Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mSparks

Illegal activities.

51 posts in this topic

/Musing.

I miss the old internet.

The internet where when you joined any old random IRC server there would be shouts of "Fed" just before you were kicked, rather than every IRC server sitting Idle full of bots.

The internet that brought us the Jolly rogers cookbook and the hackers manifesto.

The net that wasn't full of Got Talents and MSM agendas.

The Net that gave us all those wonderful alt. newsgroups.

The net where everyone was a hacker, and every discussion was a virtually unmoderated no holes barred free for all.

Why did we let this happen.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did we let this happen.

I never owned a computer till about 1998, when unlimited dial-up was about $20.00 per month. But the commercialization of the Internet has had some good points. Like cheap and widely available high-speed broadband, and a lot of job opportunities that just wouldn't be available otherwise.

Personally, I like the tech boom, too. My very first computer cost about $1800.00 to build with the following specs:

- 333Mhz Pentium CPU

- 128MB RAM

- HP cd burner

- Some old VoooDoo graphics card

Thanks to everybody wanting/using technology now, the price for decent equipment has plummeted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard quite a bit of nostalgia for the the early years of the public net recently. I didn't get on IRC until a few years ago, but have been involved in a lot of other network community stuff since the late 80's/early 90s. There was a different feel, a sort of blind optimism. What happened was that the dream did become a reality in one sense: practically everyone has a computer and everyone has access to the global net. With that comes all the pop culture, all the drab business content, the constant marketing, constant nostalgia, etc. Now, every fetish you can possibly imagine is available with a simple web search. This has provided us an overwhelming amount of data. The interesting nuggets are still out there, but they are buried.

Can we get back there? Probably not. You can't get there from here. However, there are mutations happening right now in a new generation of people. They are using the new methods of communication (social networking, etc.). They are building the new underground/alternative scenes. I have faith that youthful curiosity and creativity will remain embedded in humanity. It goes in cycles and is more apparent at certain times than others.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asides from the slow dial up connections, i really do miss those days...

finding BBSes that are connected to the NET and trying to get free access out of them....

man i have not been on a newsgroup, or an IRC server since i was on dial-up...

the internet and increase in people owning home computers has helped to produce new industries, and allow for newer technologies such as VoIP to emerge.... but then again - all the AOLers of back in the day are now those on facebook...

there have been pluses and minuses of the evolution of the internet, computers and technology - which fuels my love/hate relationship with technology...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there have been pluses and minuses of the evolution of the internet, computers and technology - which fuels my love/hate relationship with technology...

I think, what erks me the most, is the "general hacking" web seems to have gone backward. Something like "freenet" reminds me of those days, but even 56k dialup behaved better.

It feels like the net fractured, everything became "localised", all this infowar stuff and "4channers" is good for a laugh and all, but everywhere I look it just feels like everyone built high walls and shut the world out, and welcomed the Bourgeoisie in. Everyone wants to mark out their own patch of cyberspace, mold it, manage it, mod it. I've lost count of the number of "communities" that have imploded over the years, and nothing better seems to have replaced them.

Lets face it, us "geeks" were never the most social of stereotypes, what little communities there were have been replaced with blogs and a gazillion forums full of 10 or 20 posts (or 100,000 pics of the same nude Russian girl).

Sure there are new "jobs", but who in their right mind wants to follow the directions of some rich cunt who rings you up to ask which usb port he should plug his mouse into. Sure there is a ton of video, music, text, to suit every deprived fetish you can imagine.

These days the only questions I seem to hear is "can someone do this for me".

And it makes me sad.

Where is the learning, the doing, the sharing.

When did everyone become so afraid to speak their mind.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there are new "jobs", but who in their right mind wants to follow the directions of some rich cunt who rings you up to ask which usb port he should plug his mouse into.

There is a lot more than tech support. The list of high-paying "jobe" that were created is endless. Just for example: Entrepreneurs, Network Engineers, Developers, sales of high ticket items. Companies like Cisco that went from mediocre to a bluechip stock..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are witnessing is the result of the slow transformation of the internet into everyday item. It must be forced into conformity, simplified so that lazy canned masses may partake without effort. What was once a tool of learning and wonder has become a consumer product. Soon the walls will go up around inter country access in the name of keeping the sheep safe and net neutrality gone in the name of fiscal gain for the entrenched capitalists who fund the laws and politicians of this world.

