's products on your own terms. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's not very hard.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #389
    And you almost got the concept of fewer choices.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  30. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Who forces people to use Facebook? Time and time again you seem to assume that you have the right to use everyone's products on your own terms. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's not very hard.
    If you don't like being harrassed/groped/raped don't go outdoors. If you don't like being discriminated against, don't apply for jobs. So much choice
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •