Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Google Government The Internet Your Rights Online

Google Considers China's "Web Mapping License" 133

Posted by timothy
from the now-that's-regulation dept.
eldavojohn writes "Back in May, China rolled out new laws requiring online mapping services to be 'certified' by the State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping. The laws appear to go into effect this month. Today an AFP article outlines Google's consideration of these rules and notes that it's unlikely Google will meet the qualifications to become certified as all of its servers holding the mapping data are outside of China. The AFP also reported that 'Foreign firms wanting to provide mapping and surveying services in China are required to set up joint ventures or partnerships with local firms.' Unless large changes are made, Google's services might get a lot more stunted as China regulates onward."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Considers China's "Web Mapping License"

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:42PM (#32684192) Journal

    The AFP also reported that 'Foreign firms wanting to provide mapping and surveying services in China are required to set up joint ventures or partnerships with local firms.'

    I omitted my commentary on this particular clause as it's pretty much just speculation but I would claim that the government is encouraging/requiring/enabling corporate espionage. Not to mention the probably very sensitive close up data Google may or may not have of areal images of the United States. Now, it might just be that the government wants to foster local businesses but I would argue that it has more to do with strategy and espionage. I know I'd be uncomfortable.

    • by religious freak (1005821) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:16PM (#32684652)
      Whether the motivation is espionage or "encouraging growth of domestic companies", the results are similar. China has no problems bending the laws to benefit their companies at the expense of foreign ones.

      Ok... that's their right as a sovereign nation, but I'd again point out that seeing the Chinese economy as a panacea of growth and opportunity will turn sour at some point in the future as firms wake up and understand how a monolithic government like China views them and the concept of "rule of law". Top down economies and societies have a relatively short shelf life; the Soviet Union proved that. When you have a small group of elites deciding the go forward path of any large economy, the results will be unstable... as the mistakes of these elites compound expect China to cannibalize more foreign business interests. I have no idea when this will happen, but I'd bet a few bucks that it will happen eventually.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        bending laws to benefit local companies is something the US does every day through import restrictions, excise etc etc, why exactly should china behave different? (note: I don't support this, but if it is good for the goose then it's good for the gander)
        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Oh, no, no, bending local laws is the worst thing and US doesn't do it; US bends foreign laws, I guess that's quite noble.

        • I'm not arguing the ethics of this action in my post, I'm arguing as to why these actions are economically unstable. You state that the USA bends laws to benefit local companies. I'd first ask specifically which laws you're referring to then ask if those legal modifications would have a wide-ranging distortion on the national economy.

          With the exception of defense, agricultural interests and other smaller political honeypots, the answer to my questions is no, there are no economically distorting factor
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Xest (935314)

        "Whether the motivation is espionage or "encouraging growth of domestic companies", the results are similar. China has no problems bending the laws to benefit their companies at the expense of foreign ones."

        Sorry, but how is this different from the US exactly?

        - The current BP leak is a fine example, BP is being held to higher standards than the US companies that are responsible for Exxon Valdez sized leaks every single year in Nigeria, and well, Bhopal is a fine example of US environmental hypocrisy too

        - BA

        • Wow that's a lot of paranoia.

          Boeing was allegedly given massively unfair advantage in the next generation tanker deal

          Fixed that for you.

          BAE was fined by the US over a bribery scandal in the Saudi Eurofighter deal, yet US companies do this exact same thing all the time

          I'm unfamiliar with that case, but I'm getting an apples-and-oranges vibe. Can you verify that the fine wasn't related to national security issues rather than "just" corruption?

          BP is being held to higher standards than the US companies that are responsible for Exxon Valdez sized leaks every single year in Nigeria,

          Nigeria? Why the hell should the US government be responsible for overseeing environmental protection elsewhere in the world? It'd be *nice* of us, perhaps, but that's up to the Nigerian government to request. Again, apples and oranges.

          It's a bit rich for an American company to complain about an overseas company bending the law

          (1) It's the Chinese government blocking foreig

          • by Xest (935314)

            There was no allegedly about the Boeing case, EADS/Northrop initially won the contract, but immense lobbying by US politicians to make it a US only contract hence bolstering the US market at the expense of the European market even though the primarily European tender was deemed far superior ended up leaving EADS/Northrop no choice but to withdraw because it had been made clear the tender was being switched to Boeing after EADS/Northrop had already wasted millions on the project.

            Regarding the Eurofighter dea

            • I'm not going to address your entire post, but I would like to inform you that the $75m cap only applies if BP follows the minimal safety regulations. Also, BP bribed (implicitly or explicitly) MMS regulators with cocaine, sex, and more. And BP is a MNC. Don't act as if it is viewed any other way. Many Americans are stockholders. And yes, US foreign policy is hypocritical. Get the fuck over it. That's how world politics works. Hell, that's how politics in general works.
        • - The current BP leak is a fine example, BP is being held to higher standards than the US companies that are responsible for Exxon Valdez sized leaks every single year in Nigeria, and well, Bhopal is a fine example of US environmental hypocrisy too

          No it's not. BP spilled oil in American territory. That's why they're being held to a higher standard. Has nothing to do with their foreign/domestic status. If anything, their near and dear ties to Britain has caused us to temper our condemnation of them considera

      • While I think you are right, I think you're missing out another aspect.
        Maps are a crucial propaganda tool though they may not look like it at first sight, and the Chinese government is certainly a massive propaganda machine.
        To give an illustration by example. Back in the early 80's South Africa's apartheid policy had included creating a number of so-called separate republics for certain ethnic groups to live in. Of course no other country but South Africa recognized them as independent states but they allow

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        First off, China and the Soviet Union might have had something in common once, but no more. The Chinese today are as much about "communism" as the US is about free and fair elections--they give lip service to it but that's about it. China, in fact, is proof positive that democracy and capitalism have absolutely nothing to do with each other--that capitalism really thrives best in a dictatorship where the people have relatively little say. What China is engaged in is some good old fashioned protectionism.

      • by dimeglio (456244)

        I think you should look closed to home when you make statements like "bending the laws to benefit their companies at the expense of foreign ones." Clearly this is not a problem invented in China. The US for example, despite having signed the NAFTA and being in agreement with international trade laws (WTO), have in numerous occasions bent the rules. One example is the Canadian softwood lumber dispute [wikipedia.org]. The difference here is that the US can "bully" Canada but China owns a large part of the US foreign debt and

      • by orasio (188021)

        Whether the motivation is espionage or "encouraging growth of domestic companies", the results are similar. China has no problems bending the laws to benefit their companies at the expense of foreign ones.

        Shocking!!
        It's not only their right, changing the rules in favour of their companies is the only ethical thing to do, if they think it is what benefits their citizens. The only thing they have to take into account is possible negative consequences for their own people, and if they can afford them.

        ... Top down economies and societies have a relatively short shelf life; the Soviet Union proved that. When you have a small group of elites deciding the go forward path of any large economy, the results will be unstable... as the mistakes of these elites compound expect China to cannibalize more foreign business interests. I have no idea when this will happen, but I'd bet a few bucks that it will happen eventually.

        And how are capitalistic societies not top-down ?
        What percentage of the US population belongs to the political class?
        What percentage of the US population can reach wall street?
        That is what I would call a small eli

    • Makes complete sense (Score:4, Informative)

      by Colin Smith (2679) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:54PM (#32685016)

      Not exactly surprising, but not for corporate espionage.

      Don't know if you noticed, but maps are militarily significant. If you have people providing maps of your country, using the gps on phones within your country to improve the quality of the maps, locate places, it's in your interest to have influence over them, particularly if your biggest competitor owns the satellites and the services run from within their borders.

      I mean come on, the howls of outrage and surprise are laughably naive.

       

    • What's the difference between corporate espionage and a joint venture? In the former, information is transferred without the knowledge of one party, in the second both parties know what information is transferred.

      What the Chinese government wants to do is to outsource its corporate espionage to the foreign companies. Smart idea. China knows it has a quarter of the world market and that execs are drooling at the prospect of instantly increasing their market by at least 25%. Very few companies can resist the

    • by selven (1556643)

      but I would claim that the government is encouraging/requiring/enabling corporate espionage

      What if it's just a counterattack against Google after the whole moving to Hong Kong thing?

    • Espionage my ass... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by IBitOBear (410965) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @10:07PM (#32686676) Homepage Journal

      It's about control. They aren't trying to "find out" how Google does google maps, they are trying to create an in-country choke point. This choke point will choke the money from leaving the country _and_ choke the information reaching the citizens.

      Imagine if you were the Bureau of Stuff of Some Country, and you could take 50% of the profit on every enterprise taking place on the internet in Some Country. Imagine that you can do it by letting random enterprises do random things, and then only attach yourself once a random thing had proven profitable. This is the money half of the equation.

      Now imagine you are the Bureau of No of Some Country, and you could interpose yourself at the source of each new flow of information instead of needing a "wall" to selectively keep a flood of random Yes from entering your country. You could pre-impose your No well before it became a possibility.

      The control item is particularly important here because you cannot _firewall_ Google maps selectively.

      Say you are a Chinese dude, and you know that "something prohibited" is right north of something else. you can get that map of something prohibited by searching for that something else and then scrolling around. If china can require the information be brokered locally, the "Mass Government Grave" won't be blacked out or filtered, it will be listed as "Xue's Farm" or "Rocky Hillside Funtime Panda Reserve". Likewise for the "Comrades of the Party Beer Volcano and Free Hooker Forest".

      The problem with censoring maps by exclusion is that even the holes provide information. If you cannot control and _edit_ a map at the source, you cannot _believably_ obscure what you want obscured.

    • The AFP also reported that 'Foreign firms wanting to provide mapping and surveying services in China are required to set up joint ventures or partnerships with local firms.'

      China and other countries (Qatar) seem to have these kinds of joint venture requirements on a lot of industries/markets. What I don't get is why we can't get the WTO to smack them down. If the US enacted laws that required say, Lenovo, to do all its US business through a US-owned intermediary, you know there'd be a raft of WTO complaints.

  • No Surprise (Score:5, Funny)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:45PM (#32684232) Journal

    The AFP also reported that 'Foreign firms wanting to provide mapping and surveying services in China are required to set up joint ventures or partnerships with local firms.'

    No surprise here. If doing business in China is about one thing, it's about greasing as many palms as possible. Don't forget to mention the bribes to be paid to local officials.

    Doing business in China is almost as bad as doing business in Chicago or New Jersey... almost.

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:46PM (#32684244) Homepage Journal
    China is CONSTANTLY accusing other nations of protectionism and yet are always pulling shit like this. I guess the lesson they are trying to communicate is that protectionism us bad, unless you are China, in which case it is good! I guess that is to be expected from them though, they constantly scold other governments on their fiscal policies yet refuse to open up their own books to public scrutiny.
    • Yeah, it's called diplomacy. Kissinger wrote a good book on it. Your aim is not to make the world fair for everyone but to make it best for yourself. Learn to politic.

      • by wealthychef (584778) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:12PM (#32684608)

        Your aim is not to make the world fair for everyone but to make it best for yourself. Learn to politic.

        I can see how that would work out great for the world. The only reason that appeals to fairness have any effect is that people actually care about actual fairness. Cynicism and resignation have never gotten anything worthwhile in this world. Diplomacy aside, protectionism is bullshit by and large, and China needs to be called on it just like we do.

        • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

          Oh, yes, a leader should aim to be loved as well as feared, but it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. As long as he avoids hatred [constitution.org].

          • I'm all for being safe, but it is not the end all and be all. A ruler/politician/diplomat emphasizes safety above all else. A leader does not. Sometimes principles such as liberty and prosperity seem risky.
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Better idea, kill the bastards that think this way.

    • by Weezul (52464) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:56PM (#32684392)

      If so, they're just doing their jobs, more likely their aiding industrial espionage.

      In all seriousness, Google can and should file a WTO complaint against China here.

      • How do you think they came up to speed so fast on the intertubes? copy everyone else, then adapt and improve. I learnt myself scriptimocations thusly!

        Still, I have to admire their balls at making that ridiculous demand. I am going to start using China's methods to better my own life; to wit => I hereby demand that all banks wishing to do business with me keep all of their monies in my mattress! This is not a request!

        • by Fluffeh (1273756)

          I hereby demand that all banks wishing to do business with me keep all of their monies in my mattress! This is not a request!

          That doesn't work so well unless you, like China, have something that everyone wants. China has cheap labor and makes a bunch of stuff. Oh, and they have a HUGE market. Hence everyone wants to do business with them. What do you have to offer that all the banks want?

    • by Nutria (679911)

      Why doesn't Google (or any other foreign firm, for that matter) have a WTO claim against China regarding the need for local partners?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by bloodhawk (813939)
        how about because other countries do EXACTLY the same thing, this is only news because it is google. countries all over the world (including the US) have restrictions on everything from foreign investment, foreign ownership and foreign imports and many even with the exact same laws requiring local partners in many sectors.
        • by grcumb (781340)

          how about because other countries do EXACTLY the same thing, this is only news because it is google. countries all over the world (including the US) have restrictions on everything from foreign investment, foreign ownership and foreign imports and many even with the exact same laws requiring local partners in many sectors.

          Which is why the WTO has this thing called Most Favoured Nation [wikipedia.org] status. It's designed to say that you've got to do unto all others as you do unto your best friend. In a nutshell, the most favourable trading conditions (i.e. for them, not you) that you've negotiated to date with other nations must be made available to any other nation that asks. In practical terms, it's done a lot to undermine the kind of protectionist practices such as the above.

          I won't pretend to be a trade expert, but I strongly suspect t

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AdamCa (1841392)
      Pretty much, this is the face of world diplomacy, with the control of information they are free to accuse the world of things like protectionism while keeping their own internal appearance clean. Doesn't really matter what the world thinks of them.
    • by SimonInOz (579741)

      "None can love freedom heartily but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton.

      It seems states behave the same way.

      Actually the USA is precisely the same - they constantly preach free trade, but will they let Australia sell them farm produce ... er, no. (Mind you, Australia's a bit reluctant to accept foreign farm produce - the claim that we are free of many of the world's crop diseases (no Dutch Elm disease, for example) and would like to stay that is terribly convenient [true, but re

    • Dare I ask what you expect them to do?

      Every single country does this to the best of their ability.
      I'm Canadian and in the same press conference, we'll hear politicians cry about 'Buy American' and how it blocks Canadian business who love to export to the US... then they will institute their own 'Buy Canadian' provisions.

      There is no such thing as free trade when it comes to nation states.
      I fully support free trade, but not the managed free trade we have today that only seems to disadvantage western workers.

      H

  • This is a joke (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:47PM (#32684254) Journal
    This is designed to simply drain the IP from western companies into Chinese ones. This is on top of China having their money fixed against the dollar.Yes, they said that they would change it a bit, but inside of 2 days, they rolled back the change. Quit honestly, China is an a cold war with the west via economic means. At this time, the west needs to tell CHina to either obey their agreements (float their money, drop their trade barriers, quit dumping/subsidizing, follow through on their international agreements such as CLintons as well as IMF) OR simply impose a slowly increasing tariff on ALL GOODS coming from China. If the west, India, and Brazil will follow through on this, then China WILL obey their agreements.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      simply impose a slowly increasing tariff

      No need. China is about to experience a labor revolution such as has never occurred anywhere in Asia. Major manufacturers (Toyota, Nissan, Foxconn, etc.) are experiencing labor strikes and capitulating with large wage increases. The best thing we can do is continue to buy their stuff and fuel their demand for labor. Once their working class feels its oats it will overrun the county and China will cease to provide an endless horizon of subsistence wages.

      This won't be students in a square with microphones

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hey! (33014)

      Yeah, but in many cases the Western companies' management doesn't care, because they're focused on returns over the short to mid term.

      And why not? Why not give away the company's crown jewels, if you don't see the downside for another three or four years? You might even reduce costs over that timeframe by taking a Chinese partner. If you're the kind of investor who holds stocks for less than a year, why would you care? If you are the kind of investor who rebalances his portfolio every year or so, you mi

    • by Mal-2 (675116)

      The other three BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India) aren't going to step on China's toes. On the one hand they want to emulate Chinese growth, but at the same time they wish to avoid China's growing pains (even if they are usually kept under wraps). Don't expect a lot of help here -- the best the "West" can expect is for them to sit and watch.

      Mal-2

      • South Korea, India and Brazil have been griping for some time that China's policy is hurting their exports. ANd it is. While Brazil does not fix the real to the dollar (unlike India and SK), China's policy IS hurting their ability to compete.
    • You know, we could put immense pressure on China to do something about the exchange rate just by not borrowing so much money from them. People who blame China for all this need to turn around and look at their own country.

      People who think changing the exchange rate will make a difference are ignorant. The initial effect will be to send factories to other impoverished countries, it's not going to bring back manufacturing jobs to America. The secondary effect will be to drive down factory wages within Ch
  • by ihxo (16767)

    fast forward to 2013.

    After Google's mapping service failing to gain much market share in China, Google decides to pull out of China (again) because of censorship (again).

    • There will be no 2013, remember? Nibiru, the Mayas, alignment of the Earth with the plane of the galaxy, the reptilians, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg group... 2012 will be the end of the world.
  • In such case of foreign government blackmailing Google, US should respond with serious measures towards China companies and their operations in US. However, knowing how weak Obama is when it comes to nations he cannot mindlessly bomb all day using drones, nothing will happen.
  • by Tisha_AH (600987) <Tisha.Hayes@gmail.com> on Thursday June 24, 2010 @04:54PM (#32684372) Journal

    This is not even a very well veiled attempt to get any company that wants to do business in China to open up all of their source code and "hand the keys to the kingdom" to the Chinese government.

    Ironically I bet there are companies that carry a big IP hammer to beat up the rest of the world with will be beating down the doors to become slavering lapdogs of China for a chance at the profits pie. Of course China will say "you companies just do not understand China so we need to repackage everything you do to fit our "culture"". What they are really meaning is that "Give us all of the stuff and we will let you play in our sandbox... until we can reverse engineer your application or system and stick a "Made in China" label on it. The we will give you the boot or make the conditions so impossible for you to do business you will run out with your tails between your legs".

    • by TheNarrator (200498) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:28PM (#32684770)

      The irony is that companies that do everything China wants often get little in return. Look at Microsoft. They gave China the source code to their software. Gave them nearly free licensing of Windows and they hardly make any money there at all!

      http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/1832381/Gates-Lets-China-Peek-Through-Windows.htm [internetnews.com]

      February 28, 2003
      By Mark Berniker: More stories by this author:
      Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on a tour in China said his company will allow the Chinese government partial access to the source code of its Windows operating system.

      Microsoft said it would only share some details about its proprietary source code, but it's considered a major win for Microsoft to have China join its Government Security Program (GSP). China is one of several countries, including Russia, NATO and the United Kingdom, participating in the recently launched Microsoft program aimed, at part, in trying to reverse negative perceptions of the company.

      At issue, is whether Microsoft's software provides adequate security for governments, and their classified data. Piracy of Microsoft software in China is also a huge problem, and the Chinese government and Microsoft are keen to jointly stem its tide.

      Microsoft has clearly made a decision that China, the world's biggest market with immense potential for growth over the next decade, is a place it will be putting considerable resources towards. Microsoft has said it will invest $750 million in China from 2003-2005.

      and now in 2010....

      http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-24/microsoft-s-ballmer-says-china-piracy-is-a-problem-update1-.html [businessweek.com]

      Lack of progress in protecting intellectual property has led China, which may overtake the U.S. as the world’s biggest personal-computer market in a year, to generate less revenue for Microsoft than India and South Korea, Ballmer said. China’s gross domestic product is twice the two economies combined.

  • Open Street Map (Score:3, Informative)

    by ben_kelley (234423) on Thursday June 24, 2010 @05:19PM (#32684684)

    This law has big implications for open mapping projects like Open Street Map. Have a look at the warning on the China page for OSM [openstreetmap.org]:

    This [law] to outlaw the entire OSM project, and any participation or contribution. ... People visiting China would be well advised to avoid overtly wandering around looking at GPS units, and avoid carrying OSM related documents in your luggage. Or you might prefer to abide by these strange Chinese laws, and just not do any mapping there at all.

    • What is interesting about that, is that it really proves my point that China sees itself as being in a one-sided cold war. Their fear is about trying to stop foreign access to info about the nation. And yet, the west will continue to ignore this behavior.
  • How can China prevent Google from making its maps available? You don't need to be a Chinese company to make a map of China, so if even if Google continues to show the of China, how is it bound by Chinese laws?
    • by KarmaMB84 (743001)
      They'll block access to Google via the Great Firewall of China.
    • by SeaFox (739806)

      They can't. It's just a bullshit country's attempt to claim copyright over the layout of their roads and cities. You can't claim ownership over the view of your land from space.

      This is actually in the same realm has claiming ownership of the rights on translating foreign languages in copyrighted works. Yes, you can sell the right to make the "official" version of something. But to me, there is something implicitly wrong about saying that if someone else tells someone what such-and-such sentence means in ano

  • From TFA:

    Similarly, the Longyan bureau of land and resources in Fujian province reportedly meted out administrative punishment to a Japanese who measured 195 locations inside Longyan and located 80 of them on his map.

    It sounds to me that this could mean: he got a caning because he took 195 photos with GPS logging and looked up 80 of them.

  • Sad to see the typical "project my feelings onto China" comments here - yet again. This has zippo to do with IP theft (China doesn't respect IP, remember?) or protectionism. It has everything to do with control.

    In China, accurate maps are military secrets. There is no public USGS. Even Google Maps does not provide proper coordinates. This map phobia has to do with some ancient story about a stolen map. Indeed, being in possession of accurate maps of European countries could get you arrested or execute

  • Tibet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kievit (303920) on Friday June 25, 2010 @03:20AM (#32687920) Journal

    All comments so far are about economic/IP aspects. What about the political/cultural aspect of mapping? China could use this policy to enforce its preferred representation of the Tibet area. Like: replace all traditional Tibet names with new Chinese ones.

  • by DigitalSorceress (156609) on Friday June 25, 2010 @08:51AM (#32689878)

    As an amateur photographer who happens to carry an AMOD GPS logging device with me everywhere I go (to geotag my photos), I'm thinking that maybe China wouldn't be the brightest idea for me visit-wise. (I guess in a way it's a good thing I probably can't afford such a trip anytime soon)

    Basically, I'm guessing that if the Chinese government is that concerned about folks mapping things, they're probably going to take a very dim view of geotagged photos as well. I guess (if I screw up my world-view enough) I could sort of see why a totalitarian government could be very concerned about the "dangers" of such information. After all, if I have a photo showing some seriously poor village on the edge of survival, but tag it as being somewhere that the official propaganda says is an economic dynamo, it kind of exposes the lie. It's far easier to just step on my neck with their jack boots.

    On the other hand, I would point out that gps loggers these days are very small and compact and don't actually require you to be walking around with big, obvious "HEY I'M IN UR BASE RECORDING UR COORDINATES" equipment... It seems to me that unless you tightly control where a tourist can go and what they can see (which I assume China does to some extent), the information WILL get out.

    Truthfully, there isn't that much of a real national security issue anyway... Satellite imagery for ever square foot of the Earth is available... maybe not to super-high resolution in every corner yet, but it's getting there. An invading army doesn't need to know the name of the street to bomb it. This is purly "national security" from the viewpoint of a very paranoid totalitarian regime.

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond

Working...