June 30, 2008

ALA2008 Privacy Revolution Panel

does any­one care if their library records are being tracked? should they?
ALA OIF has received a grant from the Open Soci­ety Institute/Soros Foun­da­tion to explore the issue of pri­vacy in the dig­i­tal age

Pan­elists: Dan Roth (Wired), Cory Doc­torow (CrapHound), and Beth Givens (Pri­vacy Rights Clearinghouse)

Dan Roth
no one ever talks about pri­vacy in his world unless he asks the ques­tions
the only time it has ever come up that he can remem­ber was in 2005 when a com­pany lost 600,000 employ­ees’ info (Time Warner) — hap­pened to his par­ent org
he talked to cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ca­tions, who hadn’t told any­one; they had lost the info a month before
they said “we’ve only lost tapes 4 times this year“
every­one at work was upset for days
no one ever talked about it again & peo­ple stopped talk­ing about it
and these were jour­nal­ists
how can your reach the pub­lic if jour­nal­ists don’t care?

lit­tle incen­tive for con­sumers to care about pri­vacy — not sure why they should care (except for the peo­ple in this room)
beyond just the ques­tion of will a com­pany get spanked for los­ing infor­ma­tion, will con­sumers use it as a cri­te­rion for which com­pa­nies they will deal with?
some com­pa­nies have said we have bet­ter pri­vacy poli­cies than google — you should trust us
ask.com decided last year that pri­vacy rights would set them apart
– offered askeraser, where users could con­fig­ure what was stored by the com­pany
but this wasn’t mean­ing­ful, and ask is still 4th or 5th in the mar­ket
if you use the google tool­bar, it’s col­lect­ing infor­ma­tion about you — steve ballmer tried to make a big deal about it, but con­sumers didn’t care

cited a sur­vey in which 75% of pri­vacy execs said they don’t share data
how­ever, mar­keters share the info (some even share SSNs), so the CEOs don’t know their com­pa­nies are doing this

the idea of the free econ­omy — free as a busi­ness model
you get some­thing great in return for info about you
they all count on ads being served up to you
thinks there will be an arms race to offer more info about users, which means more col­lect­ing and more shar­ing
this will build up to a point where we’re all com­pletely find­able online
phorm — ad sur­vey com­pany that teams up with ISPs; tracks their users as soon as they log in until they turn off their com­put­ers and serve up ads the whole time
there is no real way to opt out of it
it will be very pop­u­lar and is being tested in the US by Charter

it’s time to decide where we stand on this
if we don’t want to get stuff for free in exchange for data, we need to fig­ure out some way to tell busi­ness that we do care about it and how we want to han­dle it
it all looks hope­less, because it looks like amer­i­cans don’t care
but think about 7 years ago, when only a ded­i­cated group cared about the envi­ron­ment
now more peo­ple care, and the same could hap­pen with pri­vacy
hope­fully we won’t have to wait a decade to find out

Beth Givens
Pri­vacy Rights Clear­ing­house was estab­lished in 1992
two types of pri­vacy — infor­ma­tional pri­vacy and con­sti­tu­tional pri­vacy
they con­cen­trate on the for­mer (ACLU and EFF con­cen­trate on the lat­ter)
lines are blurred in real­ity, but there are too few of us all the way around
pro­vide prac­ti­cal infor­ma­tion about how peo­ple can pro­tect their iden­tity in credit offers, med­ical pri­vacy, gov­ern­ment records, debt col­lec­tion, etc. and from iden­tity theft
librar­i­ans can turn to the PRC for help with ques­tions such as “how do I get rid of all of those credit card offers I get in the mail?”

a few years ago, Sun CEO Scott McNealy said “you have no pri­vacy, get over it already“
he said visa knows what I bought, some­one has my med­ical records, some­one has my den­tal records, etc.
1967 def­i­n­i­tion of pri­vacy — when some­one can decide what infor­ma­tion about them is trans­mit­ted to oth­ers
“infor­ma­tional self-determination“
Canada & EU do a much bet­ter job than US; they have pri­vacy com­mis­sion­ers and we don’t have that (no com­pre­hen­sive data pri­vacy law)
instead, we have the sec­toral approach — a law for this indus­try, another one for that indus­try, etc.
HIPAA isn’t a pri­vacy law, it’s a dis­clo­sure law
it’s a swiss cheese approach and there are lots of holes
Fair Credit Report­ing Act was enacted in 1970 — wouldn’t make it out of con­gress today with the shape con­gress is in these days
gives you a right of access to your credit report
only cred­i­tors, employ­ers, and land­lords can access your credit report — if oth­ers access it, you can sue