I too nod to the loss of the computer engineering qualities of the net. Of people pulling apart things just to see how deep down the rabbit hole they could take their understanding and learning. Of experimenting. I was once participating in netsplitting to take over channels on irc, witness to smurf's using college networks (and microsoft's corporate lan, that was a cool broadcast reflector for years) and cisco's everywhere with default passwords. Of x25 gateways, of tone dialing for free calls. When bots were for keeping op status on a channel because there were no server wide +o's. Of being klined on a regular basis...

But look within, time has moved on, so has our craft and I for one will continue in my quest to master ever more complex technologies, which still feels like an achievement after all these miles traveled. There is still that rabbit hole to poke and it seems ever deeper. I still miss the days of irc where people actually spoke to one and another though instead of being too "l33t" to bother.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there are new "jobs", but who in their right mind wants to follow the directions of some rich cunt who rings you up to ask which usb port he should plug his mouse into.

There is a lot more than tech support. The list of high-paying "jobe" that were created is endless. Just for example: Entrepreneurs, Network Engineers, Developers, sales of high ticket items. Companies like Cisco that went from mediocre to a bluechip stock..

Its not the "rich cunt" or "rings you up to ask which usb port he should plug his mouse into" that I would draw attention to.

Its the

"follow the direction"

The whole point of "hacking" is there are no instructions.

There are no rules.

There are no barriers that can't be crossed.

There are just challenges to overcome and knowledge to be acquired and shared.

This whole concept of "black hat" and "white hat" is nonsensical in a virtual universe where you can move from being Vietnam grunt to captain of the starship enterprise with the flick of your wrist, you might as well make "unethical dreams" a crime.

Then there's this whole "intentions" rule.

WTF!

I'll tell you the kind of intentions we should be banning from the internet, and that's the like of:

http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/

Not some script kiddy who wants to deface a schoolmates facebook because they flushed his head down the toilet last week.

Edited by mSparks
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you the kind of intentions we should be banning from the internet, and that's the like of:

http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/

Not some script kiddy who wants to deface a schoolmates facebook because they flushed his head down the toilet last week.

True that. This one, kinda irks me too. There was another Obama Attack on the interweb as well. I think the biggest problem is these are people who are technically illiterate, and don't have enough insight into technology to pass the laws for the better. Obama is a lawyer, Bush was a Texas Oil Tycoon, Palin is a Barbi Doll, and thst is how they run/ran our country. They also look out for the better good of the lobbyists who line their pockets with campaign dollars.

Political actions like that have been around the Internet, from a law enforcement perspective, since it was opened for public consumption. I mean back in the days, the FBI spent more resources to catch Kevin Mitnick, while child molesters and murderers were walking the streets. Basically because he "stole" from companies that shell out money and fancy gifts to people in office. Politics are always gonna be screwed up, and they affect more than just he Internet.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is the learning, the doing, the sharing.

Here. On full disclosure lists. In labs and bedrooms around the world. Only we must call it by its other name, research.

For the intent, It is there as a tool to stop the server being shut down. The first lesson someone must learn on arriving is how to understand that, and phrase their questions accordingly. If you read the intent is important posting by stankydawg it is implicit that he expects you to do so and show a modicum of intelligence. Call it the bar for entry. It blocks no discussion of any issue or exploit if one chooses ones words with care. Then connect that to the "trust no-one" ethos, and perhaps it will save some fledgling hacker from trouble about what he has written on the public plaintext transmitted internet, and set his mindset to protect him in advance. Once this facet is understood, it becomes plain that it is in place to nurture rather than opress.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the intent, It is there as a tool to stop the server being shut down. The first lesson someone must learn on arriving is how to understand that, and phrase their questions accordingly. If you read the intent is important posting by stankydawg it is implicit that he expects you to do so and show a modicum of intelligence. Call it the bar for entry. It blocks no discussion of any issue or exploit if one chooses ones words with care. Then connect that to the "trust no-one" ethos, and perhaps it will save some fledgling hacker from trouble about what he has written on the public plaintext transmitted internet, and set his mindset to protect him in advance. Once this facet is understood, it becomes plain that it is in place to nurture rather than opress.

not stopped BinRev being blacklisted by H3G though.....

