Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

The Black Chamber

December 26th, 2013 - 1:20 pm

The Marine Corps Times reports that Edward Snowden has declared his mission “already accomplished” in a public interview. “Snowden told The Washington Post in an interview published online Monday night that he was satisfied because journalists have been able to tell the story of the government’s collection of bulk Internet and phone records, an activity that has grown dramatically in the decade since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

But Snowden is prematurely congratulating himself. He didn’t finish the NSA. However, Cass Sunstein undoubtedly will. In August 2013, President Obama appointed Sunstein to serve on the NSA oversight panel.

Sunstein’s unclassified NSA reform recommendations are now available on the White House website: Liberty and Security in a Changing World.

In it, Sunstein recommends that a sharp or sharper line be drawn between national security intelligence gathering and personal information. In order to achieve this he recommends a process that will intermediate and pick and choose between proposed programs based on a political cost-benefit analysis.

Sunstein also recommends that the NSA tell the public (and by implication American foes) what it does in the form of a report. Programmers might call such a grant “describe” permissions over NSA intelligence programs, which he calls “transparency”.

[I use "describe permissions" to cover the kind of metadata which allow readers to browse what a program is about, but not the actual data it contains.]

Sunstein says:

legislation should be enacted requiring information about surveillance programs to be made available to the Congress and to the American people to the greatest extent possible (subject only to the need to protect classified information). We also recommend that legislation should be enacted authorizing telephone, Internet, and other providers to disclose publicly general information about orders they receive directing them to provide information to the government. Such information might disclose the number of orders that providers have received, the broad categories of

information produced, and the number of users whose information has been produced. In the same vein, we recommend that the government should publicly disclose, on a regular basis, general data about the orders it has issued in programs whose existence is unclassified.

Will this help? We’ll examine the question in a moment.

Sunstein advocates moving all the curent metadata back to the telephone provider and require them to keep it and thereafter prohibit government from ever storing such data in bulk. “Consistent with this recommendation, we endorse a broad principle for the future: as a general rule and without senior policy review, the government should not be permitted to collect and store mass, undigested, non-public personal information about US persons for the purpose of enabling future queries and data-mining for foreign intelligence purposes.”

These recommendations may have a superficial attractiveness, but in reality they make things worse.

It marks a return to the days of AT& T. What does it matter where the data is stored if it is in principle accessible anyway? This is solving the nonproblem part of the problem. The Federal Government was equally happy in the heyday of AT&T, which stored all the data in one place where the Feds could get at it anyway.

Today instead of a monopoly, there are hundreds of telecomms companies. The NSA has to store it themselves for ready access. Ordering their return would could not be be effected without mandated database standards, software version control, coordinated patches, defined interfaces, and security regs. The private companies would in effect be deputized to store data for the NSA in order to achieve the useless task of making the physical location of the data more politically correct. Making companies store the data would really be to control them.

The New York Times noted that China has been buying up all the bankrupt US undersea cable communications companies.  Will they abide by Sunstein’s recommendations? In the end, information provision and storage will reroute around the US for no gain at all.

But it would still not change the essential arrangement: the Black Chamber in the room above the Post Office. This was and is the architecture of communications intelligence, both in the US and in foreign countries

A black room is part of a telecommunications center (e.g. a post office) used by state officials to conduct clandestine interception and surveillance of communications.  Typically all letters or communications would pass through the black room before being passed to the recipient. This practice had been in vogue since the establishment of posts, and was frequently used in France by the ministers of Louis XIII and his followers as cabinet noir (French for “black room”).

His proposed addition of more layers of oversight evades the basic problem of why current oversight doesn’t work.  It is not that supervisory bodies do not now exist, but they have been remiss and shirked their duties. The controversial NSA programs were all known to the classified overseers and were even visible to Snowden, who we are told had no special access, but that did not keep them from going forward. The question is why.