Fair Infor­ma­tion Prac­tices — FIPs
when she ana­lyzes an infor­ma­tion bill, she has a men­tal check­list of these things (usage, col­lec­tion, access, etc.) for eval­u­at­ing it
most pri­vacy poli­cies are not really pri­vacy poli­cies at all — they’re dis­clo­sure poli­cies because there’s no omnibus pri­vacy bill on the books
usu­ally in legalese it’s dif­fi­cult to under­stand
throw­ing up your hands and declar­ing you have no pri­vacy is not a valid option
instead, we need to take every oppor­tu­nity to opt out — they have a guide on their web­site
take con­trol of uses of your per­sonal infor­ma­tion
that way, lob­by­ists can’t say to leg­is­la­tors that we don’t need pri­vacy leg­is­la­tion because only a few peo­ple opt out
in fact, let leg­is­la­tors know this is impor­tant to enact

librar­i­ans are the pio­neers — use the PRC resources
we can all do a bet­ter job of mak­ing sure our pri­vacy is more pro­tected, rather than less pro­tected
put books like Cory Doctorow’s Lit­tle Brother — as well as non­fic­tion — promi­nently on your shelves and help guide peo­ple to resources
encour­age users to visit the non­profit advo­cacy group websites

Cory Doc­torow
when we say do we need to care about the pri­vacy of our patrons in light of the fact they’re already giv­ing away their infor­ma­tion on social net­work­ing sites, at least sn users are decid­ing when to give out their per­sonal infor­ma­tion
how can you say info is pri­vate if other peo­ple know it?
well, we have pri­vate but secret acts (going to the bath­room, hav­ing sex) — this is no different

the fur­ther up the lad­der you go and the higher up you are, the more power you have to selec­tively reveal infor­ma­tion
the lower you go, the less power you have to hide your info

is this because of bureau­crats or our tech­nol­ogy?
why do we enter the skin­ner box? go online and give away our infor­ma­tion?
the sys­tem archi­tects cre­ate the sys­tem, but oth­ers cre­ate the norms for us just giv­ing away the info with­out think­ing about it

lon­don is ground zero in the pri­vacy wars
wanted to use rfid passes instead of paper tick­ets — con­vert every­one over
gave dis­counts to new rfid users by tripling the cost of paper tick­ets
same thing with gro­cery loy­alty cards
aimed at peo­ple with the least choice

thinks there are busi­nesses who have manip­u­lated the field
this has raised a gen­er­a­tion where this is now par for the course and this hap­pens all day long, and not just in com­mer­cial set­tings
it’s become the norm because you have to know what you’re doing to turn off the log­ging
rfids are set up so that users have no abil­ity to con­fig­ure, read, or block them
ven­dors say this would raise the cost of rfid, which is true — the same way seat­belts, brakes, etc. raise the cost (a com­pany couldn’t offer a car today with­out those things)
it wouldn’t be a mar­ket cor­rec­tion when that com­pany went out of busi­ness — reg­u­la­tors would take care of it

cre­ates a cli­mate where we have less respect for our own pri­vacy
also where mali­cious peo­ple can read your data and decide what to do with it

libraries are the last bas­tion of DRM — they’re not treated as first-class cit­i­zens
DRM — con­sump­tion of mate­r­ial — a word-by-word capac­ity to track what peo­ple are read­ing
we should be deeply skep­ti­cal of these tech­nolo­gies
libraries have a moral imper­a­tive to block tech­nolo­gies that expose user data (embod­ies a snitch)

an infor­ma­tion econ­omy based on access­ing infor­ma­tion isn’t viable
it’s a busi­ness model that no one wants
no one woke up this morn­ing ask­ing to do less with their music

at the end of the day, this sur­veil­lance under­mines our per­sonal secu­rity and our national secu­rity
sur­veil­lance soci­eties are ones where peo­ple don’t trust each other
they under­mine our secu­rity because it makes our haystacks big­ger with­out mak­ing it eas­ier to find the nee­dles
our infor­ma­tion offi­cials had every­thing they needed to know about 9/11
the mad response since then has been to make the haystacks big­ger
we col­lect the infor­ma­tion to fill the gov­ern­ment data­bases to make it harder for the gov­ern­ment to find the crit­i­cal info
can’t spot the impor­tant stuff in the unim­por­tant stuff we’ve collected

