[HN Gopher] First U.S. ban on sale of cellphone location data mi...
___________________________________________________________________
First U.S. ban on sale of cellphone location data might be coming
Author : pondsider
Score : 374 points
Date : 2023-07-10 15:28 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| throwaway72762 wrote:
| Banning sale just moves the problem. The carriers have already
| mostly stopped "selling" the data by moving the advertising
| analytics and other mining in house and selling access to that
| instead of the raw data. They probably make more money on the
| analytics than just the raw data, win win for them.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| Does wifi calling avoid tower triangulation and does VOIP like
| Google voice hide your calling number from the actual physical
| phone mumber?
| bennettnate5 wrote:
| Nope, not for wifi calling. The moment your phone connects to
| cell towers, they siphon location information to what is known
| as a Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) which collects and
| aggregates location data on phones connected to the cellular
| network.
|
| Theoretically, you could perform wifi calling without any
| connection to a base station, which could then protect your
| location data (assuming you use an IP hiding service such as a
| VPN). But you can't just "turn off" cell tower associativity on
| your phone. They're on whether you want them to be or not--
| short of taking your battery out of your phone or physically
| disabling the baseband on your phone, there's nothing to stop
| it.
| kj4ips wrote:
| > But you can't just "turn off" cell tower associativity on
| your phone.
|
| That's what airplane mode does, because it's not good for the
| cell network if you can be heard by two base stations that
| share bands (and are normally too far away to interfere with
| each other) and easily happens when you have altitude.
|
| You can usually turn on WiFi/BT w/o exiting airplane mode,
| because lower-powered radio devices are typically permitted
| in situations that cell itself isn't.
|
| sim-less phones typically don't maintain association, because
| it costs battery to do so, and they only start talking to
| towers during an emergency call. However, there is no
| requirement one way or the other.
|
| The easiest way to tell is if the clock of a sim-less phone
| drifts over a month or two from something it was sync'd to,
| note that using GPS at all will often sync the clock, and
| some devices will "wake" the GPS module to allow it to keep
| an up-to-date almanac and tracking (the math kind, not the
| surveillance kind) parameters, so it is best to disable
| location entirely, instead of just avoiding using it.
|
| If the phone has been used for a long time with a reliable
| time source available (tower/gps/ntp/etc), it may have a
| pretty good drift calibration, so it may take quite some time
| for drift to be visible.
| gdelfino01 wrote:
| [flagged]
| singleshot_ wrote:
| How is this legislation a reaction to that movie?
|
| Are you suggesting that Massachusetts legislators watched 2000
| Mules, realized that their efforts to throw the election in
| favor of Biden had been detected, and then sought to make it
| impossible to catch them next time?
| r2_pilot wrote:
| It's more likely the parent poster was trying to generate any
| traffic to that site; your comment (and mine) is likely just
| a bonus.
| boopmaster wrote:
| Good. Still not far enough to account for unreasonable search.
| GPS a little inaccurate? Suddenly you're in a data slurping
| dragnet for "standing" in the middle of a Capital riot, while
| you're not really there at all.
| joebiden2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| kornhole wrote:
| Once the lobbyists descend on Mass to ensure a precedent or
| momentum is not started, anything passed may have loopholes such
| as for government or allowing the collection and sale from other
| states or offshore. I implemented countermeasures years ago and
| will stick with them. Hope is not a good strategy, but I support
| the efforts.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _Once the lobbyists descend on Mass to ensure..._
|
| When I first read this phrase, I thought you meant "en masse".
| But then I saw that this is actually about Massachusetts, so
| your phrasing was probably on purpose. Funny multi-word
| homophone!
| euniceee3 wrote:
| So where can I, as an individual looking to do research, purchase
| a data set like this? What about my company wanting to to
| targeted outbound sales, are we able to purchase a data set like
| this?
|
| I see the headlines. I understand there are companies that offer
| this as a service to LEO. I believe the data would need to be de-
| anonymized to be useful.
|
| Who or where can I source data like this from?
| [deleted]
| berkle4455 wrote:
| Nobody sells it to individuals. Sprint sold customer location
| data through a subsidiary called Pinsight. Advan Research,
| Placer.ai, and SafeGraph are some current companies selling
| location data.
| poplet wrote:
| Corporations are first class people
| sweetbitter wrote:
| Well, you could try something like this:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36672217
| johndhi wrote:
| It's a good question. We always hear that it's happening but I
| never see it happening.
| korse wrote:
| I would try entities in the California data broker registry as
| a starting point.
|
| https://www.oag.ca.gov/data-brokers
|
| De-anonymization shouldn't be that tough if you have the cash
| to pay for a handful of data sets that you think are likely to
| contain overlap.
| sweetbitter wrote:
| If you just want to track a few individuals... Enumerate all
| those who possess the data. Now look for data brokers that they
| deal with (as commenter korse said) and recurse. Find all the
| employees of every company in question. Muster a few hundred
| bucks or so, seems to be the market price, and there you go[0].
|
| For research I dunno. You'd probably have to make a deal
| directly with one of these companies, one way or another, so I
| would start by talking to them.
|
| [0] - https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-
| hunte...
| justrealist wrote:
| > I believe the data would need to be de-anonymized to be
| useful
|
| I'm not aware of anyone selling person-level location data.
| Everyone in the ecosystem is far too scared to do that (and
| honestly not clear how to monetize).
|
| It's all about foot traffic patterns and getting demographics,
| seeing what kind of other businesses they visit, etc IME.
| General location business analytics stuff.
| euniceee3 wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/20/opinion/locat.
| ..
|
| This is the article I am building my hypothesis on. If I am
| able to correlate place of business with an out of town event
| like a conference and then further refine with gender and
| ethnic filters.
|
| I understand that companies will perform this analysis on
| your behalf. Can anyone recommend a "reputable" one?
| justrealist wrote:
| I'm not saying it's impossible to put this together
| sometimes, I just don't think anyone is attempting to do so
| at a commercial level. It's really pretty unusual that you
| can heavily monetize the location of a single, real person.
| count wrote:
| Heh, only sort of joking, but this is literally Palantirs
| business model.
| throwaway29281 wrote:
| There is at least one company that doesn't seem afraid to de-
| anonymize https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj454d/private-
| intelligence-...
| uggabuggalives wrote:
| Means absolutely nothing if license plate tracking, biometric
| (facial et al) tracking, financial tracking, and other more
| sophisticated forms tracking, from link tracking (follow your
| social grouping = easily follow you) to drones and beyond.
|
| We'll get none of it as long as vested interests strenuously and
| financially (read: lobbying/PAC-political donations) object to
| the very construct of an implicit right to privacy, and the
| possibility of an explicit right that, say, adds superpowers to
| 4th Amendment is so far off that one sees the fall of humanity on
| the horizon long before any such thing is put to bill.
| NegativeK wrote:
| Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
|
| Progress, even incremental, makes it more expensive for the
| brokers and shows evidence that _something_ can be done.
| ROTMetro wrote:
| I'm still hoping if the 'the government can't bypass the first
| amendment' case that's currently going on over the government
| talking to private companies (social networks) is found to have
| merit it will then set precedent for 'the government can't bypass
| the constitutional right to privacy' via the government talking
| to private companies.
| kj4ips wrote:
| That was the idea of this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-
| congress/senate-bill/126...
|
| Sadly died in committee.
| SergeAx wrote:
| I can't wrap my head around it. Selling location data is so
| obvious violation of privacy (don't even start with that
| "anonymized" BS), that selling and also buying it should just be
| a federal offence right off the bat.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| That's because, the general availability of such data is of
| benefit to the government. Who needs the permission of the
| courts when the data is legally available "on the streets."
| supertrope wrote:
| Laws are old. Wiretapping is a crime. Harvesting web browsing
| history is not. US Mail is legally protected. Email is not.
| Until a law is passed data brokers will ply their trade. Even
| after they will work right up to the legal limit.
| closetnerd wrote:
| Is there anyways to make it anonymous?
| mulmen wrote:
| Technically, yes. Socio-economically, no.