The failure of oversight lies rather in the bureaucratic incentives in Washington. In particular it may suffer from the ambiguous mission of the FBI, which is not only an a de facto domestic intelligence agency, it is also a law enforcement organization. Intelligence gathering is by nature concerned with what the Minority Report called “pre-crime”. By contrast, law enforcement is by American tradition a post-facto affair.

You have the right to do the crime if you are willing to do the time. But until you actually do the crime you are still blameless. However this distinction vanishes when intelligence and criminal prosecution are vested in the same agency. When you come right down to it, the most important danger to losing privacy is the danger you will go to jail for something you don’t even know is a crime.

Sunstein’s recommendations does nothing to resolve or to separate intelligence from criminal investigation insofar as US persons are concerned. An FBI agent rises on the basis of convictions — those are his incentives. Sunstein’s recommendations about what and what cannot be collected are largely irrelevant if that problem is not addressed.

Feeling safer yet?

Terrorism has made it necessary to the surveil persons communicating with, or commingled with US persons. Hampering intelligence is not so nearly as important as ensuring pre-crime never becomes crime. Sunstein’s recommendations have charted out a process that will cost billions yet do nothing to improve the situation for US persons, though they will be a tremendous boon to foreign agents.

The main structural problems that need to be fixed are the incentive structure among US intelligence agencies. What really matters is the commingling to the intelligence function with the criminal system. Intelligence should be permitted relatively unfettered access if the criminal justice system is not its de facto handmaiden.

This is no longer idle speculation. In Texas, Search Warrants Can Now Be Based on a “Prediction of a Future Crime”, writes the Dallas Observer. There is increasing interest in crime-predictive computer models in California.

The other big problem area that Sunstein’s recommendation does not address is human reliability. The only network worth protecting is the internal networks of the intelligence agencies — and this includes, though we programmers may not admit it — the human network. Snowden, Manning, Hanssen, Walker, Ames were insiders. Adding more insiders of dubious quality to oversee the describe permissions and oversee operations can multiply rather than reduce the risk.

But Washington will never addresses these problems. At least Sunstein won’t. It is always easier to add a new bureaucratic layer and more security theater on top of a problem than it is to resolve organizational incentives. In Washington nothing is destroyed, only accreted.

The Black Chamber will still sit above the post office wherever a government has an intelligence office and a post office. The important thing is to arrange the incentives so that nothing perverse happens in that relationship. Where the post office is actually located relative to the Black Chamber or whether there are clerks watching clerks in the chamber is less important than giving the clerks no cause to embezzle money or frame the innocent.

A Belmont Club commenter once observed that nobody asked whether the USAF could nuke Chicago. Any air force capable of nuking Moscow could surely nuke Cleveland. Shifting around the airbases and adding more layers of oversight to the construction of the SIOP is rather a futile exercise if the basic question of incentives is not addressed. But that is what Sunstein is essentially doing.  Ultimately the USAF won’t bomb Chicago because it’s personnel won’t and have no reason to.

Snowden won’t finish the NSA. But Sunstein might. His recommendations are an actual test of whether US communications intelligence policy can function rationally or whether, like everything else, it is a creature of reaction.  Sunstein’s report does not draw a sharp line between national security intelligence gathering and personal information. He has added more lawyers to the process and increased the complexity of the system. He does not make anything any safer, except for the enemy.

The easiest way to judge a system is to imagine someone we don’t like in charge of it. Let’s imagine Cass Sunstein in charge of overseeing the NSA. Or let the left imagine say, Rush Limbaugh running the show because in the nature of things someone like Sunstein might actually be appointed to an oversight position. And who knows, maybe some right wing Tea Party guy might get the job next time. Can we live with that system? With what it empowers?

It may be more important to separate the intelligence function from the prosecutorial trigger than it is to file down the sight of the rifle.  The challenge is to preserve the intelligence function of the NSA while reducing the coercive effective of such knowledge on domestic and other exempt persons.