in the remote rail sta­tions, we’ve replaced the guards with cam­eras, which are only foren­sic
when you have that many cam­eras, no one watches them
they don’t pre­vent crimes — they only help you solve them after­wards
cctv is not a means to secur­ing soci­ety
crack addicts who mug and kill you for your cell phone don’t have long-term plans and cctvs don’t help with those scenarios

these sys­tems that we build that pro­vide access to this infor­ma­tion will deter­mine the soci­eties we build in the future
our deci­sions as infor­ma­tion pro­fes­sion­als will deter­mine whether our descen­dents curse us or praise us

Q&A

Q: what is at stake here overall?

Beth: there’s a huge amount at stake. if we don’t some­how suc­ceed in get­ting our mes­sage across about speak­ing out and pro­tect­ing our pri­vacy, we’ll lose it. so much data is gath­ered about us, and pro­files are being built now; the movie “Minor­ity Report” is a great exam­ple of ads being tai­lored to you. wor­ries the most about when all of these cam­eras are out­fit­ted with bio­met­ric read­ers that iden­tify the shape of our face, which hooks into the dri­vers license data­base — this is very pos­si­ble and is high on her list to worry about. wor­ried we’re head­ing in that direc­tion with­out ask­ing the ques­tions and putting up the barriers

Dan: we’ve seen some of this already — what hap­pens when our health records can be read by insur­ers and employ­ers? what hap­pens when you apply for a job and they can read those things? when you can’t get a dri­vers license because of what they know? when you can’t get mar­ried? once all of this info is out there, and if we don’t care, what hap­pens when we develop into a nation of niches? you’re the kind of guy that shops for this one thing? as we move away from mass cul­ture to atom­iza­tion, how does hav­ing this pri­vate infor­ma­tion out there affect us?

Cory: one of the impor­tant things to recognzie about this data acqui­si­tion is that it’s like ura­nium. you can buy it on ama­zon for your sci­ence project, and it’s per­fectly legal. but you can refine it into plu­to­nium and this is a prob­lem. a lit­tle of your pri­vate infor­ma­tion is one thing, but you can quickly amass a lot of pri­vate infor­ma­tion in the pub­lic domain with­out even know­ing it. the inter­net will never unlearn what paris hilton’s gen­i­tals look like. these things never go back in the bot­tle. you will never be able to not look up what CEOs of com­pa­nies were post­ing on usenet in the 90s. as we con­front the poten­tial of our soci­ety in 20 years, all of this info will be like smog and we won’t be able to destroy it

dan: we’re in a golden age right now where most com­pa­nies don’t know what to do with all of this info they have. they just keep col­lect­ing it, but at some point they’ll fig­ure it out. if some­thing is going to hap­pen, it has to hap­pen now

cory: or it’s like the breakup of the soviet union, where you could buy the plu­to­nium eas­ily. cited a sit­u­a­tion where sell­ing blade servers came with the info on it. you’re load­ing the gun and hand­ing it to suc­ces­sors forever

beth: rec­om­mends the “Dig Dirt” report/survey about how employ­ers are using social net­work sites and other infor­ma­tion as a hir­ing tool (more than 50%) and mak­ing value judg­ments about indi­vid­u­als and keep­ing this to them­selves. doesn’t apply to pri­vacy or employ­ment laws. old laws are inad­e­quate for cov­er­ing this kind of thing. let young peo­ple know, even though it might not do any good because they may not listen

Q (Jes­samyn): these data­bases exist — we know that. at what point do we either have to say the horse is out of the barn or that there are assur­ances about things hap­pen­ing? if we’re just wait­ing for the proces­sors to hit the point where they can use the data, do we need a new strat­egy about seri­ous top-down leg­is­la­tion? is there any pur­pose to doing some­thing other than top-level stuff

cory: calls it “turn­ing for­ward the clock,” not “turn­ing back the clock.” we’re going to reg­u­late how this is used and teach peo­ple how to use it. respect­ing the awe­some power of infor­ma­tion and reg­u­lat­ing this activ­ity. could triv­ially build a skin­ner box that rewarded peo­ple for pro­tect­ing their pri­vacy and in fact justin hall is work­ing on this with pmog — the pas­sively mul­ti­player online gam­ing (http://pmog.com/)

