Mass. Senator Wants to Establish Some Drone Privacy Rules


Wild West in the sky with robots instead of cowboys.

Domestic drone surveillance is an inevitability, and while certain uses of the machines are unlikely to cause any significant issues, there's still the matter of what law enforcement will (and does) do with them. One senator wants to establish some rules. Courtesy of the National Journal:

As the Federal Aviation Administration assesses whether commercial skies are ready for commercial, nonmilitary drones in the near future, some lawmakers are attempting to capitalize on the data-surveillance debate by pushing for preemptive privacy regulations on the still-grounded industry.

Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., introduced a bill this week that would require law-enforcement agencies to earn a warrant before conducting any surveillance via any unmanned aircraft. The bill would also make drone applications include statements detailing the purpose and location of any drone and how any data collected is intended to be used; it would also require the FAA to maintain a website listing licenses issued and other information about approved drones.

"Before countless commercial drones begin to fly overhead, we must ground their operation in strong rules to protect privacy and promote transparency," Markey said in a statement. "This legislation requires transparency on the domestic use of drones and adds privacy protections that ensure this technology cannot and will not be used to spy on Americans."

Drone lobbyists worry that they're going to be singled out and want the rules to be "technology-neutral," which, you know, might not be a bad idea.

Read the full story here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: US Poverty Rate Unchanged

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: http://mobile.avclub.com/artic.....obile=true

    I'm sorry, but WTF? We need another government shutdown to put the FCC in its place.

    1. That reminds me of the radio stations desperately trying to get information to people during Katrina only to be repeatedly interupted by FCC emergency response tests.

      1. Can the FCC even do this? I thought since TBS is a cable channel, the FCC has no jurisdiction over their content?

        Maybe the false emergency broadcast could still be a criminal matter, but I can't see how the FCC should be a part of the discussion.

    2. http://www.hollywoodreporter.c.....ans-653789

      The FCC also argued that Turner could afford the $25,000 fine because of Time Warner Networks division's more than $14.2 billion annual revenues.

      "Today's enforcement action sends a strong message: The FCC will not tolerate misuse or abuse of the Emergency Alert System," Enforcement Bureau acting chief Robert H. Ratcliffe told Reuters and other outlets. "It is inexcusable to trivialize the sounds specifically used to notify viewers of the dangers of an incoming tornado or to alert them to be on the lookout for a kidnapped child, merely to advertise a talk show or a clothing store. This activity not only undermines the very purpose of a unique set of emergency alert signals, but is a clear violation of the law."

      1. The FCC doesn't own the sounds; they're in the public domain. (Or should be, as a government creation.)

        1. I wonder if reproducing police, fire, or ambulance sirens also carries fines?

          1. I thought of that sort of thing... WWII movies, Star Trek episodes, cop shows...
            Anybody remember Emergency?
            "Bee-doo-bip-bah-HONNNNNNNNNK! Squad 51, see the man, corner of..."

      2. The FCC also argued that Turner could afford the $25,000 fine because of Time Warner Networks division's more than $14.2 billion annual revenues.

        Surprise, surprise, surprise, the FCC doesn't know how revenue works.

    3. "The minimum fine for issuing fake distress signals is $8,000, but the FCC increased the potential fine, saying it was because Conan broadcasts to "approximately 99.7 million television households," it was "a willful and repeated violation," and because it believes Time Warner can afford the $25,000 bite out of its $14.2 billion in revenue."

      Corporashuns! Tax the rich! Mark Cuban has billions, so he shouldn't mind...

  2. Drone lobbyists worry that they're going to be singled out and want the rules to be "technology-neutral," which, you know, might not be a bad idea.

    I have a better idea: why don't we make drone rules subject-neutral, meaning that they apply equally to anyone who owns or operates a drone? That way cops, feds, and civilians all have to abide by the same set of rules governing where, when, and how they use drones.

    1. How about both? Require a warrant for any manned or unmanned aircraft to do surveillance as well.

      1. Thumbs up on the tech neutral idea. I can't really think of much that a drone can currently do that a manned aircraft can't -- it's just somewhat stealthier doing it. Privacy laws are already too technology specific, leaving all manner of goofy loopholes for abuse.

        1. That is because govt acts as if the warrant requirement applies to binoculars, cameras, drones, computers, email, clothing, cars, homes, cell phones or land line phones etc.

          It doesnt apply to any of those. It applies to people's right to be secure in their homes papers effects etc.

    2. A state can't tell the Feds what to do, for one.

      For another, there are good Constitutional and practical reasons why the State should be more restricted than private persons.

      If I fly a drone around and see something, I can't use force on you because of what I think I saw or might have seen.

      (As for technology neutral, I think it's a great idea.

      If surveillance X is bad with a helicopter with a human pilot, it should be bad with a drone.

      If X is not bad with a helicopter with a human pilot, asserting it's bad with a drone only works if one can explain why the lack of a pilot matters.

      I don't see the lack of pilots as being relevant to the issue of the State doing it or not doing it; it doesn't matter.)

      1. I totally agree with you, except parentheses should be reserved for concise caveats.

      2. I don't see the lack of pilots as being relevant to the issue of the State doing it or not doing it; it doesn't matter.)

        Well, for one, it costs a -lot- of money to get a pilot's license worth more than a grain of salt...

  3. Before countless commercial drones begin to fly overhead, we must ground their operation in strong rules to protect privacy and promote transparency

    Why is he jabbering about commercial drones w/r/t a bill that is supposed to be about law enforcement drones?

    1. To distract?

      Oh, sorry, rhetorical.

    2. Perhaps you didn't get the memo. I believe a lot of progressive municipalities and districts are either considering rules banning drone use or banning them altogether, with exceptions for law enforcement.

  4. OT:

    In Virginia, exit polls showed that about a third of voters said they were personally affected by the government shutdown, and those who were broke for McAuliffe by nearly 20 points.

    So, Virginia, which is a suburb of DC-- only 1/3 of voters were affected by a government shutdown. That tells you just how fucking tiny an effect the shutdown had. How infinitesimally small the shutdownpocalypse was.


    1. Also, exit polls show Obamacare a non-factor:

      According to the exit polls, only 27 percent of Virginia voters saw the health law as the top issue, and among them, only a bare plurality (49-45) supported Cuccinelli. Far more (45 percent) named the economy.


      At the height of the bad publicity.

    2. Check your geography. Most of Virginia is nowhere near DC.

      Of course this is a correlation vs causation thing anyway -- people in NoVa tend to be more liberal AND are far more likely to be working for the feds or fed contractors.

      1. That doesn't make it any less a suburb of DC.

      2. Which is what makes it a suburb of DC-- in the metaphorical sense.

  5. OT: Thomas Friedman can suck my balls


  6. OT: The next Trayvon Martin?

    At around 2:30am on Saturday morning, McBride got into a car accident near Dearborn Heights, a suburb around Detroit. Her cell phone battery was dead so she went to nearby home to seek help. But after knocking on the door, McBride was killed by a gunshot wound to the head.

    Dearborn Heights police initially told McBride's family that her body was found dumped near Warren Avenue and Outer Drive, but that story quickly changed. Not only are police refusing to release the identity of the man who shot McBride, they're now saying she was mistaken for an intruder and shot in self-defense on the homeowner's front porch. Even if that's the case, and there's reason to believe it's not, the shooter still failed to call 911 after shooting an unarmed woman in the head, instead leaving her their to die. Does that sound like the behavior of a law-abiding gunowner who made a tragic mistake?
    Detroit News reports that police, despite changing the initial story, sent a request to the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office today asking for charges to be filed against the man who shot Mcbride. But that's no guarantee the charges will stick given that Michigan is a Stand Your Ground state. And, as is usually the case with Stand Your Ground, race may have played a role in McBride's death.

    1. Uhh, body moved? I'd say not even close to the next Trayvon Martin.

      1. Information on this case is scant, but according to the local news the cops are saying the body was never moved and she died on the porch.

    2. That's an impressive amount of lies in that last paragraph.

      "Stand Your Ground" means only that there's no duty to retreat in the face of an assailant or threat.

      The idea that "usually" race plays a role is utterly without evidence.

      As is the idea that it has anything to do with "charges sticking", if they're decent charges.

      I don't know the specifics of Michigan's law, but in Florida it's an affirmative defense you can try to convince a judge of.

      It doesn't stop charges, it just ends the trial early.

      If you can convince the judge you clearly were acting in (what a reasonable man would think to be, knowing what you could have known at the time) self defense.

      Makes me wonder how much of it is people like Khalek just wanting us to think that it means that, and how much of is is them honestly believing it because "everyone" told them that and "everyone knows" it...

      Probably mostly the latter, honestly.

    3. "And, as is usually the case with Stand Your Ground, race may have played a role in McBride's death."


      Since the cops refused to release the name of the shooter I am guessing race has nothing to do with it and the shooters connection to the police, everything. Shooter may even be a cop.

    4. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of SYG cases involve intraracial murders (like the vast majority of murders in general). And since when is Stand Your Ground even relevant when the incident took place at the shooter's house?

      1. I would say they're confusing SYG with Castle Doctrine, but it's clear from the link that the author's psychopathy goes far deeper than that.

        1. According to some commentators on the local Fox affiliate, that particular neighborhood is full of Middle Eastern immigrants.

          How would it look if an Egyptian immigrant shot a black woman compared to if a white guy did it?

          1. Egypt is in Africa, so would that even be a racial thing?

            1. You've never heard of a White African?

            2. I hope this is sarcasm because theirs no way you are this retarded.

  7. Does it matter? People who are willing to believe the very worst about their political opponents (i.e. non-liberals are racists), are dangerous as all hell. By dehumanizing the "other" and quickly agreeing that they are immoral, you risk the atrocities of the 20th century, that, if further listed, would Godwin this thread by the second post.

    1. er...18th post?

  8. OT: I'll just leave this here.. loathsome.

      1. Head? You're too kind. Shot in the gut and left to bleed out is more appropriate for someone that evil.

        1. I've been thinking that we need recreate an authentic roman sulfur mine, historically accurate, staffed by authentic Romans, specifically with that guy laboring there in mind...

    1. Thank you. M faith in humanity was still partially intact. And by thank you, I mean fuck you.
      Now I will go mix another vodka and grapefruit juice.

      1. A mind numbing greyhound (or "twisted screwdriver")... excellent choice.

        1. No salted rim?

          1. Just for you...

            1. Everyone loves a salty dog.

              1. Right on... I've heard the term, but didn't know what was in it. I do now..

                1. That salty dog doesn't seem like it'd get me drunk.

                  1. That's because you're a GIRL DRINK DRUNK!!!!


                    I LOVE IT

    2. Oh my god, that's almost as bad as what the evil libertarians did to Cuccinelli.

      Goddamn them, goddamn them straight to hell.

      1. What the hell is wrong with the Penguins tonight!

        1. It's because Malkin can't leave his bullshit culture war bullshit back in bullshit russia.

          1. I thought he may be saving himself for Sochi

  9. Also, here is a big opportunity to make seriously large piles of money. If one can invent a cheap and effective way to protect your property from spying drones, whether LEO, commercial, or creepy civilian, the world would beat a path to your door.

    1. 20mm Oerlikon. Done.

      1. Permitting and zoning permits for a FLaK tower would require a lot of political palm greasing, and might look a little awkward in the back yard... but man, it would certainly boost your home's resale value...

  10. I agree, when law enforcement uses a drone in an operation with a perp they should be able to do so in private, without public scrutiny.

    1. Haha, nice.

  11. Maybe a RFS signal jammer, or a very bright light set to flash when detecting certain frequencies?

  12. You know the problem with drone privacy rules?

    It's like with torture rules. There were already rules against torture--they're called the 5th and the 8th Amendments. ...once you make new rules about torture, all of a sudden they have the legal authority to break the 5th and 8th Amendments right up until the Supreme Court decides to rule against them. That is IF the Supreme Court ever decides to rule against them.

    We already have rules about drones, too; one of them's called the 4th amendment.

    Preemptive privacy regulations?