It’s doubtful we can stop the march of technical progress.  Consider:

About 5 terrabytes would contain all the text in the Library of Congress. A petaybe is a 1,000 terrabytes. An exabyte is a thousand petabytes. A zettabyte is a thousand exabytes.

But a yottabyte is a thousand zettabytes.  Most of us think Big Data is a couple of terrabytes. The NSA thinks in Yottabtyes. From Wikipedia:

“As part of the Global Information Grid and Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative, the US National Security Agency (NSA) is building a $2 billion Utah Data Center facility to process (not store) yottabytes of information.

To store a yottabyte on terabyte-size hard drives would require ten billion city block size data-centers, as big as the states of Delaware and Rhode Island. If 64 GB microSDXC cards (the most compact data storage medium available to the public as of early 2013) were used instead, the total volume would be approximately 2500000 cubic meters, or the volume of the Great Pyramid of Giza.”

We are dealing with forces and scales that would have been unimaginable a decade ago.


Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.

The War of the Words for $3.99, Understanding the crisis of the early 21st century in terms of information corruption in the financial, security and political spheres

Rebranding Christianity for $3.99, or why the truth shall make you free

The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99, reflections on terrorism and the nuclear age

Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99, why government should get small

No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99. Fiction. A flight into peril, flashbacks to underground action.

Storm Over the South China Sea $0.99, how China is restarting history in the Pacific

Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Don't worry. It's the governent. These guys couldn't hit the floor with a fork. They'd probably forget to pay the electric bill and lose the Great Pyramid.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
EquisFiles: "Moscow would've preferred if possible to exploit Snowden's data for private blackmail of Obama or Obama's criminal aides rather than see it splashed in the papers of no long term use to them ..."

Come, now! Moscow did not need Snowden for blackmail. Is there anyone alive who doubts that the governments of Russia, China, UK, and Lord knows who else have already obtained full details of Barry Soetero's birth, life, college transcripts, passports, sexual history, etc? They probably also have invested in finding out whether there is any truth in the persistent rumors about potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's bedtime preferences. And they could doubtless explain how Harry Reid became a multi-millionaire while serving in Congress. Given the importance of the US, they most likely have also invested in full backgrounds on Justice John Roberts and most of the leading flag officers in the US military.

Face it, that is exactly the kind of information that any government ought to seek on its opponents. Barry Soetero's electoral history suggests that the Democrat part of the Political Class has been accumulating that kind of info on the Insititutional Republicans for some time.

Historical signpost: the US Government was able to keep the secret of the development of an atomic bomb from Vice President Truman, but not from Stalin. It is very difficult for Governments to keep secrets from their opponents; but they are very capable at keeping secrets from their own citizens.

Ask yourself -- why do we read the online UK papers in preference to the New York Times? Because we get better info on the US from an outside source beyond the control of the US Political Class.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
For all the damage that Snowden has done to foreign intelligence efforts [and it is real, albeit most hostile foreign powers have got to have assumed some such was taking place]; he has done the country great service in that now we know that the same efforts are being applied more energetically by all departments of the Federal government [and quite possibly some of the more "connected" states] against the American people for the seizure and maintenance of domestic political power.

When you know that everyone in power, foreign and domestic [those same foreign entities are attacking us too] regards you as a target and an enemy; it removes any illusions about their benignity. Cynicism when dealing with the government is now appropriate and warranted.

This Christmas just past is going to be very different from future Christmases, because by next December we are going to be in a very different world.

Subotai Bahadur.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (67)
All Comments   (67)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
You want a sterling example of the fake conservative, NSA bootlickiing RINO type infiltrating your ranks to spew lies I keep warning you Belmont Clubbers about? Here you go:

https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/416660671988633600

Mr. Mallor seems incapable of comparing Judge Pauley's metadata description with Washington Post's reporting from Snowden documents showing that NSA does in fact collect cellular tower location data 5 billion times a day across this planet, with several million instances in these United States (all 'incidental' of course).

And every NSA abuse is strictly hypothetical. Larry Klayman and Doug Hagmann might have some words for Ace of Spades about that.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-27/nsas-massive-phone-tracking-program-legal-new-york-judge-finds

Judge Pauley says telephone metadata collected by the government does NOT contain cellular tower location data. This is explicitly disputed by the leak from Snowden-obtained files reported by The Washington Post showing the NSA is logging 5 billion cellular locations per day, including 'incidentally' gathered U.S. cellular location data. At no point does Judge Pauley require that the NSA specify just how many such 'incidents' there are per day/month/year, or whether that U.S cellular location data is concentrated in the greater Washington D.C. area and just happens to belong to U.S. Senators, top generals, etc:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/how-the-nsa-is-tracking-people-right-now/634/

Lies, lies, lies. If you cannot trust a federal judge to be accurate on basic matters of fact, how can you trust his jurisprudence? As Angelo Codevilla says, the Ruling Class Consensus is for mass surveillance, and the incompetency of a few NSA analysts tracking Al-Midhar in 1999 and the ridiculous lie that they couldn't figure possibly figure out Al-Midhar was calling from San Diego to Yemen is their trump argument. It's fraud all the way down to the bottom.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_ruling_elite_settles_in.html

Again, it's one thing to argue the Founding Fathers supporting secrecy, and where necessary, closed and off the record Congressional hearings and cabinet meetings. It's another thing to leap from that history to finding that the Founders would've supported a monstrous, 'collect everything just in case you might need it' approach to surveillance. It as just as much a legal abomination as concluding from the general right to privacy in medicine that one has the Constitutional right to flush one's pre-born baby down the toilet or have the child carved up.
(show less)
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
The sad fact is that this trillion dollar charlie foxtrot is a mere patch fix to that other trillion dollar CF called the DHS. If they are not champions of the democratic institutions they are sworn to protect then who? If not the constitution then by what authority?
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
"He has added more lawyers to the process and increased the complexity of the system”

More laws and more complexity require more lawyers. The purpose of lawyers is to make more lawyers have more influence and control.

I wonder if Sunstein knows he is a beard for tyranny.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Um, you ARE kidding, right? See the following comment by cfbleachers...
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
How does one reconcile Sunstein's belief that government should infiltrate private conversations on the Internet, his books "Simpler" and "Nudge", which advocate Big Brother tactics...and his desire to have "stricter" legislation on metadata at the NSA?

A man who advocates intrusion and spying in order to "rework" the First Amendment, who does not like the Second Amendment and has no respect for the Fourth Amendment...believes animals should be able to sue hunters...is to be entrusted as the "guardian" of our privacy rights?

This administration has already shown its instincts toward principled dissent. Crush it with brutal force and illegal overreach.

Sunstein has been at the head of that breach of covenant. It is time to not only rein them in, it is time to investigate and prosecute treason.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
cf,
It’s not like the Federal government hasn't oppressed us before—it just did it more piecemeal. Targets of opportunity. Call to mind the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798, under John Adams, and then when Jefferson (the next prez and Adams' anti-matter in terms of politics), was in power, we somehow managed to get more oppression, that time under the form of the Embargo Act of 1807, which pretty much turned us into (an 1807 form of) a police state. The “Father of Independence/Liberty” filled the country with agents to rustle up “smugglers”.

The next prez, Jefferson’s crony, James Madison, “the Father of the Constitution” no less, got us into the War of 1812 (so bad a mess they couldn’t name it anything particular) and later on, we ended up with the Mexican War and then Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, all three of which were government schemes to spread slavery westward while grotesquely abusing northern states' rights.

Of course, I shouldn’t have to myself rustle up images of Prohibition, or the passage of the laws that created the Internal Revenue System (16th Amendment) or the Federal Reserve Board (a “private” “national” bank that prints up the money we have to use) and so on and so forth. But think of those who first “got in the way” of the Feds in the past: first were the Indians—we essentially had the Revolutionary War partly because Britain was trying to curtail our expansion westward (and because, I kid you not, the Patriots spread the rumor Georgey Porgy the III was a “crypto-Catholic”). Once independent, the Indians got squashed. Relentlessly. The Feds were merciless.

And of course the whole Federal government was also designed to enforce slavery. Slavery was written into the Constitution, and that outrageous Three-Fifths Clause imposed on the free states. So if you were Indian or a slave, the system was rigged against you.

But equally instructive were the events giving rise to the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay’s Rebellion—both of which were examples of a VERY oppressive Federal gov (oppressive in the scale of the time) that it was easily FAR more oppressive than the Brit gov under GIII! Ironic, right?

So, really, one can say (if one is inclined to be cynical) that “the system” was always abusive when it wanted to be and is just now getting around to abusing ALL of us, under the pretext of defending us—sort of like FDR imposing his “Socialism Lite” on the country in order to save Capitalism. And as this column details, now we have the technology to get REALLY oppressive.

What we didn’t have in the 19th century contretemps I’ve outlined above was the insidious Socialist/Communist “religion”. Add that to the acid of “Big Power” in gov and I don’t have much hope for the future.

(show less)
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree. The sainted Eleanor Roosevelt wished FDR to become a dictator. And, he tried valiantly...stacking the Court and being the poster boy for term limiting a President.

The issue, therefore, is not that the government has not attempted to be intrusive, or even dictatorial and evil.

The issue is...we must resist it to maintain the beauty and dignity and brilliance of representative self-governance.

For it is in the fight for freedom from totalitarian instincts that anarchy is put down and liberty breathes free.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Stirring, high-minded, and hopelessly naive. This is the country that twice elected Obama. The news and entertainment media, academia, the judiciary, the K-12 education complex, and the entire bureaucracy are all corrupted and infiltrated by the left. Even the higher reaches of the military are now of suspect allegiance to liberty. Any fight for freedom will, of necessity, be a physical fight with physical weapons. The other choices are all compromised. The first American Revolution was fought by perhaps 10 percent of the population. How many will fight next time?
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Any of these arrangements depend on the discretion of those who run the secret organizations. How they are then run, what they do with the power they have then becomes a reflection on the nation that produced the individuals who run them.

I'd suggest that the NSA is a symptom of a larger problem. When a government agency has power, what limits it other than an institutional respect for law and the goals that they are assigned. I think that the spying and attempt to control the US citizenry is not a mistake, not a rogue agency, but rather it is in fact working as designed.

It is bipartisan, both sides wanting to have control of some segments of the population, and both willing to delegate enormous powers to these agencies to accomplish that.

So the discretion is being used as expected. It is working as designed.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Don't worry. It's the governent. These guys couldn't hit the floor with a fork. They'd probably forget to pay the electric bill and lose the Great Pyramid.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is a story from WWII that applies here.

After the fall of France, two young British officers were told there were a couple of WWI railway guns in storage and they should do an analysis to figure out where to site the guns in order to help repel the expected German invasion of the British Isles. The two officers examined maps, identified the most likely landing beaches, and determined the potential areas to site the guns.

They found a valley within range of the beaches, and with a rail line running nearby. That looked like the best site, since the valley would make air attack more difficult and a suitable spur to the rail line would provide a means to get the guns there. They drove to the area and hiked down the rail line. At the entrance to the valley they were surprised to see a rail spur leading into the valley; the spur had not been marked on any map. Scarcely believing their luck, they hiked down the rail line and found that it went into two large sheds, each of which was large enough to cover a railway gun.

Pleased at this development, they looked through the windows of the buildings and saw …. two WWI vintage railway guns. And not the ones they were looking to site, either.

Then an older gentleman showed up and explained that shortly after WWI the rail spur and the buildings had been built and the guns sited there. Each month a cheque for 10 pounds came in the mail to him, his payment for being caretaker. And aside from that automatic payment, dispensed by some clerk somewhere, no one in the British MoD even recalled the existence of the guns.

I would suspect that original caretaker’s great grandson still gets a stipend to take care of those same guns today….
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Part of the point of having a spy agency is to have an agency that does things that most people are not aware of. One the general public becomes aware of what a spy agency is doing, it is no longer cost effective to keep the spy agency. If I, as a private citizen, know what my government's spy agency is doing and how it is doing it, why should I pay for it?

Of course, there is a certain incongruity between free democracy and an effective spy agency. In theory, the circle could be squared through strong oversight by congressional committees (who are at least elected and function as the People's representatives). After all, Congress controls the purse strings, and it would be wrong if Congress is not informed about what it is actually paying for.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
The problem is simple – a spy network that doesn't tell Congress, or even its Intelligence Committees, what it is doing. The solution is simple – more congressional oversight. If any spy agency fails to report key information on a timely schedule to the Intelligence Committees, it should be abolished. More layers of bureaucracy will only waste money and won't accomplish what abolishing federal agencies can do. The point to abolishing the occasional federal agency is to inspire fear within any spy chief who even considers pulling over the eyes of Congress.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Budget cuts, when wisely applied, function as a purge. Any politicized agency can be purged. For example, Congress may wish to create a new non-political tax collecting agency to replace the IRS. The process of forcing IRS employees to apply for what are essentially their own jobs might make them think twice about letting their agency become politicized. It's a way of “killing the chicken to scare the monkey”.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
EquisFiles: "Moscow would've preferred if possible to exploit Snowden's data for private blackmail of Obama or Obama's criminal aides rather than see it splashed in the papers of no long term use to them ..."

Come, now! Moscow did not need Snowden for blackmail. Is there anyone alive who doubts that the governments of Russia, China, UK, and Lord knows who else have already obtained full details of Barry Soetero's birth, life, college transcripts, passports, sexual history, etc? They probably also have invested in finding out whether there is any truth in the persistent rumors about potential presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's bedtime preferences. And they could doubtless explain how Harry Reid became a multi-millionaire while serving in Congress. Given the importance of the US, they most likely have also invested in full backgrounds on Justice John Roberts and most of the leading flag officers in the US military.

Face it, that is exactly the kind of information that any government ought to seek on its opponents. Barry Soetero's electoral history suggests that the Democrat part of the Political Class has been accumulating that kind of info on the Insititutional Republicans for some time.

Historical signpost: the US Government was able to keep the secret of the development of an atomic bomb from Vice President Truman, but not from Stalin. It is very difficult for Governments to keep secrets from their opponents; but they are very capable at keeping secrets from their own citizens.

Ask yourself -- why do we read the online UK papers in preference to the New York Times? Because we get better info on the US from an outside source beyond the control of the US Political Class.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
...."have already obtained full details of Barry Soetero's birth, life, college transcripts, passports, SEXUAL HISTORY...."
Maybe that's what he meant by being "more flexible" in a second term.
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
The point made above is well taken. SVR certainly knows what Barry Hussein was up to during the 'missing' 12 hours Benghazi went down and before he got on a plane to fundraise in Vegas and wouldn't hesitate to blackmail him using that fact. Since when has any American president made repeated pronouncements announcing imminent military action only to back off in such a bizarre and humiliating fashion, with a foreign opponent's smiling mug placed on the cover of every magazine but here in these United States to spare our Putin-loathing elites some butthurt?
42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed Geoffrey,

We do need to gather intelligence for national security. But talk of putting the cart before the horse, if our targets of our intelligence gathering are really just the political enemies of the ruling class, such intelligence gathering is criminal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our government has apparently been violating our most basic rights of liberty and justice without the least bit of concern or regret, and has been using the issue of national security as a smoke screen for criminal activity.

Furthermore, if we cannot reasonably identify our enemies, as apparently our current leadership, both Democrat and Republican cannot, we got bigger problems than the inability to gather national security intelligence. Our national defense has then become a toothless, albeit ferocious tiger, and we are effectively defenseless against against our real enemies foreign and domestic.

42 weeks ago
42 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All