dan: look­ing for the trans­parency side. if we care about this as a soci­ety, we have to keep at this and find ways to make it hap­pen. use game the­ory to your advan­tage to encour­age peo­ple to do this. con­sumers don’t have any idea why they should care about this and you have to teach them why they do

beth: very few peo­ple take advan­tage of the oppor­tu­nity to view their credit reports. try to get the right of access into law now, because it doesn’t exist. PRC tried to do this last year but failed in cal­i­for­nia because of the infor­ma­tion and credit indus­tries. couldn’t get past the com­mit­tee hear­ings. have to keep try­ing. count­ing on a “data valdez” doesn’t work because we’ve had one after another (their web­site keeps track of these secu­rity breaches — a run­ning tally). when more peo­ple real­ize that the deci­sion made about them (job, insur­ance, etc.) was caused by per­sonal infor­ma­tion that is out of their con­trol, it will help ener­gize them, but it’s dif­fi­cult. cal­i­for­nia is a trend­set­ter in terms of leg­is­la­tion, but the infor­ma­tion bro­ker indus­try is fight­ing & block­ing this legislation

cory: other tips and tricks that make it eas­ier to game the sys­tem — skipxxip (sp?) gen­er­ates fake logins for reg­is­tra­tion sites. every time he gets a postal solic­i­ta­tion, he writes “deceased” on it and sends it back

Q kate shee­han (blog­ger): about 8–9 years ago, Wired ran an arti­cle about how to be invis­i­ble online. is it even fea­si­ble any­more? is it even a good idea to try to make your­self invis­i­ble or to man­age it? how do you buy a house then?

beth: “how to be invis­i­ble” book. can’t be invis­i­ble because then some­one else has to man­age your mail. that’s why she’s a pub­lic activist. remem­ber the unabomber? he owned the cabin so records showed that and even he couldn’t be invisible

cory: thinks it’s just bad tac­tics; shift over the last few years is that “green can be glo­ri­ous” — doesn’t involve suf­fer­ing or eat­ing food that tastes bad; being green can actu­ally help us per­son­ally — there’s an imag­i­na­tive oppor­tu­nity to come up with cool ways to make pri­vacy luxurious

dan: would like to see a point where you can fig­ure out what is being trapped and what you’re giv­ing away. try to read the pri­vacy poli­cies of a lot of web­sites and they’re incomprehensible

beth: that’s why the right of access would be very valu­able — to see what is held about us

dan: the one story he did about pri­vacy, he talked to HP’s chief pri­vacy offi­cer. she described the amount of work HP does to keep user data pri­vate in the EU, but not in the US because we don’t require it. wasn’t a no-brainer to just do it here since they were already doing it there

cory: defaults mat­ter. if a router came with log­ging off by default (or apache) and you had to explic­itly turn it on, we’d have a very dif­fer­ent world. push leg­is­la­tion and best prac­tices. fire­fox could do more to sur­face what infor­ma­tion about you is being given away. linux could expose info. the open source world in par­tic­u­lar could help with this by set­ting the defaults to off. there’s a really good inflection/leverage point there by just talk­ing to some geeks in the right way

Q: as librar­i­ans, peo­ple come into our insti­tu­tions, how do we con­vince our users that pri­vacy is impor­tant in the age of face­book? what do we do?

cory: friend of his is a hacker who built the “hacker­bot” — a robot sat on the floor on the ground with a router on it and it would sniff the area net­works and grab unen­crypted pass­words. it would roll up to your feet and show you all of the pass­words you just trans­mit­ted; a library that had over the door a printer that showed all of the info you dis­closed would be very pow­er­ful. hav­ing slider bars that show red/green for amount of disclosure

beth: described a game that could be used in libraries. it’s a town square where you’re chal­lenged about pri­vacy data and ques­tions you can answer. can come up with cre­ative ways to edu­cate and inform peo­ple; use the library as a launch­ing pad

cory: in a few years, teach­ers will be able to dat­a­mine info about their stu­dents as a very instruc­tive lesson

dan: require that every­one check out cory’s books

Q kate shee­han: we’re very con­cerned about pri­vacy, so we don’t let users see every­thing they’ve ever checked out. we’re pro­tect­ing their pri­vacy, but they want to access that info. her library has the abil­ity for the user to turn this on so they see it and staff don’t, but most libraries don’t have that. how do we bal­ance this?

cory: demand of ven­dors ways they col­lect infor­ma­tion for only the user to access. maybe the data resides only on their library card and not on your server. stuff can live on the edges — doesn’t have to live in the mid­dle, and it can be encrypted. it’s utterly con­ceiv­able that if there was demand for it, ven­dors would pro­duce the solutions

cory made an explicit state­ment that all of his remarks are in the pub­lic domain!

q: how do we argue for this when pri­vacy pro­tec­tions cost money?

beth: could try scare tac­tics. the more you col­lect, the more the risk it can get breached. larry ponemon (sp?) has cal­cu­lated the cost of data breaches ($100–200 cost per name per data breach). the les­son many of these enti­ties have learned is that if we hadn’t col­lected all of this stuff, we wouldn’t be in trou­ble now. don’t keep data for very long

cory: has a friend who described a con­ver­sa­tion with a self-defense instruc­tor. what do I do if I’m in a dark alley when two guys are fol­low­ing me and I’m alone? answer — don’t go to dark alleys alone

q: as a con­sumer, i was bet­ter able to man­age my pri­vacy before 9/11 and before I bought a house. now my info is every­where. how do I man­age this?

beth: in terms of prop­erty, cre­ate a liv­ing trust and don’t put it in your name — this will pro­tect you from real estate ledgers. start young on this one. this is good in gen­eral — just have a PO box — so that it becomes habit­ual. this is why work­ing with young peo­ple is so important.

q: but tra­di­tional things like bank­ing require a phys­i­cal address and a Social Secu­rity number

cory: need to take con­trol of your tech­nol­ogy; jail­break­ing drm; take con­trol of debate & learn to speak intel­li­gently about this; danah boyd shows a slide on online pre­da­tion and how rare these occur­rences are — know­ing how to speak about the issue is key. third thing is régime change — if you don’t par­tic­i­pate in the elec­toral process, it will par­tic­i­pate in you

q: one of the big wor­ries we’re fac­ing today is that after 9/11, there is increased access by gov­ern­ment to library infor­ma­tion. there is a cer­tain logic to the idea that we’ll be safe if we just give up our pri­vacy. how much safer would we really be if the gov­ern­ment knew every­thing every­one was reading?

dan: thinks peo­ple are start­ing to say that all of data col­lec­tion this hasn’t helped us at all

cory: safety and secu­rity are not pla­tonic uni­ver­sals. you can only be safe by def­i­n­i­tion from some­thing. if you’re going to be made more safe from ter­ror­ists, you have to be less safe from gov­ern­ment. this is at odds with the found­ing prin­ci­ple of this coun­try. if you believe the for­mer, you should go back to the soviet union. say­ing we are tak­ing away your free­dom to keep you safe from ter­ror­ism is a fun­da­men­tally unamer­i­can premise

q: we have this huge cult of celebrity that every­one feeds into where it’s a cool thing to divulge this infor­ma­tion. there has to be a shift for librar­i­ans to edu­cate peo­ple if there’s a drive to not give out that info. would need a celebrity cam­paign to counter the norm

beth: that’s a great idea, espe­cially for the long-term consequences

dan: saw this hap­pen in a story about a secre­tive bil­lion­aire. guy pur­chased a com­pany and never talked to the press. his daugh­ter had a blog­ging site, though, where she talked about her par­ents and the fights they’d get into, what she over­heard them say­ing. it revealed a lot about this guy and it enabled dan to approach him to say here’s what I know about you. that blog *stopped* as soon as the guy found out about it

q: trans­parency has ebbed and flowed across his­tory and we’ll never have absolute pri­vacy. we need to assert pos­i­tive rights for pri­vacy. how do we watch the watch­ers and take care of the pos­i­tive ways?

