« Israel cannot be pleased with tomorrow's SW cease fire in Syria | Main | The Saudi and UAE "crownies" are AQ supporters ... »

08 July 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

MRW

TTG,

I think you forgot that Wikileaks began publishing the Podesta emails within an hour of the airing of the Access Hollywood Trump video.

I seem to recall that Assange announced he would have a series of revelations that would damage Hillary’s campaign on a certain day. First it was to be at the end of September. Then It was to be the first Tuesday in October, as I remember. Tuesday came and went, which pissed me off because I was getting immense pleasure out of election fireworks.

Assange released them three days later on Friday, Oct 7. without fanfare, two days before the 2nd Presidential Debate between Trump and Hillary. The Washington Post released the Access Hollywood Trump video the same day, which I perceived as an effort to both blunt whatever Assange would be dumping (eventually) and cripple Trump going into the debate in two days.

What was the point you were making about these coinciding events?

Old Microbiologist

Today I found this link to the Foresnsicator's analysis of the 7zip files containing the DNC files and it seems fairly conclusive to me it was an inside job based on the evidence. It makes for good reading:https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

The Twisted Genius

MRW,

Assange was releasing DNC documents from July onwards along with Clinton emails obtained through a FOIA request. The Podesta email release began right after the Access Hollywood tape was aired. The point is that TimmyB is relying on Assange's word that there were no hacks, just leaks as proof that no hacks took place. In truth, even Assange admitted the Podesta emails were hacked and said they could have been hacked by any kid.

Eric Newhill

TTG,
Ah, I see. There is a lot more to the techie capability side of this than I realized. Thx for helping me see that. My sense is that it still doesn't change my opinion that whatever the Russians may have done, their input is a mere drop in the sea of I/O and normal socialization of ideas on the internet ; even it if was well done and had some ability to sway perception. That's just my good old fashioned horse sense talking.

I also carry a simple cheap trac phone. I update the minutes with cash at Walmart. All my fortune 500 friends laugh at me for it; let them.

The Twisted Genius

Publius Tacitus,

I worded my initial paragraph quite flippantly, but I meant the general direction of those comments. Since I addressed you specifically in those comments, I apologize if you found that personally offensive.

I started reading that posting about the Guccifer 2.0 files two nights ago after Jeff Carr pointed it out. I initially found it intriguing. I noted that the author suggested both Alperovitch and Henry were behind the copying of the DNC files and the whole Guccifer 2.0 thing. My skepticism increased. Comment here by TonyL and Richardstevenhack cast more doubts on the forensicator analysis. It does seem that total reliance on code analysis, especially shoddy code analysis, is not sufficient evidence for reaching any conclusions. As I've said before, it takes long term intelligence analysis along with HUMINT/SIGINT collection to reach meaningful claim of attribution.

Along that line, I would say the admission that the IC has tapes of Putin and others in the Russian government plotting and directing the Russian IO against our election is the final nail in the coffin. I thought this classified leak from last month was the most damaging of all, but now I think it was leaked long after the collection operation was already blown. I contend the arrest in Moscow of two FSB officers for espionage in January and a Kaspersky Lab official in December was the unraveling of this particular intelligence collection operation. Operations like this often begin with a HUMINT penetration and are gradually transformed into remote SIGINT collection. This is the kind of information that allows the IC to be so certain that Russia was behind the hacks and the rest of the IO not just the analysis of CrowdStrike, FireEye and SecureWorks. Once Mueller concludes his investigation, I think more of this will be revealed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/06/23/putin-denied-meddling-in-the-u-s-election-the-cia-caught-him-doing-just-that/?utm_term=.5a2b7269256f
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-fsb-agent-arrested-u-s-election-hacking/28261397.html

For the effect of any of this on the behavior of the electorate, I have no idea at this time. That's why I want the investigation to continue. I want to understand exactly what the Russian IO entailed. Only then can we examine if it was effective or not. Part of this investigation should include how information flowed during the election cycle. I recommend some work done by Jonathan Albright, a researcher in news, journalism, communication and technology. He published much of his work at medium.com. He's done some interesting studies in how information flowed during the election. I plan on delving deeper in this stuff over the next few months.

https://medium.com/@d1gi/latest

Eric Newhill

KHC,
Well, you do have to test models against past data. the test should be done blind, of course, but it needs to be done. If a model can't predict the past, it is not going to predict the future, except by luck.