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scene politics aside, does the trust nobody/no blatently illegal discussion make sense to you, or is it still wtf?

And do you agree with it as a sensible requirement going forward?

I think this aspect takes the discussion full circle in some way, in that the need for this is the very thing that you are mourning the loss of...

Edited by phaedrus
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scene politics aside, does the trust nobody/no blatently illegal discussion make sense to you, or is it still wtf?

And do you agree with it as a sensible requirement going forward?

I think this aspect takes the discussion full circle in some way, in that the need for this is the very thing that you are mourning the loss of...

"Trust nobody"

I don't think hackers ever trusted anybody (see: joined any old random IRC server there would be shouts of "Fed" just before you were kicked), so for me it's a no brainer, but I can see why some of the more naive noobs need it spelling out.

It was the "illegal activities" I was musing over,

so much of what is "illegal hacking" now was not "back in the day" (thinking DMCA, Patriot, the raft of unenforced shite the UK has brought in - did you know its now illegal in the UK to own certain books....punishable with jail time.). In fact the web is turning into a place where even legal hacking (stuff that isn't an issue enough for lobbyists to get legislation passed) is being zapped from the net, just by the nature of power the big corps are wrestling from our hands (e.g. Amazon Kindle, BinRev being banned on H3Gs network).

I've been playing a bit with This kit, hoping to get a beta version finished over the Christmas break. Just think it would be nice to do something to foster an environment with the same kind of power as IRC, where big brother cannot penetrate, and where the uber paranoid can speak their mind and transfer their knowledge.

That eBrowser wasn't even started with "hacking" in mind, I just wanted some way for forum users to talk behind the moderators back beyond pms.

Edited by mSparks
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i absolutely believe in the banning of discussions involving illegal activities... i personally learned that the hard way when i posted some infoz on a different forum several years ago, not a good experience, and i would not want anyone to go thru that, not to mention the legal liability that the host and mods of the forum if they allow things like that to occur...

i also agree with the "trust no one" guideline... when discussing anything that might leave you potentially liable for criminal charges, then i would be very weary of having that discussion, especially with someone that you do not know in person...

i do however believe that information should be freely shared, and publicly available.. so the intent rules of the forum help to allow you to share information that could be used for good or bad purposes... as long as you cover your ass, you can discuss just about anything... you just have to be responsible of HOW you share information, and in some cases WHAT you share....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing a bit with This kit, hoping to get a beta version finished over the Christmas break. Just think it would be nice to do something to foster an environment with the same kind of power as IRC, where big brother cannot penetrate, and where the uber paranoid can speak their mind and transfer their knowledge.

That eBrowser wasn't even started with "hacking" in mind, I just wanted some way for forum users to talk behind the moderators back beyond pms.

If you create a environment like that, all you will really foster is the temporary illusion of safety. Even in such an environment I'd be looking at exploits and code in my "private network environment", and treat it as public. Because if I don't sooner or later I will fubar up for nothing gained except some ego massagery.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing a bit with This kit, hoping to get a beta version finished over the Christmas break. Just think it would be nice to do something to foster an environment with the same kind of power as IRC, where big brother cannot penetrate, and where the uber paranoid can speak their mind and transfer their knowledge.

That eBrowser wasn't even started with "hacking" in mind, I just wanted some way for forum users to talk behind the moderators back beyond pms.

If you create a environment like that, all you will really foster is the temporary illusion of safety. Even in such an environment I'd be looking at exploits and code in my "private network environment", and treat it as public. Because if I don't sooner or later I will fubar up for nothing gained except some ego massagery.

I don't think you quite understand what it does.

Edited by mSparks
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of the children......

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/all-internet-porn-will-be-blocked-to-protect-children-under-uk-government-plan/story-e6frfkui-1225973481287

THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today.

The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

The biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography - so-called "opting out" - the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to "opt in."

The new initiative is in advance of the imminent convergence of the internet and television on one large screen in the living room.

It follows the success of an operation by most British internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent people inadvertently viewing child porn websites. Ministers want companies to use similar technology to shut out adult pornography from children. Pornography sites will be blocked at source unless people specifically ask to view them.

TalkTalk, which includes Tiscali and the British version of Aol.com, is already introducing a new free service early next year called "bright feed," which allows people to control the internet so that all devices are automatically covered without the need to set up individual controls.

