Encryption

Republican Candidates All Agree: Apple Should Be Obligated to Work for the FBI

Rubio, Cruz accept claim that the encryption fight is over "just one phone."

|

Stop thinking so different!
Credit: Dennis Goedegebuure / photo on flickr

The narrative coming out of tonight's debate will be all about Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz going hard after Donald Trump and actually landing punches, and whether it's too late to make a difference. Also, CNN's Wolf Blitzer pretty much ruined the debate every time a fight got interesting by throwing the discussion over to tiresome paternalistic Ohio Gov. John Kasich to blather away. Ben Carson was also there, like a palate-cleansing sorbet between subjects. He was always the last one asked a question on an issue (if he was asked anything at all).

Those waiting for the candidates to be asked about the fight between FBI and Apple over whether Apple can be forced to assist the government in weakening the security of dead San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook's iPhone had to wait a very long time. It wasn't until nearly the end that it was brought up. All the candidates except for Trump weighed in (but he had previously declared his support for the FBI and called for a boycott of Apple).

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, none of the candidates believed there are any larger issues with what the FBI is asking. Both Rubio and Cruz say that Apple should cooperate and have accepted the claim that this order was just for this one phone. Apple has argued that what the FBI is asking (to weaken the level of security on the phone so that the FBI can attempt to brute force Farook's passcode without risking the phone deleting its contents) is not a one-time request at all. Indeed, the feds want Apple's help to access several other phones besides this one, according to the company.

There is absolutely no reason to think this is going to one-time request. It's deliberately putting on blinders about the bigger picture. Rubio even repeated the Department of Justice's talking points that Apple only cares about its branding, concluding his response with the applause line, "Their brand is not superior to the national security of the United States," which utterly ignores the potential national security issues that could be a result of Apple actually doing what the FBI asks.

Apple actually points it out in the introduction to their legal response to the judge's order that they filed today:

Since the dawn of the computer age, there have been malicious people dedicated to breaching security and stealing stored personal information. Indeed, the government itself falls victim to hackers, cyber-criminals, and foreign agents on a regular basis, most famously when foreign hackers breached Office of Personnel Management databases and gained access to personnel records, affecting over 22 million current and former federal workers and family members.

Nobody engaged with the First Amendment argument that Apple is being compelled to "speak" by being ordered to write code requested by the government. Cruz raised the Fourth Amendment and that the order is in full compliance, but this isn't really a Fourth Amendment issue. Nobody is arguing that the government doesn't have the authority to access the data. But Apple isn't the owner of the phone, the county of San Bernardino is. Apple is being drafted to do work for the government (work that has the potential to compromise everybody's security).

Carson said things, and nobody cared. Nobody notices what Carson says until he gets weird (there was something about fruit salad at some point). Kasich got creepy by fleshing out something he mentioned about encryption in a previous debate: He thinks the president, Apple, and security folks should "sit down in a back room" and hash out all of our privacy issues without the public even knowing about it. Mind you, there have been "back room" meetings on this all along and it became public because Apple said no and the FBI had no way to compel them other than to go to the courts. The idea that the government should secretly be deciding how much cybersecurity Americans should be allowed is flat out bonkers, so we should all be glad he's not a serious candidate.

Advertisement

NEXT: Deposing Tim Cook

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. In the 3 minutes it took me to read this, no comments? Ok, I’ll go.
    Remember, they are trying to get the Republican nomination. The Republicans preach against big government unless it’s the military or the police. Then, government is good and OMG TERRORISTS!!!

    1. Quiet, ‘batin. Then sleep.

      1. TMI

  2. I called it. Upgrading from an Apple ][e was bullshit.

    1. WOW the IIe. My first coding was in basic on a two e. Doesn’t even have a hard drive. Had to lead DOS from a floppy. The real floppy, not the little hard cased things.

    2. I had a ][c! So much oregon trail.

      1. I had forgotten Oregon Trail until now. WOW. Did you do Liza?

        1. Ooh ooh what was the pirate sword fighting one? Swashbuckler?

    3. My first coding was in FORTRAN on an IBM mainframe. That was so long ago it was actually still THREETRAN.

      1. Same here. Then we moved up to a 1 MIPS DEC. The engineering college put in two modems–one for faculty and one for students–so that I could dial in, edit my FORTRAN at home, then upload it and run it on the DEC, and lastly print the results at home. What will they think of next?

        But the government invented internets, ya know.

      2. I wonder whether we coded on the same IBM mainframe. Did you go to a university that overlooked the border with Mexico.

        1. Sorry I missed your comment. Yup, Texas College of Mines, class of ’84

      3. My first programs were in FORTRAN on an IBM 1620. How many remember that machine?

  3. The solution is to give control over the corporations. That way they won’t do the government’s bidding…oh wait…

    1. …give *government* control…

  4. Trump’s proposed Apple boycott is brilliant. It is totally voluntary, market-based and suggests he thinks the government doesn’t have the authority to force Apple to crack their phones. Obviously a boycott will have no effect.

    1. TrumpPhones coming to Best Buy winter 2016! Go go boycott.

    2. You can boycott Apple because they are not complying with the FBI, or you can boycott them because they make phones whose security can be compromised by their manufacturer. I think the latter is a better reason to boycott them.

  5. steve jobs wouldn’t put up with this crap.

  6. You are wrong Nick. Trump has very good advisers. He is tapping into an electorate that is never polled never exposed or ever even considered. This electorate is turning out in droves for him. The reason? No one has ever appealed to the trailer park before. Trump does. And they mostly never vote. Know they are voting. This is a good thing. Regardless of what u think of Trump. People expressing their right to make a choice is good.

    1. That’s a lot of trailer parks.

    2. And what exactly do you think is wrong with trailer parks?

      1. Well, for one thing — they’re tornado magnets.

  7. for reference see sling blade. Robet Duvall’s character is coming out of the woodwork to vote for trump. Ive seen it. its legit.

    1. Oh, well now I’m not worried at all.

    2. Hey! I said get out of my house! That goes for cocksuckers and retards!

  8. The natonal security agency hacked the iphone 3 (which I had first read about in Forbes, so it’s not a big secret.) They must be employing better coders @ Apple these days.

    1. In the later tech on Apple’s phones (A7 and up), they’ve sandboxed data at hardware level with hardware access control. Ditto for Touch ID – its a unique mempool not physically accessible beyond interface controller itself.

      To be honest, I am genuinely surprised there is no NSA crack engineered at h/w level on the devices.

      1. Both the FBI and the NSA could almost certainly crack these particular models of iPHone if they wanted to, but it would be a significant amount of work. I would also be surprised if the NSA hadn’t acquired Apple’s source code and signing keys, but that’s a capability they probably don’t want to reveal.

        I suspect when the FBI made the request, they didn’t expect any controversy: it’s a government owned phone, it was a heinous crime, and complying with the request would have been easy for Apple. And given that Apple is fixing the hardware on later phones and we had legislation on track to protect the right to encrypt phones, why would Apple kick up a fuss about this?

  9. Shyaaiiite. The only thing the GOP wants to debate on this issue is whether or not Apple should get a kiss and a short cuddle when the gov’t is done.

    1. All this fight over the contents of a dead man’s phone that is obviously filled with dirka dirka jihad babblings. I.e ‘Let’s throw out the 4th Amendment, so’s we can Monday morning QB and pretend it really saved a life.’

  10. Don’t the D candidates agree?

    1. Asking them might prove embarrassing, depending on the final outcome. So the Media just won’t ask.

  11. As to the topic. Appple will never cave. So moot point.

  12. my confindence is bourne of faithe but i dont think they will cave

    1. Meh, the new Bourne movie looks lame. Should’ve stopped with Ultimatum.

  13. Unfortunately if you said “Corporations have too much control over America” you would get broad support across party lines.

    I guess I’ll just enjoy the schaudenfreude from Apple cheering the government boot on when its stomping other companies.

  14. ot: why doesnt reason hammer states rights

  15. I wonder which way Leviathan starts slapping Apple around – so many to choose from. I’m thinking FCC holdup on authorizing upcoming widgets perhaps?

  16. federalism is it a done deal?

  17. As much as I love this site, the cognitive dissonance of being, simultaneously, staunch 4th amendment and open borders supporters drives me crazy. If you want every human on the planet to be able to bum rush the border then so be it. But don’t complain when big brother is necessary, post hoc, to figure out which of those humans want to blow up a shopping mall.

    1. Always with the hordes imagery. Sounds like someone needs the Huggies Dash Button from Amazon.

    2. You should look up what “cognitive dissonance” means, since you don’t seem to understand it.

      And there is no contradiction between open borders and 4th amendment protections; the 4th amendment only applies to police and the legal system, but libertarians generally favor private security anyway, and that shouldn’t be bound by 4th amendment issues.

      Finally, while many libertarians are in favor of open borders (and that includes myself), that doesn’t mean we are in favor of opening borders right now<?i; many libertarians believe that while open borders are a good thing in principle, we need to cut back on progressive and welfare legislation before going that route.

    3. Because the big brother we’ve got now has done so well in preventing the previous incidents its obviously so necessary to expand it. Retard. “Love this site”, but clearly haven’t been here long or paid attention.

    4. Complete nonsense. You can favor open borders and still say that freedom is more important than security. If I had to choose between less security and more freedom or more security and less freedom, I would choose the former. It is possible to say that the risks are acceptable. So there is no contradiction, and you’re a fool.

  18. states are closer to libertarian then federal. Pick battles unless u think u are don quixote.

  19. Tilting at windmills is a big part of this site.

  20. Also, Adam Smith and David Riccardo laid it out for u 200 years ago.

  21. its called comparative advantige and Riccardo proved it with math.

  22. The Spic and the Canuck can go fuck themselves. Or each other. Whatever.

  23. there is not an educated person who refutes ricardo ever. not even krugman will refute ricarrdo

  24. That being said, a trade war could prove disaster. However, Trump is no that stupid. I like to thik he’s using bluster to intimidate. China is already reacting. Trade is mutally beneficail always. its the nature of trade. Politicians fuck things up. But i wish Reason would expound more often on the virtues of trade.

  25. thanks for the link cavalier. He was alwasys enigmatic and tha math was mostly beyond me. However, im already libertrian would a non libertarian take this as an unbiased assestment?

    1. From what I remember from the article, Ricardo’s big failing was that he wasn’t truly interested in the argument for Free Trade; it was Ricardo’s mentor who urged him to add the trade information to his book.

      I’m my opinion, Bastiat is a much better advocate for Free Trade.

  26. fuck it
    i can read a critism of ricardo. He’s only one of the cornerstones of libertarianism.

  27. if you ask me to give a critcism. I admit im not up for the task.

  28. Although Ricardo was a mathematician, i forgot he was also he was also a socialistl.
    This does not refute his work on trade.

  29. He was a socialist kinda like how jews were roman in 33 ad.

  30. there is no way trump even wants his way

  31. doesnt matter ricardo is part of the neo keysian classical synthesis which is mordern economic orthodoxy. the orthodoxy in colleges all across america. they care nothing about macro which everyone turns too. they are obsessed whith regression analysis.,

  32. micro rules economists, they want to make it math and so they focus on statistics.
    real economist are so far gone. its unbelivable. they are kinda autistic.

  33. they think they can quantify human behavior

  34. Apple has decrypted phones for the government before. Phone companies go out of their way to set traces and provide records for the police. There is a precedent for companies granting the government access to their products.

    The government gets a tool that disables the auto delete feature. Beyond that, they still have to figure out the password. And it would apparently apply only to this particular device.

    http://patterico.com/index.php…..mit=Search

    If the SB massacre involved more players and produced body counts in the hundreds , Apple would not be objecting to any “forced” cooperation legally mandated by the court. If Farook worked at the Pentagon and operated anywhere near the nuclear code (or other classified info) half the country would demand Apple to unlock the phone.

    Again, making sure that the government does not misuse this “master key” is separate issue unrelated to this case. The phone belongs to the county. Everything inside belongs to the government. The User is dead and HAD no expectation of privacy. You can’t reflexively side against “security” in favor of “freedom” in EVERY scenario.

    I’m against most gun control measures because they’re ineffective or clearly violate privacy or 2A rights. I don’t have an issue with murderers being sprung free when the prosecution didn’t respect his constitutional rights. But this is different. The rights being violated is entirely theoretical, even if its likely based on past patterns.

    1. This is not about the terrorists rights. This is about the FBI being able to conscript Apple into doing work to undermine their own product. The previous work Apple has done for law enforcement was to pull info off of locked phones. They didn’t decrypt them, they were older phones that didn’t have the security features that this or newer models have, the process was already something Apple had made and it didn’t undermine their product. There are 12 other cases stalled in the courts where the FBI is using the same argument to try to force Apple to undermine its security. Do you think these will not succeed just because the defendant’s aren’t terrorists?

      ou can’t reflexively side against “security” in favor of “freedom” in EVERY scenario.

      Don’t be daft.

      1. That is Apple’s story and it’s bullshit. The US legal system can, in fact, “conscript” people to assist in court cases, and the only thing that might get “undermined” through Apple’s cooperation is Apple’s reputation, since it would show that their older phones are not secure. And by “older phones”, I also mean the 5c in question. While phones prior to that had not cryptographic hardware, the fact is that the 5c had poorly implemented cryptographic hardware: it was intended to secure your data, but doesn’t. Apple will have to go back, redesign their hardware, and make sure that it is actually secure. From a practical point of view, the 5c really is little better than a phone with no hardware encryption support.

        And while this discussion may be about a tradeoff between security and freedom for the Republican candidates, it really isn’t. The only way to ensure freedom is for companies to build phones that are intrinsically secure, not to depend on the good will of courts or the FBI. That is precisely why Apple should be publicly humiliated over building a phone that can be penetrated in this way, instead of misrepresenting themselves as being on the side of freedom.

        1. “…the fact is that the 5c had poorly implemented cryptographic hardware: it was intended to secure your data, but doesn’t.”

          So what? Even if that is true, why is that relevant to whether the government can force Apple to create software to exploit whatever flaw there is?

          1. It’s relevant because if the 5c had secure hardware, the government could not force Apple to create software to exploit the flaw. And I’m not primarily concerned with whether the government should or should not be able to force Apple to do this, I’m concerned with the fact that Apple is pretending that their substandard security would be secure if only it weren’t for big, evil government. The only way to have data security is to have the technology work flawlessly; legal fights like the one Apple is engaging in are counterproductive.

          2. It’s relevant because if the 5c had secure hardware, the government could not force Apple to create software to exploit the flaw. And I’m not primarily concerned with whether the government should or should not be able to force Apple to do this, I’m concerned with the fact that Apple is pretending that their substandard security would be secure if only it weren’t for big, evil government. The only way to have data security is to have the technology work flawlessly; legal fights like the one Apple is engaging in are counterproductive.

            1. So what?

              The question on the table is whether the government has the power to make a company like Apple create a tool to cripple it’s product’s security. I am not confident the legal system is bright enough to understand whether it may be technologically impossible.

              1. If it concerns national security or even criminal investigation of particular importance, they probably do have some leeway to do just that.

                The SB shooter worked for the government and had foreign contacts. I doubt that he stored anything incriminating inside his work phone, but we have to make sure.

                Apple products will not somehow become a cup holder because it allowed the FBI to bypass a auto erase feature. Their phones sell out in China even thought they take away many features and access at the request of the Chinese government.

              2. The question on the table is whether the government has the power to make a company like Apple create a tool to cripple it’s product’s security.

                No, that is not the question, because Apple’s product never had actual security to begin with. What it had was “security through obscurity”: its security was crippled from the start. I don’t even blame Apple for that: at the time, they probably didn’t set out to make a secure phone; after all, most phones before that had even less security.

                What I do blame Apple for is that they are pretending that the weak security on the 5c deserves strong legal protection, and that complying with the court order amounts to “creating a tool to cripple it’s [sic] product’s security”. That has about the same level of truth as Clinton arguing about the meaning of words like “is” and “sex”.

                I am not confident the legal system is bright enough to understand whether it may be technologically impossible.

                If phone manufacturers produce secure phones, then it doesn’t matter what “the legal system understands” because then they cannot produce tools to “cripple their products’ security”. That is what we should be aiming for.

        2. The US legal system can, in fact, “conscript” people to assist in court cases

          Not without violating the constitution, they can’t. I know they don’t care about following the constitution, but that is a different matter.

          I agree that their phones are not secure and that that should be fixed.

    2. Apple has decrypted phones for the government before. Phone companies go out of their way to set traces and provide records for the police.

      So what? The fact that it has happened before does not mean it should happen now, or that it should even have happened before.

      There is a precedent for companies granting the government access to their products.

      Forcing someone to make a new tool is entirely different from seizing one that already exists, or searching something.

      And it would apparently apply only to this particular device.

      Not the tool that allows them to bypass this particular security feature. You’re trying to separate the issues, but they cannot be separated. Bypassing this security feature means certain death most of the time.

      Again, making sure that the government does not misuse this “master key” is separate issue unrelated to this case.

      No, it isn’t. You can’t separate the issues.

      The User is dead and HAD no expectation of privacy.

      The user does not matter. What matters is that the government is trying to force Apple to do their dirty work for them. Involuntary servitude.

    3. The rights being violated is entirely theoretical, even if its likely based on past patterns.

      The rights being violated are entirely theoretical. Ignore the fact that the government is conducting unconstitutional mass surveillance on the populace. Ignore the fact that the government routinely utilizes Stingrays, which is another violation of the constitution. Ignore the fact that the government does everything it can to suck up as much data about its citizens as possible. Ignore the fact that this is involuntary servitude. Ignore the fact that this is entirely different from cases where the government seizes something that already exists. Ignore all that, and you finally reach the conclusion that the rights being violated here are merely theoretical.

  35. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  36. apple will 100 percent not work with the fbi

  37. they will dodge and weave

  38. they will only comply through threat of violence

  39. i know people who work there

  40. You’re getting ?150 worth of bonuses for just a fraction of that price. Everything to get you started in learning a proven system for accelerating your exam success. qz So if that’s what you want to do, this is the opportunity you’ve been waiting for…..

    ——— http://www.workprospects.com

  41. I have a fun new game for pranksters to play. Try to unlock your friends i-phone 11 times whrn they’re not looking. Weee, what a crack up, the look on their faces when they see that all of their data has been deleted! I think Apple has set themselves up for some serious problems with something as stupid as wiping a users data because their unlock interface is too simple.

    1. On older iPhones, pin entries could happen via Bluetooth. Several times, my phone had erased itself because a Bluetooth keyboard was still connected while it was in my backpack.

      In any case, the correct behavior is what we get for SIM cards: you get three attempts at entering the correct 4-6 digit PIN; after that, the only way to unlock the phone should be to enter a 10-20 digit PUK or a secure password. And like SIM unlock, this feature should be implemented in secure hardware.

      This has been understood as the right way of dealing with PINs for decades; it boggles the mind that Apple screwed up so badly implementing their unlock feature on their older iPhones. At least it looks like they are fixing it on upcoming models.

  42. Apple is trying to frame this story as if they are ordered to create burglary tools from scratch in a lengthy and laborious process. But that’s not the case.

    What they have been ordered to do is assist a court in accessing evidence, the amount of effort involved isn’t large, and complying with the order is not a threat to anybody else’s privacy. And the reason they can be ordered to do this in the first place is because the security on that phone model is poor.

    Now, I really don’t care whether Apple does or doesn’t comply with the FBI order on that particular case. What I do care about is that relying on legal protections against phone searches is a bad way of protecting our privacy. Companies like Apple and Google can build phones that are intrinsically safe and secure, and that is what they should do, instead of engaging in useless legal posturing that only gives people a false sense of security.

    1. “And the reason they can be ordered to do this in the first place is because the security on that phone model is poor.”

      That makes no sense.

      1. Yeah, one would think if the security feature was so shoddy the FBI wouldn’t need anyone’s assistance.

        1. What makes you think the FBI “needs” Apple’s assistance? They clearly could do this themselves. They’d have to use hardware debugging tools, a bunch of test iPhones 5c’s, and reverse engineer part of Apple’s software. My guess is it would take them a few weeks to do it and tie up a couple of specialists. In contrast, Apple can probably do this in ten minutes, a few hours in the worst case.

    2. “What I do care about is that relying on legal protections against phone searches is a bad way of protecting our privacy.”

      Well, it’s an imperfect way of protecting our privacy. That’s not really an argument to not protect it at all.

      1. There may well be cases for which legal protections are imperfect but useful and the only thing that we can hope for. For example, paper documents, medical records, and all that. I’m all for limiting government power in those cases.

        As far as phone security is concerned, legal protections are pretty much useless, while existing technological protections, when implemented correctly, are essentially perfect. That’s why Apple shouldn’t be able to get away with shifting the blame to the government.

  43. The precedent being set here is absolutely batshit nuts-so the government wants to order a company to work for them-and this is Apple, imagine a small business or a self employed individual that doesn’t have the access to the legal help that a larger company does to hold off the courts requesting “cooperation”.

    And here is a juicy little Comey quote to start the weekend off with-

    “”I’m a big fan of privacy; I love encryption?But if we get to a place in American life where certain things are immune from a judge’s order, then we are in a very different world.” -Yeah fuck you too Comey.

  44. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ———— http://www.Wage90.com

  45. As I’ve said many times, republicans are just democrats with bibles. The only difference between them is the reason why we need a bigger, more intrusive, more expensive federal government. That we need one is not even in question.

  46. Dream On?

    For one thing, the San Bernardino “event” was , most likely a scam – an inside job fraud instigated to further a political agenda, or multiple agendas, complete with fake attackers and victims etc., just like 9/11 and related [Paris, Sandy Hook, Boston etc.]. :

    “Attorney for San Bernardino gunman’s family floats hoax theory”:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/po…..ax-theory/

    Besides that, the indisputable fact of the matter is that the FBI itself is a total scam, a fraud, just one of an endless, and ever increasing tax [i.e theft] supported entities with wholly political agendas that have nothing at all to do with “law enforcement” , national security, or whatever, and everything to do with maintaining power, “by any/all means necessary”. Politics as usual, in other words.

    However:

    “..In your dreams, the FBI is not a scam,
    In your dreams, 9/11 was not a scam
    In your dreams, the war on terror is not a scam,
    In your dream, al -qaeda was not a scam,
    In your dream I.S.I.S. is not a scam”

    Lyrics excerpted from:

    “Dreams [Anarchist Blues]”:

    http://onebornfree-mythbusters…..blues.html

    Regards, onebornfree.
    onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

  47. “There is absolutely no reason to think this is going to [be a] one-time request.” Exactly so. The head of the FBI just said as much in a Congressional hearing. Law enforcement has an unfortunate, indeed dangerous, habit of equating privacy and criminality. The “if you’re innocent, why object?” mentality admits of no boundary except what the government can get away with. That’s a very bad thing for a people who value their freedom.

    1. “There is absolutely no reason to think this is going to [be a] one-time request.” Exactly so.

      No, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you use a phone that is not secure, then you should expect that police can get its contents.

      Law enforcement has an unfortunate, indeed dangerous, habit of equating privacy and criminality.

      Law enforcement already knows that they can pull this shit only on older phone models, because newer models are generally immune. That’s why they have been asking for legislation to outlaw secure phone encryption in places like California. The ideal phone from the law enforcement point of view looks like the iPhone 5c: security-by-obscurity guards against causal attacks, but ultimately it is not secure and easily subverted by the manufacturer.

      1. No, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you use a phone that is not secure, then you should expect that police can get its contents.

        What you expect and what should happen are two entirely different things. You seem to be conflating them.

  48. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

  49. Re compelled speech (or compelled anything), SCOTUS, alas, has set a precedent by compelling all of us to buy health care coverage.

  50. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  51. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  52. Well Apple sure doesn’t have a problem with what the Chinese want. Perhaps if the U.S. government slipped them a few billion, it would all be better.

    http://www.latimes.com/busines…..story.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.