Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Communications Encryption Government Network Networking Privacy Security Software The Internet Wireless Networking News Your Rights Online Hardware Technology

Paris Terrorists Used Burner Phones, Not Encryption, To Evade Detection (arstechnica.com) 161

An anonymous reader writes from an article on Ars Technica: New details of the Paris attacks carried out last November reveal that it was the consistent use of prepaid burner phones, not encryption, that helped keep the terrorists off the radar of the intelligence services. As an article in The New York Times reports: "the three teams in Paris were comparatively disciplined. They used only new phones that they would then discard, including several activated minutes before the attacks, or phones seized from their victims." The article goes on to give more details of how some phones were used only very briefly in the hours leading up to the attacks. "Everywhere they went, the attackers left behind their throwaway phones, including in Bobigny, at a villa rented in the name of Ibrahim Abdeslam. When the brigade charged with sweeping the location arrived, it found two unused cellphones still inside their boxes." At another location used by one of the terrorists, the police found dozens of unused burner phones "still in their wrappers." As The New York Times says, one of the most striking aspects of the phones is that not a single e-mail or online chat message from the attackers was found on them. But rather than trying to avoid discovery by using encryption -- which would in itself have drawn attention to their accounts -- they seem to have stopped using the internet as a communication channel altogether, and turned to standard cellular network calls on burner phones.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paris Terrorists Used Burner Phones, Not Encryption, To Evade Detection

Comments Filter:
  • shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ideadman ( 952695 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:20PM (#51748063)
    I'm shocked, shocked I say!
    • Minimal verbal notes on single use phones goes right to the heart of intelligence (note that word) agencies to begin using covert agents/spies.

      These agencies need to 'get smart.' Unfortunately, these agencies have tended to put their trust in electronic surveillance, as politicians put all sorts of restrictions on the use of spies. Politicians don't like "paying spies" and "dirty work" being done by spies, including "sabotage" and "silencing" targets.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Frankly, neither should we, the people, be comfortable with the idea of people running around and dealing out their own lynch justice in secret and outside the control of the public judicial system. It may be the only way to deal with some powerful people, but only as a last resort.

      • Re:shocker! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc AT carpanet DOT net> on Tuesday March 22, 2016 @07:23AM (#51751147) Homepage

        At BEST they are playing whack a mole with spies.

        Spies do NOTHING to address the underlying causes that make choosing to follow terrorist leaders to ones own death looks reasonable. That is the real problem. Have you ever even taken 2 seconds to imagine yourself growing up under the threat of our bombs? Have you ever pondered what its like to live under the boot of a dictator who was installed and supported by foriegn governments, like ours? Have you ever thought about the generations of bad will we purchased with actions like using and protecting men like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ? Or Overthrowing democratically elected presidents in favor of a King (what do you think Sha means)?

        There are a lot of points of view in this world from which terrorism looks like a not that insane option, especially if someone promises to pay your family. That isn't their fault; a lot of that is our own fault.

    • by shubus ( 1382007 )
      Yes, we're all shocked! What was everybody thinking? That they used Phones? These people are crazy, not stupid.
    • I'm shocked, shocked I say!

      why be shocked. An old Bourne Supremacy movie showed David slipping a "burn" phone to a newspaper reporter. He and the reporter communicated "off the network"

      Throw-away (limited use prepaid) phones are hard to track.

  • So Let Up On Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jim Sadler ( 3430529 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:23PM (#51748097)
    Sadly people in the US tend to picture the terrorists as being ignorant savages and maybe some of them are but they also have some very intelligent and resourceful people who develop methods of attack and avoidance of detection. I would hate to know how many dollars it takes to bag and tag just one terrorist, other than the ones at the lowest levels of their organizations. I suspect it would be millions of dollars for every real terrorist we stop.
    • I suspect it would be millions of dollars for every real terrorist we stop.

      Indeed. Same as for drug lords and such. Is it worth it? Depends on the terrorist leader.

      That being said, for the burner phones - it seems to me that extra monitoring on newly activated phones might be the solution.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Solution ?, hardly.

        How many millions of cellphone get carried into a country by tourists, how many new cellphones are registered each day ?

        Then they will simply encrypt their messages , how do you know which photo, which txt, which call from which number is related to which action ?

        ANYTHING governments do will be ineffective in stopping people determined to commit any sort of crime you name.

        The governments are lying to you to make you feel secure. So long as they "look" like they are doing something, no mat

    • Sadly people in the US tend to picture the terrorists as being ignorant savages

      Really? I think most view them as intelligent and resourceful savages.

      • Sadly people in the US tend to picture the terrorists as being ignorant savages

        Really? I think most view them as intelligent and resourceful savages.

        This. Even immediately after 9-11 we acknowledged it as a "sophisticated" attack that took years in the planning, dry runs, etc..
        Many of the lower level terrorists in the ground forces (like in Syria) might be simpletons, but we know they (ISIS, AQ) have seriously knowledgeable businessmen and scientists working for them too. That, combined with their unifying ideology and disciplined organization, is what makes modern terrorists so dangerous.

    • They did do some mistakes though. Such as throwing those phones into the trash, where they were later found by police, complete with messages and call logs, pointing to their hideout in Saint Denis...

      And some of them are cowards, discarding their explosive belt, rather than using it...

    • but they also have some very intelligent and resourceful people who develop methods of attack and avoidance of detection

      Honestly though, how much of a rocket scientist do you need to be use to a burner phone?

      Anybody over the age of 13 who has watched any amount of TV knows you can walk into a store, buy a no-contract phone and a SIM, and register it with very little effort. Likely without any real ID or credit cards.

      As I understand it, in Europe and elsewhere it's common to travel, buy a cheap local SIM, a

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:38PM (#51748207)

      They are ignorant savages. They're just not consistently ignorant about everything.

      An important thing to remember about your adversaries. They may be simplistic philosophically, but that doesn't prevent them from knowing how to use basic operational security measures using technology which has been designed to be easy to use and portable. Especially when trained and veteran terrorists are making terrorism guides available on a plethora of sites created specifically for the purpose of making effective terrorists out of civilians for one big attack.

      Terrorist attacks are hard to stop before they go off, particularly if you don't know who might actually execute one. So a first-time terrorist has a huge advantage if they have kept a relatively low profile. Even a person who is known to be radicalized by locals isn't going to come to the attention of a law enforcement agency unless the locals blow them in. And since most "locals" don't want to get involved, or may even be close to the terrorists or their families, they may be very disinclined, hoping that their friend or relative "would never do such a thing."

      • Especially when trained and veteran terrorists are making terrorism guides available on a plethora of sites created specifically for the purpose of making effective terrorists out of civilians for one big attack.

        Who'd want to take advice from a veteran suicide bomber?

      • by sociocapitalist ( 2471722 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2016 @05:43AM (#51750887)

        They are ignorant savages.

        Yeah they're actually often not at all ignorant :
        http://www.economist.com/node/... [economist.com]
        http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]

        • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          I don't care if they have a Ph.D in physics, they're ignorant. You cannot argue that someone who fails to understand the value of life, both of others and their own, is not grossly ignorant.

          If they execute these sorts of action and are not ignorant, then they are insane, and I have seen little evidence of their actual insanity. Ignorance is the only thing that remains. There is no action or cause that justifies random attacks on innocent civilians, especially if the cause they supposedly espouse is the e

          • I don't care if they have a Ph.D in physics, they're ignorant. You cannot argue that someone who fails to understand the value of life, both of others and their own, is not grossly ignorant.

            If they execute these sorts of action and are not ignorant, then they are insane, and I have seen little evidence of their actual insanity. Ignorance is the only thing that remains. There is no action or cause that justifies random attacks on innocent civilians, especially if the cause they supposedly espouse is the ending of attacks on their own innocent compatriots.

            I think you are misusing the word ignorance. They may have a different opinion of the value of life than you do but this does not mean that they are ignorant of the value of life - on the contrary they are trying to hurt us by taking our lives from us which indicates that they are quite aware of the value of life.

            My understanding is that those targeting civilians consider that these civilians have voted for the people in power making decisions. Although we may disagree with them, it cannot be said that th

    • by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @07:05PM (#51748379) Homepage

      If only it were that cheap.

      It costs millions, not to *kill* each of the ISIS soldiers, but simply to confront them at all.

      Do the math: about 20,000 ISIS. And the US military complex, which is already getting about $1T from the taxpayers every year (when you add all defense-related costs), was asked to attack them. They explained that for one thousand billion dollars per year, all they can do is sit at home, eat, and train. No fighting is affordable.

      The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year. For 20,000 men. That's $5M per ISIS member attacked for one year. With luck, a good many of them will be killed but probably barely 10% of them, and having spent $50M each to kill a few thousand...at least 2000 young boys will turn 17 or 18 and sign up with them during the year, leaving you in about the same strategic position.

      Probably ISIS can be beaten - they are so little and weak and have so many enemies in the area besides the West. But that's why nothing ever got better in Afghanistan - it cost $100B a year to kill a few thousand Taliban who were easily replaced.

      • The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year

        What dollar figure are you attaching to the dead American soldiers? To the soldiers with limbs blown off? To the soldiers with PTSD who come home and start beating their children?

        The "bill" is dead boys and girls from all across America... Killed trying to defeat an enemy who, in the end, represents a very small threat to the USA.

        That price is a lot more than $100B.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year

          What dollar figure are you attaching to the dead American soldiers? To the soldiers with limbs blown off? To the soldiers with PTSD who come home and start beating their children? The "bill" is dead boys and girls from all across America... Killed trying to defeat an enemy who, in the end, represents a very small threat to the USA. That price is a lot more than $100B.

          That's a different question. Answered in the form of increased drone strikes so we don't "waste" soldiers lives. Not that it matters as we canit win this war with either a land based invasion ( We will NEVER be in there long enough to make the native government stable ) or with the drone strikes ( Like those are going to win the hearts and mind's of the people. ). The fact is, and always has been, that soldiers get a shit deal when they sign up with the Army. They know more than anyone that they figh

          • hearts and mind's

            So the rule is that if the singular ends in a voiced consonant, the plural has an apostrophe?

            I never knew that.

        • What dollar figure are you attaching to the dead American soldiers? To the soldiers with limbs blown off? To the soldiers with PTSD who come home and start beating their children?

          $182.3 Billion for 2017 [va.gov]

        • Still think they're a "JV" team ?
          • There are two important factors when assessing the threat of any entity: Capability and Intent.

            ISIS has the intent to end us, but not the capability. That would require a huge army, or WMDs, or a persistent threat, such as repeated successful attacks on critical infrastructure or government facilities. Killing a few civilians is, in relative terms, an annoyance. It's extremely harmful to the immediate family and friends of the victims, and somewhat harmful to society through empathy and fear, but not at

      • If only it were that cheap.

        It costs millions, not to *kill* each of the ISIS soldiers, but simply to confront them at all.

        Do the math: about 20,000 ISIS. And the US military complex, which is already getting about $1T from the taxpayers every year (when you add all defense-related costs), was asked to attack them. They explained that for one thousand billion dollars per year, all they can do is sit at home, eat, and train. No fighting is affordable.

        The additional bill for attacking ISIS is about $100B per year. For 20,000 men. That's $5M per ISIS member attacked for one year. With luck, a good many of them will be killed but probably barely 10% of them, and having spent $50M each to kill a few thousand...at least 2000 young boys will turn 17 or 18 and sign up with them during the year, leaving you in about the same strategic position.

        Probably ISIS can be beaten - they are so little and weak and have so many enemies in the area besides the West. But that's why nothing ever got better in Afghanistan - it cost $100B a year to kill a few thousand Taliban who were easily replaced.

        The cost to the taxpayer will be there whether or not there is Daesh to fight as this is just the US military baseline and most of that is spread around the world, not engaged in the middle east. The additional cost to actually fight the war there is relatively negligible.

        The actual cost that the west isn't willing to pay is the political cost of the casualties involved in sending soldiers in to actually end the war - imagining for a moment that our leadership actually had a viable endgame in mind, which t

    • There is a common saying amongst law enforcement, to the effect that prisons are full of dumb criminals, the cops are chasing the mediocre ones and the smart ones a never even get suspected, let alone caught.

    • And the most successful method of catching terrorists still seems to be them being ratted out by family and friends. Even in the thoroughly hard-core muslim borough of Molenwijk in Brussels, there are still decent people who report suspicious activity to the police. And in that neighborhood I would say that these people do so at considerable personal risk. Winning hearts and minds is still important.
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:25PM (#51748117) Homepage Journal

    But if we don't accept airport scanning which doesn't detect 98 percent of usable devices, and 24/7 information on every citizen which provides zero usable intel on anyone with a World War I level of training in spycraft, how can we all Live In Fear?

    Do you want to let the terrorists win?

    The terrorists want us to Live In Fear!

    So we must all Live In Fear to protect ourselves with useless actions that are not helpful in any way!

    • by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:59PM (#51748347)

      It is hard for the government, who everyone likes to turn to for solutions, to admit that the best solution is to mostly do nothing at all, aside from some common sense actions. It doesn't get people elected. It doesn't get big budget approved.

      Ultimately, terrorists are hard to nab, especially radicalized first timers. To actually have a decent success rate requires expenditure or mobilization that costs a significant amount of money.

      The government is best when it can dissuade attacks by threatening force or other sanctions. Unfortunately, these people don't care if they die, so it is hard to see what sort of sanction you could come up with, short of executing their families or something else they care about. Even then, these people are so messed up that they would think they are earning martyrdom for their families by getting them killed in such a way.

      Of course, that said, the nice thing is that there aren't really that many suicidal bombers out there. They are a force to be reckoned with, but most humans, even radicals, are not *that* radical.

      You know how to stop terrorism? Stop talking about it. Terrorist acts won't be stopped, but they will be rendered considerably less effective. Terrorism is useful because it causes fear and overreaction. That overreaction can radicalize people and wear down resistance to their aims. By themselves, the terrorists have killed a few thousand people and blown up a few buildings. That's peanuts in a country of 300 million people, so the only way they become powerful is when the media becomes their force multiplier.

      There are thousands of people who die every day in the United States to gun violence due to gang killing, some of that is collateral damage where innocents get killed, so it isn't just "thugs".

      We don't walk around really thinking about that too much, and consequently most of us don't live in fear of it unless we live up close to it. And why is that? Because it gets ignored in the media. We fear a once in every so-often elementary school shooting more than we fear something that happens multiple times every day, by organized criminal figures with teams of professional or semi-professional killers on their staff.

      The catch is this... terrorists will kill people, but if you keep your measured responses targeted at the most effective programs that are aiming at things like education, outreach, and probably a few targeted teams of intelligence types, you decrease the odds of a terrorism death considerably, and without the rights violations. But it does require us to admit that *we cannot stop terrorists from killing some of us*, but also to understand that your risk of death is higher from just getting in a car to drive to work. You're just as likely to be accidentally killed by an gang war as collateral damage.

       

      • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @07:17PM (#51748463) Homepage Journal

        It's not the money, it's where you spend it.

        Humint works. Most tech is easily defeated. Interrogation using friendly police methods works. Most stuff you see on TV or in movies doesn't work.

        But you're right about the not talking about it part. Their objective is to instill Fear in the population. The problem is that the politicians want to manipulate the media to make it appear they're doing something, even if most of what they're doing is just helping create more Fear.

        You're at more risk from a teen driving a car, or second hand cigarette smoke.

        Technology only works in other places and only when limited to the useful methods. The key vectors are known, and yet we do absolutely nothing about them.

        • You're at more risk from a teen driving a car, or second hand cigarette smoke.

          Or even furniture. [washingtonpost.com]

        • by dave420 ( 699308 )

          I think you'll find most people aren't as scared of terrorism as you seem to assume they are. That says more about your fears than about those you wish you describe...

        • Humint works.

          Not against "lone wolf" attacks. But there's no SIGINT there either. Basically if I decide tomorrow to by myself blow up/shoot/knife a bunch of people, there's really not fuckall that can be done about it. The best protection against terrorism is to a) not get terrified, and b) make sure people have opportunities to live a meaningful life. You're a lot less likely to blow yourself up if you've got a wife and kids. [citation needed]

          But I agree with the rest of your point. We're much more likely to die of the

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        You talk as if terrorists were some kind of fixed number, like that some tiny fraction of the population will mentally snap and kill someone. That if we just don't draw attention to it, it won't really be much of an issue. And if they were so mostly lurking in the corners, extremists sharing their views with other extremists or lone wolves with twisted perceptions of reality I might be inclined to agree. But they've long since stepped out of the shadows, raised their flags and ceased vast areas with fucking

        • Correct, we shouldn't just ignore the problem. However, the entire point of terrorism is to cause fear. When we make a big deal of terrorism, and the government uses it as an excuse to increase powers that obliterate privacy rights, it is to some extent helping terrorism more than it hurts it. In the Middle East, yes, it is a problem, and trying to help end it there is a worthy goal, although active war is likely to increase terrorism via stronger dislike for the US and the rest of the 'western world', but
          • by dave420 ( 699308 )

            The point of terrorism is to use fear to politically coerce a group of people. It's not just "fear", but specific fear guided to achieve a particular end.

        • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          I am not overly concerned about that. That is the sort of threat that our armed forces are actually good at dealing with. If they want to create a country, they have to set up logistics and stability. Those can be smashed and denied to them.

          Yes, they have made inroads in a turbulent area where there is a weak government on one side and a civil war on the other. We can actually help Iraq and others sort that out with normal military assistance.

          Of course, I am not suggesting that an ISIS regime is easy fo

      • It is hard for the government

        Don't be an apologist. Terrorism is the best thing to happen to any government. It has allowed governments throughout the world to perform an unprecedented power grab from the people, and the people go along with it.

        Even when not grabbing power you can simply do a quick distraction when the political situation requires it. A minister was caught embezzling money? "Oh look over there we just arrested someone of suspected terrorism because terrorism is evil and we're here for your protection!" 4 weeks later wh

    • +1
    • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2016 @01:11AM (#51750177) Homepage

      The 24/7 spying is not about terrorists, it is all about tracking peaceful political activists, those people who do actively effect political change. Also all potential politicians, union leaders, government officials, anyone who could be potentially extorted at a latter date to empower the espionage/military industrial complex. As for the terrorist seeming to be so smart and effectively neutralising the investigative techniques that are being kept secret from the majority, ever consider that they were being too smart, smarter than in fact they should, smarter than they would be without professional assistance and this professional assistance working with the full knowledge of the investigative techniques being applied. The global espionage/military industrial complex worth trillions desperately needs enemies to fight and we know full well they have been purposefully creating them for decades and this corrupt activity is escalating.

  • Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlphaBro ( 2809233 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:29PM (#51748153)
    Terrorism is just a scapegoat used to target encryption. The siege will continue unabated.
  • by GrahamCox ( 741991 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:29PM (#51748159) Homepage
    So, not only do "they" want to add as much hay as possible while they search for the needle, turns out they're not even looking at the right haystack.
  • DUH! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @07:08PM (#51748397) Homepage

    Honestly the leaders of the world are drooling fucking morons.

    we are all lucky that terrorists and thieves are as stupid as our leaders and police are. WE have the FBI wasting resources to get Apple to decrypt a phone with NOTHING ON IT for data THEY ALREADY HAVE. No wonder anyone with any brain cells does not trust police in any way. They are utterly incompetent.

    • In related news, the DOJ admitted they already have access to the data in the phone, which means the FBI finally requested it through official channels as they should have done months ago.

    • by ShaunC ( 203807 )

      WE have the FBI wasting resources to get Apple to decrypt a phone with NOTHING ON IT for data THEY ALREADY HAVE.

      No, we have the FBI (hopefully) wasting resources to get Apple compelled to provide a phone-decryption service, which will then be used as a matter of course while investigating everything under the sun, to include jaywalking and barbering without a license. It isn't about this phone, it's about everyone else's.

    • Re:DUH! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @09:00PM (#51749047)

      They've never been interested in the what's on the phone because they know nothing is there. Many of the people involved in the investigation have admitted as such. This case was entirely about precedent and remains so. If the FBI can cement a court victory in this case requiring a private company to build something for the FBI then the FBI can request that of any company or person under threat of imprisonment for contempt of court (you can't appeal contempt of court). A win would grant them basically a gold plated weapon to request anything they want in a criminal case. They could compel any company to develop devices or software to let them do things they couldn't normally do.

      And this is a perfect test case for the FBI, they've got a known terrorist here, a phone he didn't own and a bunch of dead civilians. They likely couldn't find a more sympathetic case and they know it, that's why they are using it to try to get the golden bullet. The FBI win's and anyone could be pressed into service of the FBI developing things for their use in investigations of any kind.

      • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

        Then that means we have even less reasons to trust any police because at their core they are WORSE than criminals.

        Thanks, now I need a drink.

  • At least we see that wrecking encryption won't help matters before they managed to ram wrecking encryption down everyones' throats. It's like I said, criminals and terrorists will find other ways to do what they're going to do. Wrecking everyone elses' data security and privacy just makes crimes against non-criminals and non-terrorists easier to accomplish. Anal-retentive authoritarian power-grabbing government and law-enforcement types need to back the hell off and keep their noses out of peoples' business
  • danger man — a precursor to james bond —used all sorts of clever not-digital methods of subterfuge — which were decidedly 'low tech'. John Drake does not employ cutting edge gadgets, relying instead on his wits. The most 'advanced' device used, is a closed circuit television and a tape recorder. Messages are passed in matchboxes and folded newspapers with photographic microdots. He would use the spy's own bugs against him by feeding it false information — check out Danger Man in acti

  • by Paco103 ( 758133 ) on Monday March 21, 2016 @08:02PM (#51748715)

    ZOMG, can you imagine the threat? Why, I just returned from the UK, and when I landed there was a vending machine just FULL of SIM cards. I got a phone number and full service without ANY question, and I don't even have any of the terrorist training. I was just, able to buy something normal without ANY background check or inquiry into my plans. When I came back to the US, I saw another machine offering similar things. This is the way the world ends, not with world war 3, but with anonymous, prepaid cell phone service.

  • In Australia, burner phones are illegal. You can't even buy a prepaid SIM card without producing and linking it to a government-issued ID. But in New Zealand, you can buy as many burner phones as you want - they're next to the chocolate bars in the supermarket check-outs and cost as little as $10. This makes the Australian rules ridiculous given that actual terrorists and criminals could just visit NZ and post the burners back over to Australia, and use them in roaming mode.
    • In Australia, burner phones are illegal. You can't even buy a prepaid SIM card without producing and linking it to a government-issued ID. But in New Zealand, you can buy as many burner phones as you want - they're next to the chocolate bars in the supermarket check-outs and cost as little as $10. This makes the

      Australian rules ridiculous given that actual terrorists and criminals could just visit NZ and post the burners back over to Australia, and use them in roaming mode.

      Is travel between NZ and Australia easy if one doesn't want to pass border control?

  • Because reasons..

    The terrorists didn't use encryption, but this won't stop the people who want access to everything you do in your life from saying encryption will put us all at risk.

    This is just like the idiotic crap about us invading Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, when the real reason was that Iraq refused to bow to the central banking governance that devalued it's oil because the US banks wanted it that way. (Documented fact!)

    It is time for the American people to stop buying int

The solution of problems is the most characteristic and peculiar sort of voluntary thinking. -- William James

Working...