Reports Claim That Pakistan Is Trying To Ban Encryption Under Telco Law

from the yvxr-gung-jvyy-jbex dept

As various governments have tried to clamp down, censor and/or filter the internet, all it's really done is increase interest and usage of encryption tools such as VPNs. Every so often we have commenters who insist that outlawing encryption is the obvious next step for governments, though that suggests an ignorance of the practical impossibility of truly banning encryption -- which, after all, is really just a form of speech. The US, of course, famously toyed with trying to block the export of PGP in the 90s, but finally realized that it would likely lose big time in a court battle. While I could certainly see some politicians here trying to ban certain forms of encryption, I couldn't see any such effort being successful long term.

In other countries, however, they seem ready to make a go of it. Privacy International is reporting that Pakistan is trying to ban the use of encryption, including for VPNs, as part of the implementation of a new telco law (pdf) which requires telcos to spy on their customers. Obviously, encryption makes that tougher, so the response is just to ban it entirely.

But here's the big question: can any such ban really be effective? I mean, if you and I agree on using a simple cipher between us, that's "encryption," but is indistinguishable from "speech" in most contexts. That means any such ban on encryption is effectively and practically useless the moment it goes into effect. There will always be incredibly simple ways around it. Trying to ban encryption is like trying to ban language. You can't reasonably do it.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    Do I get some sort of wooden nickel for realizing that the message was a rot13 encryption?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    The good part for all the enemies of Pakistan is that now there is no protection against snooping.

    I don't think the Pakistanis understand the security consequences of what they are doing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:35pm

    Qhu, Rapelcgvat!

    Naq lrf, hygvzngryl gurer'f ab cbvag va gelvat gb ona rapelcgvba. Crbcyr jvyy fvzcyl nqncg hagvy gurl pbzr hc jvgu plcuref gung znxr gur Iblavpu Znahfpevcg ybbx yvxr n Qvpx naq Wnar obbx.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

    lol good luck to them, they'll need it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:36pm

    Eh?

    Bans ALWAYS work{!}

    Why, the US Government has a ban on murder, and it never happens in the US anymore{.}

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:38pm

    SWEET!

    So they are going to transmit banking data in the clear!?!?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    GWH, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:39pm

    I guess the Pakistani Gov't is hoping no Navajo, Choctaw, or Cherokee are going to call

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Trying to ban encryption.

    Trying to ban encryption is like trying to ban language.

    Actually it amounts to a ban on sending anything unintelligible over the internet. The Welsh must be very upset!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    anonymous, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:41pm

    Re: SWEET!

    i guess they'll have to, itll be against the law to encrypt it, say friend, do you want to do some business together :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    Re: SWEET!

    Actually they're contracting their data security workload to Sony.

    Buh-zing!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    Re: Trying to ban encryption.

    i love welsh jokes

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:48pm

    Re: Trying to ban encryption.

    And as a side benefit, their politicians will actually have to express themselves clearly in their messages, lest the unintelligibility get them arrested.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re: SWEET!

    It's a tempting proposition, but I'm a bit busy helping to crowd source a Teledildonics project right now...

    http://freefactfinder.com/definition/Teledeldonics.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

    Re: SWEET!

    My first thought. IT's fail on so many ways that I can't even begin to describe. Hopefully the Govt communications will not be encrypted for our joy and lulz.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: SWEET!

    I get the feeling that this comment was attached to the wrong parent, but it is still frickin' hilarious under this one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: SWEET!

    I've always heard that when encryption is made criminal, only criminals will have encryption. So if we follow that logic, our politicians and governments will certainly have encryption. To protect us from teh terrorists, while the average citizen should have nothing to hide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 12:59pm

    Re: SWEET!

    "So they are going to transmit banking data in the clear!?!?"

    That was my first thought too. And not only that, but what about all the other industries that rely on some form of encryption to function? Information technology MSP firms? Gone! Phone systems with soft phones? Maybe gone? Encrypted passwords? Gone?

    I mean...what the hell?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    el_segfaulto (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Trying to ban encryption.

    The Welsh, and lawyers/legislators. I've understood Welshmen far better than the legalese in the average EULA or the U.S. Code of Laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    DCL, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:04pm

    Is that a right

    Does Pakistan have right to free speech clause as a bases in their laws? I would guess not.

    Either way it still seems silly to try to ban it. I bet the definition of 'encrypted' is along the lines "any communication that can't be understood by a government official. So if they don't understand pig-Latin a bunch of visiting American kids are going to be in big trouble!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:07pm

    big surprise for a nation such as this. /sarcasm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Ted Rosenberg, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:19pm

    encryption

    Well, if they get very far with the ban, there are still native American indians who would be willing to hire on as "code talkers" because no one in Pakistan can read Navajo or Hopi

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    holizz, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:20pm

    This is the legislative equivalent of an EMP. There aren't many electronic devices that will be legal if this were to pass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Some Other Guy (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:24pm

    Re:

    Like that will work!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    Security

    Encryption is often used for security. Compare for instance telnet, which is laughably easy to intercept, to ssh. Compare HTTP to HTTPS. Compare "open" wireless to WPA2.