    Once they made rules about who couldn't torture, guess what? Suddenly there were implications about who could be tortured. We don't need to do that with drone surveillance. If you want to put somebody under surveillance, go get a warrant and show some probable cause like the 4th Amendment says.

    What's wrong with that rule?

    1. In other words they have become accustomed to not being called on their bullshit.

    2. Well, yeah, because lately the cops and the courts, and the NSA, and all the rest of the Government alphabet have been following the 4th Amendment so faithfully...

      1. "Well, yeah, because lately the cops and the courts, and the NSA, and all the rest of the Government alphabet have been following the 4th Amendment so faithfully..."


        You think the rules they make are going to respect the 4th Amendment?

        You think Barack Obama is going to sign something that protects us from drone surveillance? That's never gonna happen! He's the one flagrantly violating our 4th Amendment rights by way of the NSA.

        I'd much rather have them flagrantly violating the 4th Amendment than give them a fig leaf to cover themselves with until the Supreme Court tells them to stop.

        ...if the Supreme Court ever tells them to stop.

        How many times have we heard the president, in recent years, respond to questions about the constitutionality of something with answers about how it's perfectly legal because of some law?

        Is there anything the AUMF doesn't justify?!

        Why give them even more ammunition?

        There isn't anyone in Washington--except for Rand Paul--that gives a damn about our 4th Amendment rights. Or, rather, the only people in Washington that care about our rights are the people who hate them because they're an obstacle to doing what they want with us.

    3. We already have rules about drones, too; one of them's called the 4th amendment.

      Is there anything that's NOT in the 4th amendment according to you guys? It's a paragraph of text, not a magician's hat. How an observation at visible frequencies of something that's not concealed could be a "search" I don't know, but maybe I'm just too closed-minded about the meanings of words or something.

      1. "Is there anything that's NOT in the 4th amendment according to you guys?"

        Hmmm. Well let's see:

        "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

        ----4th Amendment

        There isn't anything in the 4th Amendment about how it's okay to subject people to searches without a specific warrant or to issue such search warrants without probable cause.

        There isn't anything in there that makes any of that okay at all.

        You can pass a law and say it's okay to violate people's 4th Amendment rights, but then if you follow that law, and subject people to searches without a specific warrant or without probable cause, you're still violating their 4th Amendment rights.

        1. An "observation at visible frequencies of something that's not concealed" is not a search. Tulpa will probably disagree with my reasoning because he's gay, but seeing and recording by photograph what can be seen is a first amendment right.

          1. Having a gun is a Second Amendment right, but it's still illegal for the police to use it inappropriately. So, now they have cameras, too? Okay. Doesn't mean they're free to violate our constitutional rights with them.

            And this isn't just about taking photographs; it's also about getting a warrant. At what point did the drone get a warrant? At what point did the drone obtain a description of the particular place to be photographed? At what point was probable cause presented to a judge? Who made the oath in regards to probable cause?

            It doesn't seem to me that drones satisfy any of these requirements.

            Oh, and when I take a photograph of something I can see in public, that might be something like free speech--but I'm not the government.

            And it's one thing if a cop happens to see something, incidentally, in the normal course of his work, but it's quite another for a drone to go around actively searching for evidence without a warrant.

            If they want to use a drone to gather evidence, be my guest. But why can't they get a warrant like they always did before? What about searching people from the sky makes it so they don't need a warrant anymore?

            1. I guess you're saying law enforcement should have to obtain a warrant if they think they have a reason to investigate somebody. Which is a good idea. I would put this under the category of "due process reform", something for the next constitution that we write when we forcefully impose libertarianism on all the stupid serfs.

              With the current constitution, to me a "search" means the physical invasion of a person's person or property, or the use of technology or animals that allow police to find out things that they couldn't with typical human senses. So drug fleabags and infrared are searches, but normal observation is not. The thing about air surveillance is that everyone has the right to access airspace and see whatever they can see from it. I consider airspace to be the same as a common law right of way. Using airspace does not reach the level of going up to someone's duffel bag, opening it, and looking for cocaine, money, or heads.

            2. Does the fourth amendment mean that cops should be even more restricted than the normal behaviors that citizens have the right to engage in, or does it mean that cops should have to get a warrant if they want the power to supersede citizen rights?

              The first one would prevent cops from flying around in helicopters looking at shit, while typical citizens should still be able to. What then would even stop the cops from exploiting the ability of any jackass to tip them off about something so they can get a warrant? The extra restriction on cops would be meaningless anyway.

      2. The Constitution wasn't supposed to be a super long, exhaustive list of things the government couldn't do.

      3. 'I don't know, but maybe I'm just too closed-minded about the meanings of words or something.'

        Yeah, pretty much.

      4. Let's hear your amazing ideas on the Second Amendment again please. Thanks.

  13. lol that will never happen!


  14. This is a thing?

    1. Best comment there;

      "Hope they had time to shave their vaginas."

  15. Adam Kokesh pleads guilty to gun and drug charges

    Adam Kokesh, a Fairfax County gun rights advocate, pleaded guilty Wednesday to various charges associated with an Independence Day incident in which he videotaped himself loading a shotgun in Freedom Plaza, just blocks from the White House.

    Kokesh, 31, was ordered released from the D.C. jail, where he has been for nearly four months , pending a January sentencing hearing.
    A trial had been scheduled for Nov. 18, and Kokesh's supporters had been advocating for jury nullification in his case.

    But Wednesday, standing next to his new attorney, Kokesh pleaded guilty to carrying a rifle or shotgun, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. In a separate case, Kokesh pleaded guilty to marijuana possession.
    Pending a Jan. 17 sentencing hearing, Broderick ordered Kokesh to stay out of the District and said he must report with supervising authorities weekly. The judge also ordered that Kokesh not possess any firearms. Kokesh faces a maximum of more than six years in prison on the combined charges.

    1. What a fucking moron.

    2. What a fucking moron.

    3. They need to rename the Plaza.

    4. Smart move not to bank on jury nullification, certainly not in DC.

      1. Did he expect to not get caught?

        I don't know what he was thinking if his plan didn't include a jury trial and possible conviction...

        1. Awareness?

  16. OT:

    (My gf and I just moved to Western Michigan to raise the little one near cousins and whatnot, and we are staying with her folks while we look for employment and housing)

    I am sitting here totally amazed at the level of attention my (non)in-laws are paying to filling out their American Community Survey from the Census Bureau. I am pretty sure they just measured a room, and are being very careful to make sure that they get all the questions properly.

    My reaction is "Who the fuck cares?" I can't imagine trying with any effort to answer some invasive questions from a totally unconstitutional survey.

    1. I cant imagine not fabricating bullshit answers to fuck with them.

      Most people probably have no clue why you are annoyed, but I completely get it.

      1. When the government tells me to jump I don't say "how high?"

        Everyone knows the proper response is "Fuck you, cut spending."

  17. Joe Biden calls the wrong Marty Walsh, congratulates dude watching TV on being elected mayor of Boston

    Just minutes after the election returns arrived in Boston Tuesday night, Martin Walsh's cellphone rang. It was the vice president of the United States, Joseph R. Biden, offering his congratulations.

    "You son of a gun, Marty!" he thundered. "You did it!"

    The only problem was, it was the wrong Marty Walsh.

    Biden had called the cellphone of Marty Walsh, a former aide to US Senator Edward M. Kennedy who is now the president of Gateway Public Solutions, a government relations firm in Boston.

    At the time, this Marty Walsh said, he was sitting on the couch with his wife at their home in Natick, watching the election results on television.

    The less-famous Marty Walsh said he thanked Biden for his kind words, but told him that he reached the wrong Marty. He offered to help the vice president track down the right one, the one who had just been elected mayor.

    Marty Walsh said he also got jubilant voicemail messages from R.T. Rybak, the mayor of Minneapolis and vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and from US Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the committee.

    Would have been funnier if he called someone totally unrelated to politics.

    1. Oh, God love ya, Marty...

    2. How did Joe Biden ever survive this long? One would think that somebody as stupid has him somewhere along the line collect a Darwin Award.

  18. Normal "expectation of privacy" laws should just apply to drone use. No using the drone to look through gaps in closed blinds, that kind of thing. There is no expectation of privacy for anything that can be seen in plain view from public property, private property that one has the right to be on, or airspace at the applicable altitudes.

    1. The difference is that a drone can hover in a position, altitude, and noise level that allows for a new level of monitoring AMD surveillance, one that was previously unattainable.

      1. I think drone operators should have to receive permission from property owners in order to enter airspace over private property at altitudes lower than conventional aircraft are typically authorized to fly at. That's a property rights issue.

        Position and noise level never mattered to me.

    2. I question whether we don't have any expectation of privacy from airspace.

      How many people expect to be watched from airplanes?

      My friend has a next door neighbor that sunbathes in the clothes she was born with--in her back yard. Big, high, hedges all around her pool.

      She demonstrably does expect privacy in her own backyard.

      Also, if you happen to be flying over her backyard at low altitude, and you accidentally see something illegal, I'm not convinced that's the same thing as flying a drone over the city and scanning everybody's back yard--including hers--without a warrant.

      The 4th clearly states, "No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched". If that verbiage isn't intended to stop the government from arbitrarily searching everybody, then what's it there for?

      1. I expect to be watched by aircraft. I see the weed spotters every once in a while. So I flick them off. I don't have a problem with plain view, accidental or not. Infrared is different.

        Precedent says any amateur photographer can publish photos of your friend's neighbor, as long as the photographer is not trespassing to get them. Professional photographer will have to receive permission from the subject to benefit financially, though. If you don't want to be seen outside naked, don't go outside naked. Your friend must have found out the neighbor does this, somehow. So she's either stupid or horny for your friend.

      2. Tell me more about your friend's neighbor...

        1. Yeah, we really need photographs to judge this situation with totality of circumstances.

      3. Agree with Ken.

        1. I think a "search" in the fourth amendment refers to looking in someone's closed up belongings, either physically or with extra sensory technology. Flying around is more like patrolling from a cop car or on foot or a gay ass Segway, but in the air.

          1. This is not "patrolling". This is the equivalent of having cops follow every single US resident 24x7, 365.25 days a year, whenever they are outside of their home.

  19. This is someone named Jar Jar Binks, and he dies.
    I have no idea what movie this would be from.

      1. "This is someone named Jar Jar Binks, and he dies.
        I have no idea what movie this would be from."

        That little pick-me-up brought a smile to my face...

      2. What's with the other link?

    1. While it's impressive that an unauthorized fan film got Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor to shoot that scene, that Jar-Jar character would never work in a real Star Wars movie.

      Thank God Lucas would never do such a thing.

      1. They Let Lucas make another Star Wars movie?
        Wasn't Howard the Duck warning enough?

  20. Vamos, vamos Houston
    Que esta noche, tenemos que ganar

  21. So as a CA business owner, I now get email feel-good agit-prop from the "Board of Equalization" (dunno how that name cam about, but it is frighteningly appropriate); it's the sales tax collection agency.
    Several weeks ago, I got one asking how the BoE could 'help me'! As you can imagine, there was no answer (GET LOST, you miserable POS and DON'T require 10 pages of reports!)
    Now, there's an invitation to a "no cost" (those taxes are "no cost"?) gathering where the BoE is going to advise me on expanding my business.
    I'm sure there are many other bizz folks here, and I'm guessing that not a one of them would ask a tax collector how to expand their businesses. Am I correct?

    1. Board of Equalisation? That's such a Marxist name I had to go look it up.


      1. My favorite is New York City Department of Health AND MENTAL HYGIENE.

        1. Remember to brush your mind at least three times a day, and floss between thoughts...

      2. "Board of Equalisation? That's such a Marxist name I had to go look it up."
        And I see you found the wonderful propaganda sessions they offer in return to the money I pay the assholes!

        1. I don't know why people around here keep talking about the mask slipping, it came off completely a long time ago, at least in places like CA.

    2. "the "Board of Equalization"

      Well, the title of Ministry of Justice for Social, Racial, Gender, & Sexual orientation Egalitarianism was just too goddammed long...

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.