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://archive.is/M7quL
| cosban wrote:
| this link has SSL errors
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Works for me. Where are you & who is your isp?
| wnevets wrote:
| same
|
| This site can't provide a secure connection
|
| archive.is uses an unsupported protocol.
|
| ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH
| 111111IIIIIII wrote:
| Fascinating that this could start in the ostensible haven of
| libertarianism.
|
| Edit: Sorry everyone, I was confusing Massachusetts with New
| Hampshire.
| [deleted]
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Fascinating that this could start in the ostensible haven of
| libertarianism.
|
| You're confusing Massachusetts with New Hampshire.
| 111111IIIIIII wrote:
| Oh my, obviously you're right. Thank you for the correction.
| nneonneo wrote:
| My entry point into this whole fiasco was finding a bug that let
| anyone track anybody with just a cellphone number:
| https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/05/servi...
|
| In this case, the site was selling real-time location data from
| cell carriers, meaning that there was virtually nothing that an
| individual could use to protect themselves (short of using a
| burner or no phone at all).
|
| It's great to see some strong action is being taken here against
| the sale of location data, and I hope the bans can be extended
| more broadly (and to Canada, please!)
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "Krebs went on to cite an official at the Electronic Frontier
| Foundation who said cellular carriers by law are required to
| know the approximate location of customers in the event it's
| needed by emergency 911 services. Whether the carriers are
| permitted to sell or otherwise provide the information to other
| third parties is less clear. Expect there to be much more
| scrutiny about this in the coming weeks and months."
|
| To see this in practice, check out MVNOs offering prepaid
| mobile service. Some will disable certain features unless this
| physical E911 address is submitted by the customer.
|
| What if there were a limitation on how that data can be used.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Krebs went on to cite an official at the Electronic
| Frontier Foundation who said cellular carriers by law are
| required to know the approximate location of customers in the
| event it's needed by emergency 911 services.
|
| IANAL but the RAY BAUM'S act (yes, it's all caps because it's
| a silly initialism) only applies to location data that goes
| "with" a particular 911 call. Not your location _before_ the
| call, nor your location _after_ the call.
|
| So if your cell-carrier is recording your location at all
| moments and persisting it indefinitely, no law was forcing
| them to do that, they are _choosing_ to disrespect your
| privacy for their own profits or laziness.
| [deleted]
| uggabuggalives wrote:
| > (short of using a burner or no phone at all).
|
| Not carrying a phone won't help you.
|
| Pulling the SIM won't help you.
|
| Look around you. See all those cameras? Not just the ones above
| your head in the supermarket that advertise HERE I AM, I'M A
| CAMERA, but every camera on every phone in the hands of every
| person you see can identify you and identify your exact
| location to the meter instantly based on your face and x other
| biometrics.
|
| Everytime you speak, your voice pattern identifies you
| instantly.
|
| Burner phones are a thing of the distant past. The moment you
| speak, the moment the camera "sees" you, your burner phone's
| IMEI is/can be mapped to your identity in double time.
|
| The methods in use today are just way more sophisticated than
| the tech you've read about.
|
| A drone at 20,000 feet can identify you in a crowd of 2,000
| people based on the sound of your heart, your respiration, the
| shape of your head, your ears, your nose, your face, your
| facial profile, the shadow your body casts at x time of day,
| and/or the uniqueness of your gate. Combine them altogether
| with a scant amount of stat analysis and you can't hide even
| with effort.
|
| Think darkness will hide you? Nope.
| LakeBoat wrote:
| Gonna need a source on this. The US has trouble solving
| simple murders when people are present, let alone some sci-fi
| stuff you're talking about.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Maybe in the Metro parts of the USA, but China is next
| level scary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo_FM3mjBCY
|
| It's all possible.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The technology exists but the false positive rate is high,
| most cameras don't actually implement these things and
| there is no convincing evidence that all cellphone cameras
| are secretly always on (though a compromised device could
| be).