cory: his daugh­ter is 5-months old, but their first game will prob­a­bly be 10p for every cctv you spot. wants to make a cam­paign of post-it notes with closed eyes on them that peo­ple can put on cctv cam­eras — “don’t watch me”

jes­samyn: demys­ti­fy­ing the media and telling peo­ple that it’s okay to not always believe the news­pa­pers and magazines

q: it would be use­ful for us as a com­mu­nity to look at the suc­cesses of the green rev­o­lu­tion and how it evolved, maybe pig­gy­back on it. is our “incon­ve­nient truth” “infor­ma­tion foot­prints” instead of “car­bon foot­prints?” get our own al gore and make our own movies. let’s build on that

dan: will have a prob­lem con­vinc­ing peo­ple not to opt-in to things they use every­day, though

cory: there’s a third option between refusenik and throw­ing up your hands — take con­trol of your habits; use “google com­man­der” fire­fox exten­sion; in the library, we could redi­rect doubeclick URLs to 0000 so that library users are not tracked

dan: dig­i­tal van­dal­ism would make this info use­less — a friend clicks around aim­lessly to delib­er­ately cre­ate false data

q: how can we work bet­ter with our IT peo­ple? and our ven­dors? what would be per­sua­sive to the geeks who design our systems?

cory: is a for­mer sysad­min and geeks believe really strongly in pri­vacy for them­selves. if you can get those peo­ple to expand the uni­verse of peo­ple whose pri­vacy they want to pro­tect beyond them­selves, they can under­stand it’s part of their mission

q: the EFF has the Tor pro­gram that can be down­loaded for free to anonymize web surf­ing and can be used on library com­put­ers, too, if your IT peo­ple install it

cory: it was orig­i­nally intended for naval communications

http://privacyrevolution.org/

- addi­tional live­blog­ging of this ses­sion at the Loose Can­non Librarian

Be Socia­ble, Share!

1:27 am Comments (7)

7 Comments

  1. […] ALA2008 Pri­vacy Rev­o­lu­tion Panel does any­one care if their library records are being tracked? should they? ALA OIF has received a grant from the Open Soci­ety Institute/Soros Foun­da­tion to explore the issue of pri­vacy in the dig­i­tal age Pan­elists: Dan Roth (Wired), Cory Doc­torow (CrapHound), and Beth Givens (Pri­vacy Rights Clearingh… […]

    Pingback by Books and Magazines Blog » Archive » ALA2008 Privacy Revolution Panel — June 30, 2008 @ 4:46 am

  2. […] intro: should we still care about online pri­vacy? the ala pri­vacy rev­o­lu­tion project is par­tially funded by a grant from the soros foun­da­tion to pro­mote dis­cus­sions about library pri­vacy, moti­va­tion came form a res­o­lu­tion from the intel­lec­tual free­dom coun­cil sev­eral years ago. pan­elists: beth givens (founder/director of pri­vacy rights clear­ing­house), cory doc­torow (author/blogger), and dan roth (wired senior writer). live­blog­ging and ask­ing ques­tions — jes­samyn west and jenny levine. […]

    Pingback by privacy: is it time for a revolution? « info-mational — June 30, 2008 @ 8:17 am

  3. […] Jessamyn’s blog post about the ses­sion, Jenny Levine’s post at Shifted Librar­ian, Kate Sheehan’s post at Loose Cannon […]

    Pingback by Jason Puckett.net » Blog Archive » Home from ALA Annual 2008 — July 2, 2008 @ 4:09 pm

  4. […] top­ics), the always-interesting David Lee King, the ALA Games & Gam­ing Inter­est Group meet­ing, Pri­vacy Rev­o­lu­tion Panel, etc.  If you were there, I’d love to hear some of your thoughts in the com­ments, or link to […]

    Pingback by Busy few weeks « MCLC Library Tech Talk — July 9, 2008 @ 12:43 pm

  5. http://www.flickr.com/photos/26259566@N04/2653318914/

    Thanks for allow­ing me take the pic­ture it was a plea­sure meet­ing you in person.

    Comment by Brannigan — July 9, 2008 @ 10:31 pm

  6. […] from Pri­vacy Rights Clear­ing­house, and  Cory Doc­torow from Boing Boing. Also on hand were blog­gers Jenny Levine and Jessamyn […]

    Pingback by ALA 2008 - Privacy: Is It Time for a Revolution? « ellie <3 libraries — July 10, 2008 @ 12:59 pm

  7. […] book­marks tagged dirt surf­ing ALA2008 Pri­vacy Rev­o­lu­tion Panel saved by 5 oth­ers     XxPostal­DudexX book­marked on 07/16/08 | […]

    Pingback by Pages tagged "dirt surfing" — July 16, 2008 @ 3:14 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.