That said, my wife's Uncle was fairly high up in the CIA (Bruce Berkmans, deceased a few years ago - he was outed in the 80s by a famous traitor Agee, so it's ok to state his name). He did a lot of field work in the early stages of his career in addition to security type work later in his career. He used to always say that CIA gospel is that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I think that is true, but, as we've been saying, it breaks down at exactly the crucial juncture when we need methodologies to work the most.

Predicting the future is the holly grail. Like the holly grail, people will be pursuing it for ever. The other holly grail is to be able exercise total control of people without their knowing they're being controlled. AI promises both. So people are willing to spend a lot of money on it; both development and to deploy it in the real world.

It's just human foolishness, IMO, with regards to actual warfare. There will always be counter measures and an AI arms race, etc, etc

What happens if everyone just unplugs?

Wrxally

TTG, have you seen this analysis? very interesting: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/ It suggests the data was copied locally and not remotely...

Jack

TTG, Sir

No matter the outcome of Mueller's investigation, one side will cheer and the other will claim it was all fixed. Some believe that Mueller has to charge someone for something to justify all the expenditure. What do you think the media will do to him if there are no indictments?

Clearly the IC should learn what happened and how and update their own CI efforts. But the fact is the IC don't have clean hands with Brennan and Clapper all in on the NeverTrump camp. They made and continue to make great effort to delegitimize Trump. Where are the investigations into their media leaks? We have seen too many cases of politicized intel reports.

Another fact is that some Americans like me don't trust what the IC claim or FBI investigations and in particular anything that the Times or CNN or Fox and the media in general say. Old Microbiologist's first hand experience with the anthrax investigation is an excellent case in point. There can be no doubt that the majority of the media were biased and campaigned hard against Trump during the elections.

The question is can trust be restored in governmental institutions in such a charged national atmosphere? How can trust be restored when there are no objective standards?

kxd82

MRW,

burner phones are not as safe as you'd like to think...

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/10/fingerprinting_5.html

Welcome to our "Minority Report" digital future.

David Habakkuk

TTG,

I didn’t find your inclusion of me in your dismissal of those who are sceptical of the ‘narrative’ about Russian interference in your political processes ‘personally offensive.’ As an old-style British television current affairs ‘hack’, I have a pretty thick skin – in the old days, we weren’t like the ‘snowflakes’ in the contemporary BBC.

But I do think that your general interpretation is utterly and completely wrong. And very dangerously wrong, as well.

Actually, rather than the ‘questionable demeanor’ of Alperovitch, I am relying on a whole range of different types of evidence – and how they seem to fit together into a total picture. A lot is still obscure, but some elements are clear.

Immediately prior to the publication of the BuzzFeed dossier, CNN produced a report which included claims about the credentials of its author in its attempt to justify the presentation of his conclusions to the President-elect:

‘Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.’

(See http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html .)

When the dossier appeared, it was a patently ludicrous document.

As I have noted before, one of the best British scholars of Russia – now unfortunately working in Canada – is Professor Paul Robinson, also a sometime British Army intelligence officer.

(He was a contemporary at Eton and Oxford of our buffoon of a Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. In a reasonably rational world, Johnson would have indulged in some helpful nepotism, brought Robinson back from Canada, and installed him in an office down the corridor. This could have produced an instantaneous massive improvement in British foreign policy.)

Confronted by the dossier, Robinson dissolved into hilarity. In a post on his ‘Irrussianality’ blog, entitled ‘Top Secret Credulous Eyes Only’, he claimed he too had informants deep within the Russian government, and gave a tongue-in-cheek account of what they had told him:

‘These sources of mine tell me that the plot to place Donald Trump in the White House was hatched not five years ago as claimed in the BuzzFeed report, but 13 years ago at an exclusive banya in Sokolniki.