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I tend to think of it this way: it's theoretically within
| our technological capabilities, and has been for at least
| a decade. However, it's fractally difficult - there are
| technical challenges, political issues, PR issues,
| principal-agent problems, all mixing together - and
| importantly, there is no strong enough economical (or
| political) incentive to do it. Not when doing a small
| fraction of work, and a shitty job at this, still showers
| you with money while avoiding most of the problems.
|
| An not to push my favorite TV show that doesn't involve
| aliens from outer space too much, but recent advances in
| AI are changing the equation here, making _Person of
| Interest_ even more accurate and relevant than it already
| was.
| bradgessler wrote:
| This is why I think technical solutions alone to privacy are
| mostly pointless. There's 7 billion people in the world--at
| some point (if we haven't already reached it) monitoring all
| of us in real-time will be trivial. Even people who live "off
| the grid" in a cabin in the woods will be trackable.
|
| What's needed is an agreement between all of us, in the form
| of privacy laws, that make certain uses of this data illegal.
|
| In the future if you're caught committing a crime by data
| captured in a manner illegal under these laws, it would have
| to be thrown out and can't be used against you. Corps would
| also be banned from collecting, storing, and using personal
| data in an unlawful manner.
|
| Feels like a pipe dream since there's so much money in the
| industrial advertising complex, but I'm pretty sure that's
| what it will take achieve reasonable levels of privacy.
| uggabuggalives wrote:
| [flagged]
| bilalq wrote:
| Agreed that this is not a problem that can be solved via a
| technical solution. However, I don't think a political
| solution is possible either. Even in the US, police can
| literally get away with murder today. Why would they have
| any difficulty getting away with privacy violations? Big
| Brother is inevitable. All you can do at this point is
| teach children and future generations to live with the
| understanding that they are being monitored at all times.
| This isn't me trying to be edgy or cynical. The genie's out
| of the bottle at this point and it's just reality.
| xapata wrote:
| The way to fight back is ubiquitous public monitoring of
| the state. We should understand that the state is always
| watching, but the state should also be aware that all its
| actions will be public knowledge.
|
| Note the increased awareness brought by widely available
| cameras with immediate upload capability. The commenter
| above implied this is dystopian, but the opposite seems
| to have occurred -- as the public gains the capability to
| surveil the state, it constrains the state.
| handity wrote:
| WikiLeaks tried that, Assange is still in Belmarsh and
| the MSM is still largely allowing him to rot there.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > This is why I think technical solutions alone to privacy
| are mostly pointless.
|
| Technical solutions to privacy are not required to be
| _alone_. They 're required to be _ubiquitous_. If your
| country is an authoritarian hellhole, you encrypt
| everything to help you not get murdered by the secret
| police. If your country has strong privacy protections, you
| encrypt everything to help ensure that it never becomes an
| authoritarian hellhole, and protect you against
| bureaucratic failures as defense in depth.
|
| To invade your privacy, an attacker should have to break
| the law _and_ break the encryption.
| Frondo wrote:
| Life in an authoritarian hellhole almost by definition
| means technology won't save you. If they can haul you off
| when you're walking down the street, who cares whether
| your stuff is encrypted? They'll make something up.
|
| Even if you're innocent, they'll make something up. I
| lived for a year in one of those authoritarian hellholes
| and in that time knew two people who were arrested and
| hauled from station to station til someone paid a bribe-
| these weren't the dissidents either, just some guys. The
| dissident was stabbed to death on his doorstep.
|
| Encryption is good to save us from marketing, from
| megacorps making our lives hell. Laws and norms constrain
| the rest.
| xapata wrote:
| What's the goal of preventing use of these data? Are there
| alternative methods that could achieve the same goal?
| gen220 wrote:
| This reminded me of how MA passed a right to repair law in 2020.
| It led me to google about it, and apparently the NHTSA has
| overruled it [1]. :/
|
| It's good that states are pushing the envelope on digital rights
| - hopefully, this one has a brighter future. I can't think of any
| industry-captured federal agency that has the jurisdiction to
| overrule this one.
|
| [1]: https://www.thedrive.com/news/feds-tell-automakers-to-
| ignore...
