Gabon Suspends Me.ga Domain, Dotcom Says "We Have Alternative Domain" 212
hypnosec writes "Kim Dotcom's plan to launch a 'bigger, better, faster, stronger, safer' Megaupload successor, Mega, is already in peril as Gabon's government has suspended the domain me.ga . Announcing his decision, Gabon's Communication Minister Blaise Louembe said 'I have instructed my departments... to immediately suspend the site www.me.ga' in a bid to 'protect intellectual property rights' and 'fight cyber crime effectively.' Dotcom revealed through a tweet that he is in possession of an alternative domain name and that the recent suspension 'demonstrates the bad faith witch hunt the U.S. government is on.'"
1000 times bigger than Mega? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1000 times bigger than Mega? (Score:4, Informative)
1024 times to be precise ;)
Re:1000 times bigger than Mega? (Score:4, Funny)
Aw, here we go...
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming he meant 1000 times bigger than a MegaByte, is that the same as saying kibimegabyte ?
Re:1000 times bigger than Mega? (Score:5, Funny)
1024 times to be precise ;)
No, that would be http://gi.bi/ [gi.bi]
Re: (Score:2)
When I was young...
kilo, mega and giga when talking about data meant what it was. Was what it meant? .. we spoke binary! Whatever :D
Re: (Score:2)
Shoo. The big boys are using SI prefixes over here.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if it is 24 times more or less bigger than mega! It's at least 1000 times bigger. Another 24 times bigger doesn't matter much does it?
Re: (Score:3)
obviously the answer is http://me.bi/ [me.bi] or perhaps http://gi.bi/ [gi.bi]
Re:1000 times bigger than Mega? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:1000 times bigger than Mega? (Score:5, Informative)
It was a joke. Of course gi.ga is under the same TLD as me.ga. That's part of why it was funny.
Re: (Score:3)
I laughed at it. You just have a lack of a sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
There's still hec.to de.ca de.ci mil.li mic.ro na.no pi.co fem.to etc but none bigger than me.ga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Witch-hunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Witch-hunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe it's simply the easiest way to avoid lengthy and annoying conflict with the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Witch-hunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe it's simply the easiest way to avoid lengthy and annoying conflict with the USA.
..which is what the open conspiracy is.
too bad it makes the gabon government seem like a joke. too bad they are a joke.
Drones (Score:2)
Re:Witch-hunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Strange, I thought the US were supposed to be supporters of that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA, which is engaged in a witch hunt against Dotcom.
You're both right.
Re:Witch-hunt (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Something's really fishy here. I mean most third world countries simply do not care if you're making copies of Hollywood movies without written permission from someone with Esq. after his name.
Someone (MAFIAA) must have leaned on the US Ambassador to Gabon to, ahem, facilitate something or another.
If anybody disagrees, please tell me what's in it for Gabon to ban me.ga, preemptively even ?
Re:Witch-hunt (Score:4, Funny)
invitation to the oscars.
you'd be surprised how petty some poor country officials are.
Re: (Score:2)
If anybody disagrees, please tell me what's in it for Gabon to ban me.ga, preemptively even ?
As I previously pointed out [foreignassistance.gov]. This could be a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is really known about me.ga
Seriously?
and so the only reason they have to shut it down is because it's a 'successor' to megaupload
Doesn't that say quite a bit about it? See, quite a bit is known about me.ga.
and they have a vendetta against Kim Dotcom.
Because the only way anyone would object to megaupload is if they don't like Kim Dotcom? Seriously?
Grow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even know what a vendetta is? Please explain this vendetta Gabon has.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't give him an e-mail address at my domain if he asked, because he's an egomaniac asshole and a criminal. Same with Gabon, except that they own a TLD and not just a domain.
It's theirs. They can decide to give him a domain within it or not. They've decided not to. Witchhunt? Please. Stop listening to cheap rhetorics. This was a trap from the start, the fucker is just in desperate need of publicity, that's all.
Soooo.... me.ga was for pictures of kittens? (Score:2)
Countries make their own laws, so legally they can shut down whoever they want; so we're just talking about ethics here. I don't find anything ethically wrong with pre-emptively shutting down an enterprise they (very reasonably, given the history and public comments of the proprietor) consider to encourage intellectual property piracy.
Minority Report (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. PreCrime is here. Apparently, you don't even have to be open for business or host any files to be a 'cyber criminal' who violates 'intellectual property rights.' Once you're accused by the US governments masters, you're done for, worldwide.
Precrime where? (Score:2)
Mr Fox denied access to the hen house (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr Fox objected to the ban, saying "I don't intend to eat any hens this time! I just want to visit the hen house. My business there is totally legitimate. Judging foxes for what they did in the past is just fascism, man."
Re:Minority Report (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had a legal right to a domain name, you might be right. But you don't.
Similarly, you don't have a legal right to enter random countries, and they are quite welcome to tell you to go away (whether on the basis that they think you're there to work contrary to your visa, or you have previous convictions, or whatever)
It's not illegal to deny someone a domain name. No more illegal than denying them a trademark, or a particular phone number (or even phone access at all!).
The whole DNS system is a collection of private contracts to hand out naming rights within a virtual space. Hence why ICANN etc. can get people to pay them more money just by saying "Okay, let's have a new TLD!". Nobody is FORCING them to pay them money. Nobody has a legal obligation to buy those domains. And nobody has a legal obligation to fulfill those demands for domains if their contracts say so (and it hasn't been established to the contrary in a court of law).
This is like saying that me not giving you an email address at my domain is just as prejudicial. Er, no. It's my domain, my rules, and you either agree with them or not. Unless you have it in writing that I *guarantee* you those services, you can't do anything if I don't allow you to use them and/or stop you getting them in first place.
So let's not be stupid here. If you try to register a *car* with a rude number plate (licence plate to the Americans), it will get blocked in most countries (and they pre-filter those lists, but still will take yours away if it's deemed to be rude and they missed it!). Hell, some countries decide what you can put on a birth certificate. And places like Italy, it's almost impossible to get a domain name without a certified business presence in the country itself.
In comparison, a copyright infringer being denied a domain name in a country he has ZERO affiliation to is nothing.
I actually find it hilarious that people think that the US has involvement, if I'm honest. Chances are Gabon just doesn't want his type around. If he applied for a .uk, for instance, it would be denied the second he announced his intentions for it without even bothering to wait for the Americans to ask - it's a breach of Nominet policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he is not actually legally entitled, i.e., has the right to own property ... what's the complaint then?
It's not basically the same thing, because at least in the USA, we have the right to own property. I don't have the right to own a domain name, explicitly. Furthermore, this isn't even in the USA, this is in Gabon. Wherever that is. ;)
This would be more similar to a convicted drug dealer trying to buy a marijuana dispensary. Or maybe a pharmacy.
Re: (Score:2)
In any democratic country, you have the right of free enterprize.
It seems that in Gabon, one doesn't. Well, it's their choice, and their problem.
Undisclosed sources... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All at once, or in installments? Ten boxes at once is too much, even if you share it with your Camry, and donuts don't keep.
Re: (Score:2)
we are talking about Krispy Kreme doughnuts so they will keep (i think you can freeze them safely)
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, preemptively shutting something down on the basis that it might be used to infringe copyright before it's even launched?
Philip K. Dick and (to some extent) Scott Frank and Jon Cohen must be proud [imdb.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Are people really stupid enough to think that Kim Dotcom's new venture doesn't have the same basic aim as his last venture? Or is this some kind of ivory tower intellectual exercise where we pretend we're that stupid, just so we can approach the issue using laughably naive and simplistic principles of fair play while ignoring the obvious facts?
Well here's a fact: the benefit of the doubt only extends as far as there is doubt.
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities. What? There was no verdict/ruling? Strange. I know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just so darn inconvenient. We should just do away with that whole thing. I mean, if we want to send you to prison or generally fuck up your life, why should we need anything like evidence or a trial? It just gums up the works if you ask me.
Please.
Re: (Score:2)
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities.
There is plenty of evidence [fbi.gov], perhaps you're aware of the ~500 servers on US soil which were involved. The mess in New Zealand relating to warrants and seizures is the result of incompetence [arstechnica.com]. The seizures in the US were done with evidence. Nearly every site out there has Terms of Service which forbid certain uses, plus as a business you wont get very far with a defense along the lines of I didn't know it was illegal. Part of operating a successful business is knowing what is legal where you have a business
Re: (Score:2)
I am familiar with the "facts" of the case that the DOJ *didn't* make against Kim Dotcom. My point is that IMNSHO it's ridiculous (as many here have tried to do on this thread) to say things like "well, he's a criminal" "He's a loser. Screw him." "He should die in a fire." etc, etc, etc. when he has (to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities) paid his debts to society for the wrongs he has been tried and convicted for. From where I sit, he should be given the benefit of the doubt unless and un
I wonder what the people of Gabon think (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you lived in Gabon, you'd already know lots of other countries are pwning your government.
Time to go native? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't a native cross-platform app alleviate all these problems with domain names? Use a UDT based file transfer protocol with NAT traversal to connect to servers based on IP numbers that can be updated via bootstrap server or software update. Sure, at some point the user must download the app, but that would not be a big problem in this case, and afterwards the app can update itself. As a bonus you get huge perfomance benefits, at least if you do it the right way.
Just an idea. All this fuzz about domain names, really makes you wonder why people are so obsessed with web-pages.
Re: (Score:2)
DNS isn't just for web pages, and having a layer of indirection between the app and the IP address is useful.
Wouldn't it be better to run a parallel DNS (or DNS-like) system that's not run by The Man?
Re: (Score:3)
Look at Pirate Bay DNS. The challenge is user adoption. We never hit more than 10% with alternative root servers in the 90s.
Course, that's 10X higher than the libertarian vote in yesterdays election...
Re: (Score:2)
Key management would also be better, both easier and safer.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you get large performance benefits. Downloading is by and large network bound.
Kind of surprise this wasn't posted too here on /. (Score:2)
http://gizmodo.com/5958415/now-kim-dotcoms-new-site-mega-has-been-hacked-too [gizmodo.com]
Hold on... (Score:2)
Yep. "Nice TLD you've got there, Gabon..." (Score:2)
"...be a shame if something happened to it."
no (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it is a sign that the game he's been playing for many years now is finally over. You know, that of moving your operations to a different country each time the one you are currently in finally catches up with your crimes.
I have an idea (Score:2)
Re:domain (Score:5, Funny)
How about allyourdataarebelongto.us? I don't see how that wouldn't work.
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to obamaworld
Indeed.
I am certain that Romney would make it his first act in the office to loosen the copyright/IP witchhunt. It was totally the election between pro-buisness Obama vs the liberal candidate Romney
Should have worked harder to elect someone like Ron Paul.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cute parody, but by voting for the status quo we have shown we support it. Probably Romney wouldn't be against it. (And maybe in my state Bob Casey's opposition would have co-sponsored PIPA as well.) But in four years our new douche bag and turd sandwich are going to look at what they need to be to win and see this and these past years and march on with it. Because even if it doesn't win elections, it doesn't lose them and that's usually reason enough (with lobbying) to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the choice between jumping off a cliff (and into a steaming pit of shit) in order to avoid someone throwing mushitd at me? I choose to remain where I am and tolerate the the small amount of shit for a little while longer rather than drowning in a pit of shit after having broken myself from the jump.
That was the choice between Obama and Romney. Obama sucks badly. But Romney is much worse.
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:5, Informative)
I am certain that Romney would make it his first act in the office to loosen the copyright/IP witchhunt. It was totally the election between pro-buisness Obama vs the liberal candidate Romney
These elections are never a choice between a pro-business and an "anti-business" (?) candidate. Choosing between one and the is at best prioritizing which set of corporations will be in the front row and which one will get the afterthought treatment: the oil and military ones with Republicans, or the MAFIAA with Democrats. As things are, the MAFIAA got 4 more years of preeminence.
That isn't to mean Romney would have stopped the witchhunt. He just wouldn't "care" as much about it as Obama.
Should have worked harder to elect someone like Ron Paul.
Well, you *do* know that most libertarians are anti-IP, right? We understand all IP to be government interfering with our private property.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you *do* know that most libertarians are anti-IP, right? We understand all IP to be government interfering with our private property.
That's not what I hear from the libertarians I talk to. They argue that the only rightful role of government is to defend property rights, of which intellectual property rights are one kind. A country without intellectual property is as barbaric as a country without physical property to the common libertarian. Ayn Rand was certainly a defender of IP, to her the work o
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what I hear from the libertarians I talk to. They argue that the only rightful role of government is to defend property rights, of which intellectual property rights are one kind. A country without intellectual property is as barbaric as a country without physical property to the common libertarian. Ayn Rand was certainly a defender of IP, to her the work of the mind was the highest value, and investing that work is what made property property, intellectual or physical.
I'm not acquainted with all strands of Libertarianism, my focus being on that of the Austrian School variation, which also happens to be the mainstream (as long as anything "libertarian" can be thought of as "mainstream"), and while there are some in there who argue in favor of IP, particularly the older folk, most tend to agree that you cannot go around opening exceptions to the general libertarian take on government-granted monopolies (i.e., fewer as better than many, and none as definitely better than fe
Re: (Score:2)
the general libertarian take on government-granted monopolies (i.e., fewer as better than many, and none as definitely better than few) or on what a government is for (preventing an individual from imposing his will over another and another's property, and protecting explicitly-signed contracts). IP violates both things, so a libertarian defending it is quite clearly confused, or more likely just someone who didn't think things through.
No libertarian thinks that the government should grant no monopolies. A
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of "libertarians" have you been talking to? Ayn Rand's Objectivist variety, though quite vocal, has always been on the fringe of libertarian thought, and pro-IP libertarians in general are becoming rarer every day. Neither Objectivists nor the pro-IP faction are representative of modern libertarians.
No libertarian thinks that the government should grant no monopolies. All libertarians think that the government should enforce monopolies on property. That's the essential difference between libertarians and anarcho-socialists.
And anarcho-capitalists, agorists, etc., who make up a significant fraction of libertarians, contrary to your generalizations. We do at least agree that governments should respect property rights. You
Re: (Score:2)
What you are asking for is not a property right but a monopoly, the difference being that a property right is the right to use something, while a monopoly is a guarantee that others will be prevented from using it, by force, even when their use does not in any way infringe on your own.
There is no difference here. Property rights encompass both. Nobody can legally use my property without my permission, even if that use does not infringe on my own. Property entails both a right to use, and a right to excl
Re: (Score:2)
I can even buy property with the sole intent to exclude others from using it, and never use it myself.
Yes, that's actually a serious logical difficulty in libertarian theory. The classic way to express it is this:
"Suppose two shipwrecked individuals arrive at a small, deserted island. One of them goes to sleep. The other stays awake, and immediately starts working on the terrain of the island. He works building a fence that just happens to surround the other shipwrecked. The he wakes up, he asks indignant why the other trapped him, to what the first answers that he did no such thing, he just respected the o
Re: (Score:2)
We understand all IP to be government interfering with our private property.
Yes but many libertarians seem to have no issue whatsoever with Ron Paul wanting to ban abortion (he would want to overturn Roe v. Wade and has co sponsored 4 separate bills to "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.")
I've never understood all the hype about Ron Paul. The guy has some good ideas but also very many that are close to sheer lunacy (many of them being because he's very much a religious conservative. Among other things he sponsored the original Marriage Protection
Re: (Score:3)
I could never vote for someone who wants to mess with people's right to their own bodies. No-one can honestly hold a "pro-life" (quotes because I think the very term itself is loaded) stance and at the same time claim that they're for small government. It doesn't get bigger than government telling you what to do and what not to do with your own body.
This is one of those gray areas in the theory. Pro-life libertarians argue both positions aren't incompatible on the basis, for example (and this is but one argumentative path in this direction), that if no one can interfere with the body of the mother, neither can she interfere with the body of the fetus, as the fetus has the same rights to his body she has over hers, up to and including co-domain over the organs both share for the duration of their 9-month "contract", willingly entered into by most of her
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:5, Insightful)
hahahahha. Why is this not moderated +5 funny?
Nobody in the US government anywhere on the political spectrum has shown they have any intentions to end the copyright/IP witchhunt except for SCOTUS and maybe 5 senators. The entirety of congress is at fault for this travesty and the damage this copyright/IP farce is causing to our economy.
MPAA owns the news (Score:3)
The entirety of congress is at fault for this travesty and the damage this copyright/IP farce is causing to our economy.
Is Congress at fault, or are constituents at fault for not paying attention to political news sources other than those operated by movie studios [pineight.com]? In a way, news coverage of a candidate for federal elected office can be seen as a stealth in-kind donation to the candidate's election campaign. To bury a candidate that doesn't toe the party line on expansion of copyright, the major TV news outlets (Disney's ABC, Universal's NBC, Paramount's CBS, Last Century Fox's Fox News, and Warner Bros.' CNN) can just fail
Re: (Score:2)
The counter to that is simple, just congress is stupid.
Counter = internet.
TV is cheaper than Internet (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHAHA man, if you had chosen any words but "going to tell you how to live" this would have been nowhere NEAR as hilarious as it was, and could have been modded up +1, sad but true. But seriously? Republicans are the masters of telling people how they're going to live. Republicans are entirely about being free to live the way they want you to live. That's what they DO, that's what "social conservative" MEANS.
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:4, Insightful)
You keep chasing that carrot though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, it's too bad that Romney didn't make it so we can have the government legislating fucking, the right to be with someone you care about, robbing everyone to give to the rich so they can get the highest score and privatizing profits while nationalizing their debt. Instead we have a president that wants to tax the robber barons, legislate people owning property they created, and making sure people are treated when they get sick instead of dying in the street due to a toothache.
Fuck Romney, he was a failure of a man, and would have ruined this nation. Anyone who doesn't see that is a horrible person that needs to learn what it's like to be human before hurt themselves
Re:Welcome to obamaworld (Score:4, Insightful)
No no no. You need to listen to more conservative talk radio.
The proper term is Obamanation.
See, its like abomination.
That way we can get more riled up about it because it uses the dogma switch to turn off the tiny little rational parts of our brain we have not yet mananged to destroy yet.
Re:Rich Gabon (Score:4, Informative)
They have enough oil not to care about a website. They don't want to piss off one of the biggest oil importer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
most popular websites on Earth, which will generate millions in ad revenue.
What makes you think Gabon would have seen any of that revenue? They might only see the domain registration fees, even hosting does not have to be physically based in Gabon... The ads certainly won't be.
Re:Rich Gabon (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, it's nice to see Gabon is in a great economic position, has eliminated all poverty, improved education, public healthcare, great mass transit systems, and can afford the luxury to turn down an offer to host what's sure to become one of the most popular websites on Earth, which will generate millions in ad revenue.
That would be all well and good if Gabon was likely to earn millions in revenue from it. It's more likely to earn only a small fee (less than $25?) for the domain name registration.
Not withstanding that, it seems fairly obvious that this is due to US pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be all well and good if Gabon was likely to earn millions in revenue from it. It's more likely to earn only a small fee (less than $25?) for the domain name registration.
I'm sure they could have cut a deal for a higher registration fee...
Re:Rich Gabon (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, it's nice to see Gabon is in a great economic position, has eliminated all poverty, improved education, public healthcare, great mass transit systems, and can afford the luxury to turn down an offer to host what's sure to become one of the most popular websites on Earth, which will generate millions in ad revenue.
Holding the TLD of the domain name and hosting the site have nothing to do with each other. First of all, the site was to be cloud-based, so as not to have a single hosting location that can easily be taken down. Second of all, absolutely no cloud services vendors have hosting facilities in Gabon. Gabon would gain nothing from hosting me.ga except diplomatic and economic pressure from North American and European countries, and I'm quite sure that such pressure is what led them to take this action. If they had anything to gain at all, that'd be one thing, but they had a lot to lose, and nothing to gain whatsoever.
This goes to Kim Dotcom's problem...that no matter how he scatters and fuzzes his infrastructure, he will still have to contend with single points of failure that can be attacked through procedural means. I don't know how to deal with it, frankly...all completely decentralized systems for content distribution and sharing that I know of (like Freenet) are somewhat awkward and a real pain in the ass. If you need to use a domain name, you've got a point of vulnerability where the powers that be have an undue procedural advantage. This doesn't even take into account the other challenges of payment processing, financial basis (gotta pay your bills from an account somewhere), hiring of personnel (what if the operation is deemed a criminal activity, and they go after the employees under RICO or an equivalent law?), and other things I probably haven't even thought of.
Re: (Score:2)
frankly...all completely decentralized systems for content distribution and sharing that I know of (like Freenet) are somewhat awkward and a real pain in the ass.
Gnutella worked really well from a technical perspective IIRC. Torrents got big because they were hostable on websites, which allowed for better organization and communities to form, and they downloaded from multiple streams so they were faster. But in terms of ease of use, I'd give Gnutella the edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because Kim Criminal will surely move to Gabon and set up his business there. Instead of, you know, crazy wild idea, just route the domain name to somewhere in some 1st world country where they have mansions and fast cars.
And that's assuming the whole thing isn't just total vaporware intended for one thing only: Publicity.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That his bribe would be bigger than the other guy's?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what she said.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah,
Big guns and navy ships to spare will do fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah,
Big guns and navy ships to spare will do fine.
Plus the several hundred thousand dollars in US foreign aid [foreignassistance.gov]. It's the Golden Rule at work.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why he wants a domain name anyway. It just adds an attack vector.
I have no trouble remembering 8.8.8.8 for dns, really.
Also, it's less likely a .arpa domain could be messed with. Ugly, but boy are they stable. They don't even expire.
Re:The long arm of American influence (Score:5, Funny)
I bet they were bullied into this suspension of the domain name.
D'ya think?
Re: (Score:3)
On a first glance, I laughed on the idea: "ridiculous".
15 seconds after, I give it a second thought and stopped laughing.
We really need a private naming system for the Internet nowadays.
P2P and Alternative DNS (Score:2, Insightful)
Well there is the P2P DNS system and alternative DNS that are out there.
The problem is they are awkward to setup at best for a casual user and they simply aren't known enough to those outside of geek circles.
These 2 systems have the potential to solve EVERYTHING, but they are stagnating in the corner.
Re: (Score:2)
"We really need a private naming system for the Internet nowadays."
We had one. It was called the DNS.
At the end of the 1990s the /. community response was "Oh, Icann doesn't look to bad, let's give them a chance" despite it being all spelled out why it was the wosrt possible idea and what would happen and oh look it just did. Again.
You really do have to RTFA, especially when it's about net.policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Kim could bypass DNS entirely by getting a static IP address. He can advertise:
208.32.151.63
Upload all your files for free
two-oh-eight-thirty-two-one-fifty-one-sixtyTHREE
You are safe from LAPD
Re: (Score:2)