    Banning encryption will lower the security of the whole country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    So encryption tools will not be made illegal in this country ever...its not going to happen... so I wouldn't even worry to much about the debate. How might one know this you ask? Because....wait for it....DRM uses encryption.

    We've got the **AA lobbyists on our side.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    ASTROBOI, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 1:56pm

    It will be like all the other prohibitions.

    Once encryption is banned all that remains is to define what encryption actually is. Look at history: The RICO act was supposed to make it possible to arrest gangsters just for belonging to a gang. Who could argue with that? But today, if even two people appear to be involved in something the government doesn't like, the RICO act is pulled out and now the couple is facing a serious federal felony. Consider the laws against so-called "child porn": we have people threatened with decades in jail and destroyed lives over pictures of willing, paid, 17 1/2 year old women who posed for pictures. And of course the sex-offender registry, originally meant to keep track of serious criminals. Now its used to threaten young kids who shoot a moon at a detested teacher or administrator. It has become nothing but a club to punish insubordinate kids exercising their supposed right of free speech. So too, the criminalization of "encryption" will eventually be degraded to include use of slang and colloquial terms. Kids will be accused of encrypting criminal messages through the use of hip-hop terms and nerds will be encrypting deadly messages by using acronyms. We all better just stay indoors and keep our mouths shut.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Joe Publius (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 2:02pm

    Mental Note

    Much like the nation of Pakistan, the TD message board software also hates encryption. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    Michael Lockyear (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Trying to ban encryption.

    As will some of the commentators on this blog!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Thomas Jefferson, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 2:11pm

    Upid-stay overnment-gay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    No Way

    > The US, of course, famously toyed with
    > trying to block the export of PGP in the
    > 90s, but finally realized that it would
    > likely lose big time in a court battle.
    > While I could certainly see some politicians
    > here trying to ban certain forms of
    > encryption, I couldn't see any such effort
    > being successful long term.

    Yes, that's a nice philosophical/legal analysis but the practical reality is that encryption will never be banned in the USA because Big Copy would have a shrieking meltdown if the government ever tried to do that. Can you imagine their reaction if all their current and future DRM schemes suddenly turned into criminal offenses and them being required to broadcast/provide all their content in the clear?

    As has been pointed out here too many times to count, there are far too many politicians who routinely drop trou and bend over for Big Copy for there to ever be enough votes to pass a ban on encryption.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 2:57pm

    This won't last long. As soon as the US hears that Pakistan is thinking about making open WiFi the only legal type of wireless network, they'll send over the MIB to enforce compliance with US law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    chris, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 4:56pm

    So does that mean if you're browsing some e-commerce site and your browser redirects you to an https page that you could get arrested? Crazy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    aldestrawk (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 5:19pm

    It's not about banning cryptography

    My reading of the regulation is that Pakistan is requiring that all traffic can be monitored and that the signaling information cannot be encrypted. I could be wrong, but my understanding of the term "signaling information" is the set of mechanisms and algorithms allowing for call setup and breakdown, billing, and administrative functions. It seems to me the actual traffic, be it voice or data, can be encrypted but their has to be a way for the monitoring system to understand it (i.e. a backdoor).

    This backdoor is what a lot of governments desire. It is a way to obtain a key for any cipher used. This will make it far easier to track and prosecute or persecute all criminals, both real and political. This is not foolproof. If illegal encryption is used, the government could possibly identify the communication endpoints and prosecute just on the basis of utilizing an illegal cipher. Smart criminals and dissidents will resort to using strong, illegal encryption along with steganography and traffic obfuscation (i.e. Tor Onion Routers). The technology that would make the system functional on a general basis is automatic flagging or filtering of packets identified as using illegal encryption. In the U.S., considering that the NSA is already monitoring all our communications, this is not far-fetched.

    When strong encryption, encryption that the U.S. federal government couldn't defeat, became available to the masses in the early '90s, the U.S. became involved in two separate struggles. One was the export of strong cryptography and the main battle was with PGP and Phil Zimmermann. The feds dropped their indictment of Mr. Zimmermann without any comment. The code had been exported, but it was not clear that Phil was instrumental in doing that. Later, court precedents did allow algorithms for strong cryptography to be published and exported, protected as free speech by the first amendment. The feds did relax the rules on export, recognizing their futility because of the free speech aspect and also recognizing that it hurt U.S. business by restricting the use of strong encryption in international transactions.

    The other front in the strong cryptography battle was the feds attempt to put backdoors in any system using cryptography. The Clipper chip was an effort to do this for voice transmission. It was not mandatory, and the existence of alternatives and the fact that the algorithms behind clipper were classified and could not be independently evaluated for vulnerabilities led to it's demise.

    Why wouldn't the U.S. government be successful in making backdoors mandatory for all strong ciphers? Business needs strong encryption for both domestic and international transactions. A U.S. business might not trust having a backdoor available even if that backdoor is supposedly restricted with a key escrow system. More importantly, would a foreign business trust the U.S.? Such a requirement would have put U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in international competition.

    France, in the mid '90s had very strong restrictions on the use of cryptography. France's decision to drop their strict cryptography laws came about because of lobbying from businesses. This link briefly describes that decision and humorously gets the French Finance Minister's gender wrong (it was Dominique Strauss-Kahn, yes, that DSK!).
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01/15/france_to_end_severe_encryption/

    If you think that the U.S. will never have laws restricting the use of cryptography, think again. There have been laws introduced that would make the use of cryptography an enhancement when committing a felony. Consider also, the slow but steady expansion of CALEA regulations.

    The following is a good summary of existing crypto-law in various contries:
    http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    TDR, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 7:03pm

    Just thought I'd quote from Red Dwarf here, as it seems appropriate:

    Rimmer: Open communications channels, Lister. Broadcast on all known frequencies and in all known languages, including Welsh.

    I can't see how Pakistan has any hope that this idea will work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Common Sense, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 7:07pm

    Pakistan is not a free nation. Pakistan hangs people on suspicion of "blasphemy" or "sexual immorality."

    If their legal system can send people to the gallows for questioning ancient superstition then it is more than capable of enforcing a very vague "anything else" clause against anyone who the secret cyberpolice believed to be trying to engage in clever circumvention.

    Unfree nations do not have loopholes and safe harbors.

    Soviet era dissidents didn't have that luxury either. If they didn't like you then there was always something or another on the books enabling them to do basically whatever they wanted.

    Arguing over what is and isn't within the bounds of technical language is meaningless when the police can accuse a person of doing something "they shouldn't" and which the police "don't like" and be assured that guilt will be rubber stamped by a kangaroo court.

    In unfree countries you have no rights to begin with, only temporary privileges.

    An unfree nation moving against encryption will not afford users any sort of due process by adhering to what is and isn't strictly mentioned by the law.

    Nations with a lack of due process come down on anyone who violates the spirit of the law, whereas we in free nations exonerate those who comply with the letter of the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Charles Tryon, Jul 29th, 2011 @ 7:22pm

    Banning Business??

    Banning encryption is also effectively banning any form of digital business. Can you imagine how long legitimate businesses are going to stand for having ALL of their communications with partners, suppliers, employees, customers, banks and financial institutions traveling in plain text over the Internet??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 8:03pm

    Copyright Alliance Blog

    I seem to recall somebody on Copyright Alliance blog suggesting requiring government licensing of all use of encryption as a means of preventing encryption for masking copyright infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 10:13pm

    Re: It's not about banning cryptography

    My reading of the regulation is that Pakistan is requiring that all traffic can be monitored and that the signaling information cannot be encrypted. I could be wrong, but my understanding of the term "signaling information" is the set of mechanisms and algorithms allowing for call setup and breakdown, billing, and administrative functions. It seems to me the actual traffic, be it voice or data, can be encrypted but their has to be a way for the monitoring system to understand it (i.e. a backdoor).

    Even if your interpretation is correct, that would still outlaw VPN and any other type of encrypted proxies. VPNs encapsulate a normal packet, including all header and signalling information, between two points. Once the packet arrives at the other end of a VPN, it is decryted, the extra VPN header stripped, and the packet is sent on its way. There is no way to track that packet after it reaches the end of the VPN with only the information you had by monitoring the encrypted packet.

    No sane business would operate with their data following over an open network without encryption. Many business based in other countries, notably banks (or anyone dealing with financial information) and those dealing with medical information are legally required to protect that data with encryption.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    aldestrawk (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 10:26pm

    Re: Re: It's not about banning cryptography

    The way that the term "signalling information" is used in the U.S. does not include any header in the entire protocol stack. The signalling information is "out of band". Look up SS7 and how it is used in the Telcom world. What I am not absolutely sure about is how that term is being used by Pakistan in this law. If, in fact, they are referring to any header information then you are absolutely right as "No sane business would operate with their data following over an open network without encryption".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Jul 29th, 2011 @ 10:30pm

    Re:

    +1 for Red Dwarf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jul 30th, 2011 @ 12:09am

    Re: No Way

    The Problem with 'Big Copy' is that they are trying to keep encryption legal whilst trying to make decryption illegal

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Twm Sin Cati, Jul 30th, 2011 @ 5:01am

    Re: Trying to ban encryption.

    Pam y dylen ni fod yn anhapus? Does dim problem gyda'r Gymraeg. Mae'n berffaith dealladwy i mi (ac i filoedd o bobl eraill!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Shahzeb, Jul 30th, 2011 @ 5:17am

    they cant do that

    i dont see a point of desperation for that act people dont do much stuff online here in Pakistan beside socializing or entertainment. PakistanOnLine(dialup isp) which blocked adult natured stuff for 1 month and they did not have enough money to pay their bills. I guess how many people know whats VPN about yeah they know when they travel to middle east.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Smiling_Satan, Jul 30th, 2011 @ 2:30pm

    I hate being online

    well....now im afraid doing my online transactions,sending my personal data to my recruiters and other people.....simply i cannt do anything....its better to be offline...may be that can bring problem to me as FBI may smash my door thinking i am doing something spooky and this new law may expose me......damn! what should i do now :(
    all banks use VPNs,all telcos use these..i can never consider paki media secure with my data...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    chris, Jul 30th, 2011 @ 6:42pm

    Re:

    Relying on "businesses need encryption" to ensure that such a ban couldn't happen here is unsafe. What makes you think the law will extend to everyone equally? For a long time now businesses have enjoyed more rights than citizens. If you install an unauthorized rootkit on someone's computer you will go to jail. Did anyone from Sony? If you dump large amounts of oil into US waters, even by accident, you will go to jail. Did anyone from BP? I could go on and on. Besides businesses, most government officials carry immunity from many types of laws. Accidentally kill someone? You're going to jail. You're a cop and it was in the course of duty? Apologize and move on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    LOL, Jul 30th, 2011 @ 7:34pm

    Re:

    Please tell me which nations are free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Dfg, Jul 31st, 2011 @ 1:57am

    Hahha, idiots

    Okay, I know most of you're guessing things about Pakistan but let me give you the big scoop; Pakistan is a shithole, yes I know I am being rude but hey I can be rude because I actually live there.

    We have many ISPs but PTCL is the major Internet contractor throughout Pakistan. The Internet service is worse than anything I have ever used before, line drops, disconnections and not to mention other issues. Now, we're already using a crippled system adding something like this rule/filter is just stupid. You know why it's stupid? Because people in Pakistan don't have a clue. The PTCL is a Government component and even if they implement the system they will only make their lives harder.

    They might try to bans certain things but considering their history (Banning Youtube (LAWL)) I don't think they're capable of doing it.

    But hey thanks to this move, I will start using SSL more and get VPNs accounts because honestly I am tired of Pakistan politics. These people are MORONS! Someone gives them the order and without even thinking they just go for it.

    I hope they try to implement this fail, I am going to make sure to complain the f**k out of it :D.

    TL;DR, Pakistani Government and Agencies are idiots. I am surprised they didn't ban the whole Internet already, oh wait they can't hahahaha.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    hugh williams, Jul 31st, 2011 @ 5:36am

    banning encryption so that would ban SSL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    karachidude, Jul 31st, 2011 @ 8:38am

    Re: Hahha, idiots

    it doesnt make any sense,pakistans not a shithole,its a piece of land,i know it because i live there,the big scoop is ur anus is a shit hole.
    anyways judging from what u have to say bout ur country,ur a ungrateful son of a "cross between a african american sex tourist and a cheap hera mandi tramp",yes i know i am being rude but hey i can be rude i have met people who talk trash about there country on international forums,and when i traced them back a bit,i found bout this whole new breed :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    gary k, Aug 1st, 2011 @ 9:00am

    ALL encryption?

    does this apply to the government as well? Use of SATCOMM, any type of VOIP or landline phone encryption, any material that shold be protected from non government use? What about hashing? Does integrity go down the toilet as well?

    Commmon, if this is a way to snoop to people, the people who are scared, may obey. Then only the criminals will use encryption. Its like trying to take the guns away from all good people, so the crooks can have open season on them.

    Lets see how this all washes out. It may have been a misunderstood comment, and then, the knee jerk reporters grabbed what they could just in time for print.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 6:55pm

    Honda Financial being proactive

    Honda Financial Services (www.hondafinancialservices.com) has been sporting a 'VeriSign Secured' logo on their website while at the same time defaulting to clear, unencrypted finacial transactions since at least early July.

    Are they headquartered in Pakistan?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 22nd, 2012 @ 6:55pm

    Re:

    The US is not exactly not an unfree nation anymore if you catch the drift. Certainly the drift has caught the populice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This