‘According to Source BS, the concept for what became known as Operatsiia Tuz emerged during a sweaty discussion over a dozen bottles of vodka, when oligarch Viktor Bogatyi announced that he had an idea for a new television show. Aspiring kleptocrats would audition for a job as Bogatyi’s assistant and the losers would be eliminated one by one with his famous catchphrase “You’re shot!” Hearing this, a senior GRU agent, Max Otto von Stierlitz, after a pause of seventeen moments, suggested an alternative. Why not, said Stierlitz, pass the idea for the TV show on to Donald Trump to use as a vehicle for making himself popular among the American people? It would be the perfect mechanism to gradually push the Donald into a position from which he could become President of the United States of America. The rest, as they say, is history.’

(See https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/top-secret-credulous-eyes-only/ .)

The serious point at which he was getting was that five years ago nobody would have dreamed that Trump would emerge as a serious candidate for the Presidency. Anyone who wants to suggest that Putin anticipated this years in advance, quite clearly, is attributing to him second sight. (And, after all, if Putin is Sauron, equipped with Galadriel’s mirror, why do we bother to attempt to resist?)

Anyhow, it then emerged that the author – or at least the supposed author – of the garbage put out by BuzzFeed was Christopher Steele, who it appears was head of the MI6 Russia Desk from 2004 to 2009. This coincided with the time when Sir John Scarlett – who played a central role in the intelligence failures which led to the invasion of Iraq, the rise of ISIS, the migration crisis into Europe, etc etc – headed the organisation.

After falling over themselves contradicting each other, because their sources could not work out which lies they wanted to tell, British MSM journalists at least managed to agree that Steele had been responsible for the MI6 investigation into the death of Alexander Litvinenko.

As a result of the attempts of Scarlett and others in the intelligence services and the Blair Government to shift the blame onto each other, Dr David Kelly – whose own role in the ‘information operations’ leading up to the invasion had been thoroughly discreditable – committed suicide.

In Britain, you can usually find judges or ‘distinguished public servants’ who will exonerate the intelligence services whatever they do, so Lord Hutton shifted all the blame onto the BBC, and Lord Butler recommended that Scarlett be allowed to take up the position as head of MI6.

This is part of the reason why serious journalists are no longer welcome in the BBC – although a few can be found, as was evident from some of the coverage of chemical weapons in Syria.

Also, unsurprisingly, the attempts of Scarlett and Steele to demonstrate that jihadist terrorism was really the result of a deep-laid Kremlin plot precipitated ‘unintended consequences’, as a result of which one of their principal agents, Alexander Litvinenko, ended up ingesting polonium.

Confronted by the threat of having their shameless dishonesty and incompetence exposed, the duo managed successfully to corrupt the investigation into Litvinenko’s death.

As you know, I pointed out some problems with the ‘evidence’ supposed to establish that Putin had sent Andrei Lugovoi to pour polonium into his tea in a piece posted here following the publication of Sir Robert Owen’s – frankly scandalous – report in January last year.

The whole thing was a complete frame-up. If indeed Steele was a key figure in creating the ‘narrative’, as seem reasonably clear, there seems a strong prima facie case against him for ‘perverting the course of justice.’ The only reason he can get away with it is that the Russian security services are quite as reluctant to have the actual truth of what happened see the light of day as their Western counterparts – and MSM journalists are now all-too-happy to act as ‘stenographers’ for their ‘sources’ in the ‘intelligence community.’

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/01/david-hakkuk-on-sir-robert-owens-inquiry.html .)

So, if the leaders of your ‘intelligence community’ consider Steele a credible witness, there are only two possibilities: that they have no idea of what he was up to, in which case they are incompetent, or that they know, in which case they are as corrupt as he is – and key figures were probably up to the hilt in the Litvinenko/Berezovsky/Shvets/Goldfarb/‘Suvorov’/Bukovsky/Palumbo/Scaramella ‘information operations.’