Homeowners can either specify which adult sites they want to receive or put a cinema-style classification on their feed to restrict what is received according to age ranges, such as U, 12 or 18. A survey by Psychologies magazine this summer found that one in three children aged 10 in Britain had viewed pornography on the net.

Mr Vaizey said: "This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children.

"I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."

"There is this very uneasy sense for parents of children that we do not have to tolerate this Wild West approach. We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see."

Previously the Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA) has told MPs that such a blanket ban would be expensive and technically difficult to operate.

But Miranda Suit, co-founder of the charity Safermedia, which held a conference on internet porn at the Commons last month, said: "Technically we know it can be done because the ISPs are already removing child porn after the government put pressure on them.

"In the past, internet porn was regarded as a moral issue or a matter of taste. Now it has become a mental health issue because we now know the damage it is causing. We are seeing perverse sexual behavior among children. Legislation is both justifiable and feasible."

She quoted the example of two underage brothers sentenced to at least five years' detention this year for a sadistic sex attack on two other boys in South Yorkshire. The brothers were said to have had a "toxic" home life where they were exposed to pornography.

This weekend some ISPs appeared ready to introduce an "opt in" clause voluntarily. Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation for TalkTalk, said: "Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us to do but to do what was right by our customers.

"If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work."

A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said: "We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We've taken this approach as mobiles are taken out of the home - and kept in a pocket - whereas parents can control what happens within the home and online "We're able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the internet. It is just about finding the right approach."

A spokesman for BT, which has a "clean feed" system to block access to illegal sites, said: "We do what we can to protect children."

The ISPA did not return calls to London's Sunday Times.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing a bit with This kit, hoping to get a beta version finished over the Christmas break. Just think it would be nice to do something to foster an environment with the same kind of power as IRC, where big brother cannot penetrate, and where the uber paranoid can speak their mind and transfer their knowledge.

That eBrowser wasn't even started with "hacking" in mind, I just wanted some way for forum users to talk behind the moderators back beyond pms.

If you create a environment like that, all you will really foster is the temporary illusion of safety. Even in such an environment I'd be looking at exploits and code in my "private network environment", and treat it as public. Because if I don't sooner or later I will fubar up for nothing gained except some ego massagery.

I don't think you quite understand what it does.

I don't think that YOU quite understand what it does.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing a bit with This kit, hoping to get a beta version finished over the Christmas break. Just think it would be nice to do something to foster an environment with the same kind of power as IRC, where big brother cannot penetrate, and where the uber paranoid can speak their mind and transfer their knowledge.

That eBrowser wasn't even started with "hacking" in mind, I just wanted some way for forum users to talk behind the moderators back beyond pms.

If you create a environment like that, all you will really foster is the temporary illusion of safety. Even in such an environment I'd be looking at exploits and code in my "private network environment", and treat it as public. Because if I don't sooner or later I will fubar up for nothing gained except some ego massagery.

I don't think you quite understand what it does.

I don't think that YOU quite understand what it does.

Erm,

I'm writing it......

I'm aiming for an internet tower of babel.

Edited by mSparks
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of the children......

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/all-internet-porn-will-be-blocked-to-protect-children-under-uk-government-plan/story-e6frfkui-1225973481287

THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today.

The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

The biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography - so-called "opting out" - the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to "opt in."

The new initiative is in advance of the imminent convergence of the internet and television on one large screen in the living room.

It follows the success of an operation by most British internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent people inadvertently viewing child porn websites. Ministers want companies to use similar technology to shut out adult pornography from children. Pornography sites will be blocked at source unless people specifically ask to view them.

TalkTalk, which includes Tiscali and the British version of Aol.com, is already introducing a new free service early next year called "bright feed," which allows people to control the internet so that all devices are automatically covered without the need to set up individual controls.

Homeowners can either specify which adult sites they want to receive or put a cinema-style classification on their feed to restrict what is received according to age ranges, such as U, 12 or 18. A survey by Psychologies magazine this summer found that one in three children aged 10 in Britain had viewed pornography on the net.

Mr Vaizey said: "This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children.

"I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."

"There is this very uneasy sense for parents of children that we do not have to tolerate this Wild West approach. We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see."

Previously the Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA) has told MPs that such a blanket ban would be expensive and technically difficult to operate.