| hiddencost wrote:
| They didn't over rule it, they just told people not to follow
| the law.
|
| This leads to an awkward situation that will likely have to be
| resolved in court.
| mulmen wrote:
| This is the laboratory of democracy. States pass a patchwork of
| laws which get challenged in the courts. Law is revised and the
| process repeats. Eventually we understand it well enough to
| pass similar laws everywhere or even nationally.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I find it creepy when I'm visiting a place and I start getting
| spam calls from that area code. It's clear that companies (and
| unsavory ones at that) know I'm not home, and they know where I
| am.
| mulmen wrote:
| Huh, that happens to you? I live in Seattle but I still have an
| Idaho number. Almost all of my spam calls come from Idaho. It's
| especially funny because my iPhone includes the approximate
| area of the calling number and Idaho only has one area code. So
| the calls come from numbers in towns I have never visited.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Yeah, I live in SV but when I visit other parts of CA I get
| spam calls from the local area code. This happens when I have
| not made any phone calls to local numbers.
|
| I do sometimes get calls when I'm at home from these area
| codes, but when I'm traveling my spam calls are always from
| these area codes, which makes it very unlikely it's just
| random chance.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| This is the best thing ever actually.
|
| Every entrepreneur should be made prior to opening their
| business, to get a cell phone from montana.
|
| Then, get a google voice #. That will be the burner for all
| random apps online.
| oefrha wrote:
| Those are likely VoIP calls with spoofed numbers. I never
| answer anything with my area code (from where I was a decade
| ago), those are 100% spam.
| mulmen wrote:
| Yeah that's what I assume. I never answer them either. The
| only calls I get from Idaho are people I already know and
| are in my contacts.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| If anyone is curious, weather apps tend to be some of the most
| egregious and common offenders of this. Obviously people want
| their weather widget to update with where ever they are, and on
| the back end these weather apps (which are just passing you
| freely available NWS data) are selling everything they can on
| you.
| gruez wrote:
| This is a non-issue on both android/ios because they support
| "approximate" location permission for apps.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > which are just passing you freely available NWS data
|
| The Android weather widget gives more localized forecast data
| than the NWS web site which pretty much always locks you on to
| the local airport. Proximity to a great lake means that my
| local weather can be significantly different than the airport
| even though it's relatively near by. It all obviously comes
| from the NWS but they don't provide easy access to everything.
| NegativeK wrote:
| The NWS site may give measurements for the airport, but it'll
| give predictions for the much smaller area you select. It's
| the only site I've found I can trust for Yosemite Valley, for
| example, since I can have visual confirmation that it's
| actually talking about a narrowly defined area. Today, moving
| that patch of land around just slightly will show you
| forecasts that are 10 or 20 degrees cooler than El Cap
| meadow.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| https://www.nwsnow.net/
|
| No ads No user tracking GPS not needed Unfiltered NWS data
| including forecast dicussions
| oefrha wrote:
| Unless you travel all the time, there's no reason your weather
| app needs anything more than one (or two if your workplace is
| very far from home) static city/town/zip code. And most people
| don't travel all the time.
| theptip wrote:
| With localized weather apps available, the precise location
| in town (east vs west say) does make a meaningful difference
| in many places.
|
| For example DarkSky gave neighborhood-level forecasts.
| theptip wrote:
| This was a big reason for Apple's purchase of the DarkSky app I
| believe. Fold in the tech to the native weather app to close
| the security hole of external apps.
| coding123 wrote:
| Well they should ban all data collection except for debt payoff
| data.
|
| And maybe even that should be banned (if someone smart can figure
| out a way to make risks stable without that data).
|
| This entire thing needs its own HIPAA. FTC needs to be put under
| new management.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| "Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a near total ban on buying
| and selling of location data drawn from consumers' mobile devices
| in the state, in what would be a first-in-the-nation effort to
| rein in a billion-dollar industry.
|
| The legislature held a hearing last month on a bill called the
| Location Shield Act, a sweeping proposal that would sharply
| curtail the practice of collecting and selling location data
| drawn from mobile phones in Massachusetts. The proposal would
| also institute a warrant requirement for law-enforcement access
| to location data, banning data brokers from providing location
| information about state residents without court authorization in
| most circumstances.
|
| ...
|
| No state has gone so far as to completely ban the sale of
| location data on residents. The most common approach in other
| states is to require digital services and data brokers to obtain
| clear consent from consumers to collect data and put some
| restrictions on transfer and sale."
| fsckboy wrote:
| the US constitution contains an Interstate Commerce clause,
| which bars individual states from interfering/obstructing
| interstate commerce. Does banning the sale of location data _in
| Massachusetts_ do anything?
| hypothesis wrote:
| Are they being barred from collection/sale in other states?
|
| Did this argument go anywhere with regards to say animal
| welfare laws and out of state farmers?
| fsckboy wrote:
| if vendors from outside states follow the rules for what
| can be sold in CA, then they can sell in CA also; CA can't
| favor its own farmers. Also CA can't control what those
| same producers sell outside of CA, but they can control any
| production within the state.
|
| The only other aspect I think has to do with whether
| federal FDA and Agriculture regulations take any precedence
| over CA, but that's not interstate commerce.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Short version: no. Since Wickard v Filburn, the interstate
| commerce clause has been a blank cheque for the federal
| government to regulate anything at all as it pleases, as the
| case allows regulation of goods down to the level of things
| that are made on and will never leave an individual's
| property.
|
| Long version: probably. Allowing the sale of location data
| would be deeply unpopular among the general public. Under
| stare decisis, the federal government would have a good
| chance at beating the state in a court case, but it would
| still be a risk- why risk the power for an unpopular case?
|
| See also: marijuana legalization and immigration. Arizona
| tried codifying the federal statutes on immigration into its
| own state laws- not superceding, just mirroring. The federal
| government took them to court and won. OTOH, marijuana is
| also distinctly within the federal government's purview, and
| Wickard would apply very easily to pot laws as well... And
| yet, they have done nothing at all, likely because pot is too
| popular to risk a court case (or an election, I suppose).
| pakyr wrote:
| How does this square with broad reaching commerce-
| regulating state laws like the CCPA or CEQA? Also, for
| federal supremacy/the Commerce clause to apply to something
| like this, doesn't the Federal government first have to
| have legislated in this area?
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| > obtain clear consent
|
| In other words bury an acceptance in the ToS nobody reads
| anyway.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _bury an acceptance in the ToS nobody reads anyway_
|
| This is the benefit of incrementalism in policy making. We
| tried clear consent, and it was buried. Now the case is
| stronger for a ban.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Yep, policymaking is largely a process that has something
| in common with erosion. You want a statue of David, the
| other guy wants a statue of Michelangelo, and each of you
| has influence over what the temperature of the rain is.
| Eventually you both end up with a statue of shredder from
| ninja turtles and somehow the guy whose land the statue is
| on is now a billionaire.
| theptip wrote:
| I think consent has proven to be a flawed mechanism on its own.
| GDPR's requirements around legitimate/required processing show
| a way forward.
|
| 1. A site can't require me to consent to unnecessary
| permissions just to use the site.
|
| 2. I can always revoke/delete my data grants and that must be
| transitive (the site has to delete all downstream data it
| shared with subprocessors, and have contractual guarantees that
| they can honor that before sharing any data with them).
| indymike wrote:
| This may be difficult to do at the state or local level since
| most wireless is regulated by the FCC.
| ke88y wrote:
| Why? Pass a law with sufficient penalties (say, $10K) and
| include lawyer fees. This'll result in a cottage industry in
| any state. Enough civil litigation and companies will finally
| decide it's not worth it and MA billing zip codes will be
| excluded from sale of location data. This has worked in other
| industries.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Hmm, so if it passes. Travel to Massachusets, get a compliant
| device and.. profit?
| NegativeK wrote:
| I suspect it'll be compliant carriers, not compliant devices.
|
| And your carrier will know when you're in a jurisdiction they
| need to care about.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-10 23:01 UTC)