And the same, obviously, goes for their counterparts on this side of the Atlantic.

From what I can make out, it seems that there are actually highly competent and honest analysts in the DIA. Maybe there are, lower down in the CIA, NSA, and CIA. As to the top leadership, on both sides of the Atlantic, their credibility among serious people is now zilch.

If you want to get a sense of quite how ludicrous it would be to trust anyone from MI6, have a read of the first public speech of their current head, Alex Younger, given last December. As you will be able to see, he is a fit successor to Scarlett.

(See https://www.sis.gov.uk/media/1155/cs-public-speech-8-december-2016-final.doc .)

Rather than quoting the disingenuous gibberish Younger writes about ‘hybrid warfare’, and the Russian cyberthreat, I will quote what he has to say about Syria.

‘Because beyond any of our capabilities, it is legitimacy that is the strongest weapon against international terrorism. If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Asad’s discredited regime, will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy is heart-breaking.’

Words fail me. The notion that today’s MI6 protects us from terrorism is BS. It has a non-trivial share of the responsibility for creating the Sunni jihadist threat, and is part of the reason why people like Boris Johnson are advocating measures likely to make it much worse.

You are probably away that our Foreign Secretary is all too eager to support further American air strikes against the Syrian government, in response to the new ‘false flags’ which he and his like are encouraging.

Jack

David

What I find instructive is the lack of pursuit into the role of MI6, CIA and Clapper in the creation and laundering of the Trump Dossier.

The MSM is hysterical in their reporting on Don Jr's attempt to gather oppo research but the leaks and campaign of innuendo by Clapper, Brennan are being given a pass.

Putin and Xi must be having a good guffaw as they watch the US mired in incompetence and consumed in fatricide.

Dr.Puck

1. Superior volume of input and/or 2. Much more convincing input.

There are many other possibilities:

a few;

Multiplier
Amplifier
Pattern extender
Pattern looper
Triggered responder
Scheduler

Then there are third order possibilities, one of which is context recognition; "patterns of patterns," and plug that into: prediction of future conditions.

My amateur hunch is that without knowing what any actor was doing, nevertheless, there was a simple fundamental shift at the point in late October when it appeared that some of HRC's supporters might be thinking about staying home because of the potential for a landslide.

From this actors who could "see" what one another were doing might work on their own to, for example multiply and amplify two basic future scenarios: (1) that HRC was going to win for sure, (2) that the only righteous and rational vote was for the anti-elitist DJT.

It seems to me here is a nice vector drawn between the economic (in the behavioral sense,) benefit of not wasting one's time adding an unneeded vote to HRC's tally, and, the emotional appeal to come together to 'end business as usual' with a vote for the anti-politician and anti-PC bomb thrower, TP.

The closeness of the election, and the complexity of the social cybernetics, suggests we will never be able to ascertain which actor with what inputs tipped the election. After all, the individual actor is somewhat a black box, and, generally, cannot say "what it was" that made the difference.

MRW

Wonderful comment.

Old Microbiologist

An alternate to unplugging is to use encryption for everything. They don't have the computer muscle to break through even minuscule amounts of encrypted stuff. If everyone does it then it becomes a morass for them. I have several email accounts and 2 of them permit full encryption. For fun I randomly send encrypted mails to myself just to make them work harder. I suppose because I know it to be a sham and that this is costing the US government a significant amount of time and money that it could seen as a crime. I wonder about that.This is the joy of being an American living outside the US with large amounts of TS info in my head. They can legally intercept all of my communications because I am outside the US. I think eventually they have given up. I see less and less attempts to penetrate the network. Just using encryption is a red flag for increased surveillance. So, this must bug the hell out of someone. I also periodically send an email with every NSA trigger word in it in a nice story which is nonsensical. You can find the text out there. There is also a nifty webpage which runs a long list of bizarre google searches just to screw up their metrics. I run that at least daily. There are lots of things a person can do to thwart the massive surveillance. Anything that vastly increases their workload is worth doing.