But Miranda Suit, co-founder of the charity Safermedia, which held a conference on internet porn at the Commons last month, said: "Technically we know it can be done because the ISPs are already removing child porn after the government put pressure on them.

"In the past, internet porn was regarded as a moral issue or a matter of taste. Now it has become a mental health issue because we now know the damage it is causing. We are seeing perverse sexual behavior among children. Legislation is both justifiable and feasible."

She quoted the example of two underage brothers sentenced to at least five years' detention this year for a sadistic sex attack on two other boys in South Yorkshire. The brothers were said to have had a "toxic" home life where they were exposed to pornography.

This weekend some ISPs appeared ready to introduce an "opt in" clause voluntarily. Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation for TalkTalk, said: "Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us to do but to do what was right by our customers.

"If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work."

A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said: "We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We've taken this approach as mobiles are taken out of the home - and kept in a pocket - whereas parents can control what happens within the home and online "We're able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the internet. It is just about finding the right approach."

A spokesman for BT, which has a "clean feed" system to block access to illegal sites, said: "We do what we can to protect children."

The ISPA did not return calls to London's Sunday Times.

not too sure how this fits on topic.. but it is quite disturbing to me... not the fact that they are blocking access to pornography on an "opt-in" basis, but the fact that this is major censorship, and control of the information that you are able to gain access to... once they test this out then they could basically block access to just about any other content that they want...

parents should be aware of what evils are accessible from the internet and should implement parental controls that are currently available, either thru software or a DNS service that filters content, AND monitor their childrens internet usage..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not too sure how this fits on topic.. but it is quite disturbing to me... not the fact that they are blocking access to pornography on an "opt-in" basis, but the fact that this is major censorship, and control of the information that you are able to gain access to... once they test this out then they could basically block access to just about any other content that they want...

parents should be aware of what evils are accessible from the internet and should implement parental controls that are currently available, either thru software or a DNS service that filters content, AND monitor their childrens internet usage..

All "illegal activities" on the internet are a manipulation of information.

All prevention of "illegal activities" is a prevention of the flow of information.

Its not like I can reach over the desk and punch you on the shoulder.

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All "illegal activities" on the internet are a manipulation of information.

All prevention of "illegal activities" is a prevention of the flow of information.

Its not like I can reach over the desk and punch you on the shoulder.

i have been trying to figure out why the OP named this thread "illegal activities" as i do not really see any mentions of any illegal activities being discussed in the thread, and it would have likely been locked or deleted if there were any...

All "illegal activities" on the internet are a manipulation of information.

but not all manipulation of information is illegal....

All prevention of "illegal activities" is a prevention of the flow of information.

it is a prevention of the flow of information that should not be freely distributed (in most cases)

there are some things that should be protected from public access, but not everything protected from public access should be protected...

the blocking of ANY content on a "opt-in" basis makes me feel like this is just some sort of way for them to determine what content to allow you to access, basically censoring your ability to "legal" information... (i feel i have to make some differentiation between information as a whole, and information that you should have legal access to at this point)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a prevention of the flow of information that should not be freely distributed (in most cases)

there are some things that should be protected from public access, but not everything protected from public access should be protected...

the blocking of ANY content on a "opt-in" basis makes me feel like this is just some sort of way for them to determine what content to allow you to access, basically censoring your ability to "legal" information... (i feel i have to make some differentiation between information as a whole, and information that you should have legal access to at this point)

The contradiction here is that "legal" and "moral" are two very, very different things.

Morality is decided by god.

Legality is decided by those who wish to farm.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contradiction here is that "legal" and "moral" are two very, very different things.

Morality is decided by god.

Legality is decided by those who wish to farm.

so those who do not have or believe in a god have no morality?

while things can be overly legislated, and too many laws DO exist, there is a need to have laws... although i think that you really only need one law -

do not cause directly or indirectly intentional harm physically, or monetarily to any one.

this one simple law would cover everything from property damage, theft, DUI, assault rape, murder, etc... with no need for further laws..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The contradiction here is that "legal" and "moral" are two very, very different things.

Morality is decided by god.

Legality is decided by those who wish to farm.

so those who do not have or believe in a god have no morality?

Which of the 10 commandments do you think are optional?

If you don't believe in god and divine retribution why should you obey them?

N.B. there are quite a few circumstances where it is illegal not to break at least one of them.

Edited by mSparks
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0