My point is that if everyone started to do this then it would overwhelm their capacity to do any intercepts.

I also run a strong home built router using OpnSense which is extremely difficult to penetrate. Not that I have anything to hide, I just want to keep nefarious people out of my home network. That router setup cost me less than $200 and was well worth the investment as everything is encrypted real time. You can do the same using pfSense. It also runs virus scanning on everything coming in and there is no latency. We have a 500 Mbps service which is part of our cable package $30 a month). I see no latency at all even running full encryption, SNORT, and virus scanning. I also use a commercial 2 hop VPN when communicating to the US and an IP address scrambler (Unlocator) on top of that. I take this stuff seriously as should everyone.

Old Microbiologist

Treason can only occur during a state of war and is very well defined in US law. We are not legally at war with any state. So, this shows their ignorance.

Anna

But some people do think that "the human all too human" affair at DNC should be dealt with a class action lawsuit: http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-rigged-hillary-clinton-dnc-lawsuit-donald-trump-president-609582: "A class action lawsuit alleging the Democratic National Committee worked in conjunction with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign to keep Bernie Sanders out of the White House has been raging on in the courtrooms for months on end–and yet, most people have no idea of its existence, in large part thanks to the mainstream media's total lack of coverage."
Unlike the feeble mem "Russians did it" (despite Mr. Mueller trying to look very manly), the DNC activities "to keep Bernie Sanders out of the White House" have provided all the smoking guns. As for Mr. Mueller' character, he was obediently instrumental (unprincipled) when Cheney & cabal were busy with planning a war (illegal) against Iraq. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-09/retired-fbi-special-agent-blows-whistle-real-robert-mueller "...as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence."

John_Frank

IMV, looking at this whole situation, one sees at least three distinct activities:

1. A series of phishing attacks over an extended period of time by someone which resulted in large quantities of information from various places being gathered by someone for some purpose.

It is unclear from the public record, whether that someone is Russian intelligence, persons working on behalf of Russian intelligence, persons working for other intelligence services or persons working for non State actors.

2. The publication of what some call the US election documents.

While the US election documents are accurate, it remains unclear how the documents that were subsequently published were obtained.

Yes, DHS and FBI published their Grissly Steppe analysis; and the DNI, published the assessment of the CIA, FBI and NSA.

However, the information on the public record is not sufficient to justify the current political uproar.

In turn, based on various analysis, we are left with the question as to whether the documents were obtained as a result of cyber attacks orchestrated by or on behalf of Russian intelligence, or were the documents obtained as a result of one or more leaks by insiders, along with cyber attacks orchestrated by third parties acting independent of any State intelligence service?

It is important to note that stealing documents and then arranging for their publication, without distorting them in any way to smear the victim is not consistent with the usual practices of Russian intelligence.

3. Publication and dissemination of information which counters the US media narrative.

Russia Today and Sputnik have become very adept at pushing information which supports the Russian position and Russian interests.

There is also an ongoing operation to disseminate this information as widely as possible.

Relations between the United States and Russia have been deteriorating for some time, so the current efforts to influence domestic US opinion to further Russian interests should come as no surprise.

(As an aside, the Chinese are now heavily involved in the same effort.)

At the same time, for a number of reasons, the domestic credibility of much of what used to be known as the "Democratic media complex" has collapsed, and since the 2016 election, the situation has gotten even worse.

In summary, like many other foreign governments, the Russian Government did seek to interfere in the 2016 election. The exact extant and scope of that interference remains unclear.

The current focus on Russia by many Democratic and some Republican politicians, as well as various political operatives and their media allies is extremely unhelpful.

Furthermore, the refusal by the left and the militaristic right to accept the election results and the peaceful transfer of power does not bode well for the country.

Also, if the FBI and the other agencies involved have completed their counter-intelligence investigation and found no evidence of collusion, why do we need a Special Counsel?

Can not the prosecution of those involved in committing cyber crimes be carried out by the Department of Justice?

How can there be a claim of obstruction of justice if the FBI and other agencies have been able to proceed with their investigations.

As to claims about illegal business dealings, what are we talking about and why the need for Special Counsel? Can not the prosecutions of any alleged criminal activity be carried out by the Department of Justice?

Just my two cents on this whole topic.

FkDahl

In regards to counterbattery the Ukies had:
fixed artillery positions without camouflage
remained in place for significant amount of time
many pieces in proximity - seen a full battalion in a line
used radio (US officer was dismayed how quickly the Russians found the radio and disturbed it).
All of this contributes to CB.

FkDahl

It is also easier and cheaper to provide the truth. Take the White Helmets as an example - this is an extensive setup, with a budget in the many tens of millions - neutered by a couple of videos of White Helmets guys hanging out with their Al Qaeda buddies. Cost for that? Close to zero.

kao_hsien_chih

I think of models as a "simple" description of the data/the past, with "simple" defined by what it is that we are capable of calculating. Advances in ML have given us a vastly more advanced notion of what "simple" entails (I'm still enough of an old fashioned statistician that the idea of "training" and "validating" models seem a bit gimmicky, even if they allow for more robust models. I suppose I find the terminology a bit objectionable, since it presupposes that models are for "prediction," about which I'm very ambivalent.) We can describe the past with ever more precision now than before. Since we do know that past repeats itself for the proverbial 99% o the time, this is a powerful thing and something that can be used as a foundation to build on, with the right set of insights. I guess I'm just suspicious that a lot of hype is getting in the way of the "right set of insights."

kao_hsien_chih

And MI6 is a foreign intelligence agency (not that US intel agencies getting involved in domestic politics is not something to be ignored).....

Peter AU

The parts of this thread on reflexive control coupled to AI programs are an eye opener.
Even now, it is a long and crooked road, many dead ends to travel from MSM to the few sites on the internet like this and get a better understanding of what is occuring in real time.
A few more years and AI using reflexive control will be running on all social media sites and search engines. For the average person to find their way out of the matrix of official narratives will then be near impossible.

The Twisted Genius

David,

Glad you weren't offended by my opening remarks. I figured you'd be inured to such things since you've enjoyed a steady diet of acerbic British wit.

As for the Steele dossier, I had a hard time getting past the idea of the "pee pee tape." The twittersphere had a hilarious time with that for 24 hours after the dossier was released. I pretty much ignored it after that. I think the FBI started looking at with a jaundiced eye last June, but i don't see any indications that they took it too seriously... or at least were embarrassed to be seen as taking it seriously. Although I do think the FBI used parts of it to steer their own investigations. I have no idea what, if anything, they corroborated or definitively disproved.

As I pointed out in my last comment to Publius Tacitus, I think a good deal of the information about the Russian IO was obtained from a HUMINT penetration of Putin's inner circle which was migrated to a cyber or SIGINT collection operation before it was blown by the arrest of two FSB officers in January. That is all just a guess on my part. I have no inside information to back it up. If I did, I wouldn't be saying a damned thing about it.

Peter AU

This thread is old now, but just run onto an article at the guardian.
AI for censorship and redirection of search engines is now a reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/01/google-says-ai-better-than-humans-at-scrubbing-extremist-youtube-content
...YouTube also said that it had begun working with 15 more NGOs and institutions, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in an effort to improve the system’s understanding of issues around hate speech, radicalisation and terrorism to better deal with objectionable content.

Google will begin enforcing tougher standards on videos that could be deemed objectionable, but are not illegal, in the coming weeks. The company said that YouTube videos flagged as inappropriate that contain “controversial religious or supremacist content”, but that do not breach the company’s policies on hate speech or violent extremism will be placed in a “limited state”.

A YouTube spokesperson said: “The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetised, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.”....
...........

Within a few years, sites like SST will be impossible to find on the internet. All searchers will be redirected to pc sites.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad