back to article We want to put a KILL SWITCH into your PHONE, say Feds

US law enforcement is calling for a mandatory kill switch on all mobiles, enabling the shut down of stolen phones in the hope of rendering them worthless. Mobile phone theft keeps rising, with one in three US robberies involving mobile kit, apparently. A coalition of US law enforcement agencies calling itself "Secure our …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Frank Zuiderduin

    Bad idea

    Why? Kill switches can be used for other purposes than disabling *stolen* phones. Do you trust your government?

    1. Tchou
      Joke

      Re: Bad idea

      On an unrelated news, USA is experiencing a new kind of terror attack after a foreign intelligence service triggered the "phone kill switch" for the whole country.

      1. Rob Carriere

        Re: Bad idea

        "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

        -- Scotty

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Mushroom

        Re: Bad idea re: tchou

        So all it would take is a programmer to insert a single 'not' statement into the code, and we'd all be fucked.

      3. Euripides Pants

        Re: Bad idea

        "On an unrelated news, USA is experiencing a new kind of terror attack after a foreign intelligence service triggered the "phone kill switch" for the whole country."

        You say that like its a bad thing...

    2. Rick Giles
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Bad idea

      " Do you trust your government?"

      About as far as I can throw those fucktards.

    3. JDX Gold badge

      Re: Bad idea

      Oh no, the government can kill my phone. Hardly near the top of my worries, like having them block my bank account.

    4. Tapeador
      WTF?

      Re: Bad idea

      "Do you trust your government?"

      To do what? To carry out the primary duty of government, which is to create an environment within which we can reasonably seek a good life for ourselves, by it in part combatting crime and terrorism? Well every time I read that it's been doing this, such as by properly snooping on internet users, I trust it more; and every time I fear it may listen to people like you who would forego and protest against every protection against a Hobbesian state of nature, I trust it less. Why should an object or transmission portal being high-tech render it somehow sacrosanct as though it were some sovereign space beyond the reach of any state?

      1. M Gale

        Re: Bad idea

        "you will put a kill switch in this phone or we will make it impossible for you to live."

        Just remember that every diktat from government comes with a "or we will make it impossible for you to live" attached to it, and you'll see that dictating this over a fucking phone is perhaps a little bit psychotic.

        But then this is a government we're on about. They are good at using sledgehammers on nuts.

  2. xyz
    Alien

    This is taking the piss

    Prism, then cars, now phones that kill themselves for your comfort and security. Must be getting near the reptilian overlords' harvest time

  3. Schultz Silver badge
    Stop

    KISS

    Does the police really expect that the desperate robber turns his life around simply because he can't use/sell the stolen phones? How about forbidding / regulating the other risk factors:

    - Jewelry is only legal if worn with a gun.

    -Wallets must incinerate their content when they are opened by unauthorized persons.

    -Expensive sneakers and clothes are not allowed to show distinct 'brand features' that would identify them to robbers.

    Really, it should be between the seller and customer to distinguish between useful and superfluous functions. Keep it simple.

    1. Tchou
      Joke

      Re: KISS

      >> Wallets must incinerate their content when they are opened by unauthorized persons.

      -"Hey look, someone lost his wallet!"

      -"Maybe the adress is inside"

      -"Ho! Wait.."

    2. Tchou
      Joke

      Re: KISS

      >>- Jewelry is only legal if worn with a gun.

      That's already the case if you're in a gang.

    3. davtom
      Thumb Up

      Re: KISS

      "-Expensive sneakers and clothes are not allowed to show distinct 'brand features' that would identify them to robbers."

      Actually, I support that one. I refuse to buy any clothes where you pay extra for the brand name AND for the privilege of advertising it for them.

      The next stage is to ban advertising of these brands aimed at children.

      I don't like the idea of the kill switch, though.

      1. The BigYin

        Re: KISS

        "I refuse to buy any clothes where you pay extra for the brand name AND for the privilege of advertising it for them."

        Yup. A discrete label or logo I'll accept. But "MEGA-CORP ULTRA TOGS" across....not so much.

        I am reminded for a MAD cartoon with a guy wearing a T-shit that said: Meet a schmuck who pays to give free advertising to a multi-billion dollar company.

        (Or something like that)

        1. Gavin King
          Headmaster

          Re: KISS

          Discrete or Discreet? Both can be applicable, but I'm not too sure which is better.

          I'm in the discrete bin myself; if I think the clothes are good, I'll tell people that. Although a small logo isn't the end of the world, especially if the clothes are in fact well made and comfortable.

          And the tags sewn into shirts always seem to be made to dig holes in the spine anyhow.

        2. Maharg
          Happy

          Re: KISS

          I just buy clothes that fit, I like, and that I am willing to pay for, but I am ‘brand aware’, for instance the last 3 pairs of trainers (3 over 6 years that is) I have brought have all been Nike, for a number of reasons, for some reason Nike size 10s are slightly wider than other main brands size 10s, without being big clunky skater shoes like DC’s or Airwalks, but still on the ‘comfort’ side of things.

          Because it’s Nike you can guarantee 90% of shoe stores will have some, so I can go in to any store, find a pair of size 10s Nikes that look like my old ones and buy them without bothering to try them on. I have never paid more than £25 for a pair, and for £25 I know they will last around 3 years, that’s £8.30 a year for a decent good looking comfy pair of trainers that I can wear every day, even when they have been in the washing machine a couple of times. I spent £30 on some airwalks once and they lasted about 6 months before they looked terrible.

          As I said I have brought 3 pairs in 6 years, but that’s due to a shoe from one pair being lost at a music festival, and the replacement pair being eaten by a German Shepard two years later, I am now on my 3rd pair of shoes in 6 years.

          Btw I dont work for Nike

      2. Diogenes
        Pirate

        Re: KISS

        "Actually, I support that one. I refuse to buy any clothes where you pay extra for the brand name AND for the privilege of advertising it for them."

        OOh you freetard you.

        By putting their trademark into the item is the only way they can protect their IP (no copyright on clothes)

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: KISS

      "Expensive sneakers and clothes are not allowed to show distinct 'brand features' that would identify them to robbers."

      Bring it on … I'm fed up of paying top dollar just to become a walking billboard.

  4. Tchou
    Angel

    "Dear customer,

    your pricey mobile was terminated by Federal authorities.

    We took good note that it wasn't stolen (or so you say), alas, in this case your 5 years warranty won't work as it is not a product or service fault.

    We encourage you to see this matter with the involved authorities.

    We gently remind you that in any case this is a good opportunity to renew your hardware and confidence in us.

    Cheers,

    Microsoft/Apple/Samsung/Whatever"

    1. Don Jefe

      You forgot: 'While you will no longer be able to use your phone we have left NSA tracking functionality in place for your safety in order to protect you from terrorists.'

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Dear customer,

      your pricey mobile was terminated by Federal authorities

      remarkably similar to the note someone I know got from the US TSA after they mistakenly checked in a locked case onto a transatlantic flight - at other end it arrived on carousel wrapped in a plastic bag as the locking catches had all been broken to open the case. In side was a letter saying something along the lines of "Dear traveller, for your added safety and security we've just broken your case"

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
        Flame

        "we've just broken your case"

        Yes, I've had that happen. They didn't break the unlocked case, though. The fuckwits just cut the metal zip toggle that the padlock was dangling from. The actual "lock" was a twist-tie, just to stop the zip coming adrift when the baggage monkeys were throwing it around, but noticing that was clearly way above the IQ of a TSA inoperative.

        1. Eddy Ito
          Big Brother

          @Phil O'Sophical

          Similar thing here at SFO. The morons pried the catches off the wife's instrument case because they must have been stymied by the push buttons. The TSA padlock on the center locking eye they managed just fine though and it was the only thing holding the case shut when she went through customs.

      2. Daniel B.
        Facepalm

        TSA

        Heh. That happened to my dad; he had his luggage arrive at the other end in a similar fashion. By the way, the note also said something along the lines of "You had a non-compliant lock, so we had to break it open and it is all your fault. TSA won't pay up anything if you are missing stuff."

        So not only do they break open your stuff, they basically give anyone else a free pass to steal your stuff!

        1. DaiKiwi
          Big Brother

          Re: TSA

          "TSA breaks guitars"

          There could be a youtube hit in it - but only if you never want to fly anywhere ever again.

  5. Chet Mannly

    Yeah, its about protecting your stolen phone - seriously?

    The reason they want this is obvious - its so that if they discover a phone is going to be used as a remote trigger for a bomb they can remotely kill it and stop the detonation. Or if there's an attack the can kill all the terrorists phones and stop them coordinating.

    Seriously el reg you swallow this "its to stop stolen phones" line?

    As if the Feds give a flying what happened to your shiny iphone...

    1. Nigel 11
      Thumb Down

      Re: Yeah, its about protecting your stolen phone - seriously?

      No, that can't be it. If they believe that a phone is going to be used as a trigger for a bomb, all they have to do is ask (or require) the phone company to disconnect that phone number (or better, for evidence-gathering, to divert the phone number to their evidence-gatering facility). If they can't do this today, it's a relatively uncontroversial bit of legislation to fix it so they can.

      On the other hand I can see why they might want to permanently kill every phone within 100m of a demonstration at which police brutality was happening. Other things like that. And of course, it's completely impossible that some hostile foreign government might get its hand on the kill switch for every mobile phone in the USA. Isn't it?

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: Yeah, its about protecting your stolen phone - seriously?

        "all they have to do is ask (or require) the phone company to disconnect that phone number"

        It's unlikely they would know exactly which phone was being used as a trigger and far easier to just jam the signals in an area to prevent the call from coming in. I agree that bricking every nearby device to eliminate the possibility of evidence of police misconduct being posted to youtube is a better possibility.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yeah, its about protecting your stolen phone - seriously?

      Actually, there is scope for more painful stuff to happen. A LOT of coordination is done via mobiles - imagine someone coming up with a box that snarfs everything in the vicinity, then pushes out a kill signal to what it finds.

      Don't like the idea? Then leave well alone. Kill switches are IMHO a bad idea.

    3. Simon Harris
      Mushroom

      Re: Yeah, its about protecting your stolen phone - seriously?

      "The reason they want this is obvious - its so that if they discover a phone is going to be used as a remote trigger for a bomb they can remotely kill it and stop the detonation."

      They'd be a bit buggered if the bomb was set to detonate automatically if it didn't get called regularly with 'cancel' codes!

    4. MrXavia
      WTF?

      Re: Yeah, its about protecting your stolen phone - seriously?

      They will already disable the mobile network in that case... and really would they know the IMEI in that case??

    5. Daniel B.
      Boffin

      Cellphone remote detonation

      The problem with these devices is that theoretically someone might think ahead and fit the device with the infamous dead man's switch ... that is, activate on call or on signal loss/disconnection. Oopsie, cops just blew up everyone with their jammer/killswitch!

  6. Tom 38 Silver badge

    First a kill switch in your phone

    Then in your brain.

    How long till TSA fit all foreigners with one on entry?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: First a kill switch in your phone

      Who would want to enter? ;)

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Apple coincidentally?

    they just got hold of some well-placed source. In time.

    1. Don Jefe
      Happy

      Re: Apple coincidentally?

      Here in the US the biggest push has been from Washington DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier. She has been having well publicized 'power meetings' with wireless carriers and device manufacturers for a couple of years. She's on the radio at least once or twice a month talking up her progress. She's got big public safety and awareness programs about keeping your iPhone concealed as apparently the iPhone is the biggest target for hoodlums to deliberately target so she has been extra focused on Apple for years: 'Cracking Down on Apple Picking' she calls it. Stealing mobiles even has a special charge associated with it.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Leave this to the manufactorer: NOT the government

    I have a Windows phone (WP 7.5), which I happen to like too, and guess what? It already has such a feature which I can also chose to turn on or off: "Find your phone". It sends my phone identifier to Microsoft, optionally along with some other information I can opt in to send them (search results, spoken text results, etc.).

    The next part is my Microsoft account or ID. I can attach my phone to my Microsoft account thus giving me direct remote access to my phone using their Windows phone website.

    This access can then be used for all sorts of things. I can browse their app store using my PC and after I decide that I want something I can tell it to send the app to my phone straight away. But I can also tell my phone to ring, lock or even format (erase) itself.

    Why would I need the government for that?

    I don't think this is for the better good; it's for their own good. Maybe I'm paranoid, could be, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next step would be attaching said kill switch to voice recognition software. You know: you're mentioning "let's bomb the bass tonight" and all of a sudden your connection is gone and 5 minutes later you got police all over you for suspicious activities... "But I was going to a dance party? Acid you know, stuff from the 90's?" "Oh, poison is involved too? Tell it to the judge you damn terrist!".

  9. Andy Roid McUser
    Stop

    Kill Switch Hack

    So then along comes the Norks with a preemptive strike. Do they launch nukes, mobilize their army.. no , they hack the kill switch function of all modern phones, leaving only the folks in India with the Asha, Chinese Android clones and that dreadful Tesco mobile with big buttons my mother uses as viable communication devices.

    The western world goes into temporary meltdown. Not because their phones have been 'killed' but people are no longer getting their commutes worth of liking video's of kittens playing the piano on Facebook and Stephen Fry irrelevancies on Twitter.

    Much to the dismay to the Norks the positive side effect of killing mobile infrastructure is that for a couple of months, westerners start talking to each other and reading books once again - until the mad scramble for new un-kill-able smart phones is release in short order by MicroNokia and we all start sporting Windows Phone 8 devices as it'll take Apple a year to bring a new device out and Samsung don't give a crap.

    Thus the moral of the story is , If they install a kill switch into our phones WinPho8 becomes market leader.

    Let's fight this outrage before we all have to start reading books again and buying Finnish.

  10. knarf

    Useless Move

    Like motorcyles/cycles they will then just be stolen and striped for parts

    1. Thecowking
      Trollface

      Re: Useless Move

      They only get striped if they've been spotted.

      The whole business has a chequered past.

  11. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
    WTF?

    This makes little sense. What's to stop the crooks just buying an unlocked phone using a false name/address? It will never be reported stolen, and not associated with a criminal, so there would never be occassion or reason to kill it.

    Unless, of course, they plan to ban the sale of any phone unless proof of identity is provided. Tantamount to requiring you to have a license for your cellphone. I can see them trying it, I can't see it working.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    First phase in changing the rules of phone ownership i.e. 'renting' your phone....?

    Do we trust the comms service providers and manufacturers to not abuse these rules? i.e. Is this really the first phase in 'renting' your phone, where a corp can disable the phone on a whim? What if they start selling packages that give you 3 years with a phone before it is shut off remotely? What if you leave your Telco and move elsewhere, can the provider then kill your phone? Or what if you buy a cheap subsidized iPhone in the USA, then bring it elsewhere and have it unblocked. Can the Telco then remotely kill the phone from the USA? ... What if mistakes are made and the wrong phone is killed? Can that phone receive a reactivation or is it dead permanently? ....Lots of questions... Few answers....

  13. The BigYin

    Yeah

    Like NOTHING will go wrong with that! This should be left to the end-user/owner. Education is the key, not restrictions on use.

  14. Rick Giles
    Black Helicopters

    If anybody buys in to this

    They need to be bitch slapped.

    What about CB and ham radio?

    What about WiFi?

    This is such a monumental amount of bullshit. All this is for is so that they can kill our phones when they start taking action against us to keep us from letting the rest of the world know.

  15. Alan Denman

    Back door already there no doubt. Get the iMessage?

    Obviously they already control it so they want to extend that to Android.

    We know why IOS location tracking is stil there and only ahd partial removal.

    Is that important when many Android phones are sold without the marketing markup?

    IMEI blocking should be enforced round the world via a stolen register !

    We dont need big brother for that!

  16. Howard Hanek
    Flame

    We Would NEVER Target Political Enemies

    So besides the IRS we have to worry about them turning off our phones too?

  17. JamesSmith

    It woud be OK if...

    It were controllable only by the owner of the phone, not the government. All it would take is to dial the number and enter a code known only to the owner. Zap - dead phone. Anything else is asking for government abuse.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: It woud be OK if...

      You'd think anyone nicking a phone wouldn't think to bring a Faraday bag like people use to get nicked clothes out of department stores and the like. If it can't get the kill signal, it can't be killed. And you can't use cell phone reception as a vigilance control. One big blackout or trip to the sticks would kill the phone.

      1. mickey mouse the fith

        Re: It woud be OK if...

        "You'd think anyone nicking a phone wouldn't think to bring a Faraday bag like people use to get nicked clothes out of department stores and the like. If it can't get the kill signal, it can't be killed. And you can't use cell phone reception as a vigilance control. One big blackout or trip to the sticks would kill the phone."

        A few anti theft apps available to rooted Android phone owners can brick the device if the sim is changed, no signal needed. Avast antitheft has this option if I recall.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: It woud be OK if...

          "A few anti theft apps available to rooted Android phone owners can brick the device if the sim is changed, no signal needed. Avast antitheft has this option if I recall."

          But if they work in a radio dead zone, they don't NEED to change the SIM. They just manually install a backup program through ADB or sideload or just manually copy everything of value, then change the SIM and perform a factory wipe on a reboot, before the bricking software can kick in (the feature is part of the Android bootloader itself and doesn't check the SIM at that stage).

  18. Captain Underpants

    Quite aside from the obvious "what a remarkably shoddy idea that provides the end user with nothing they need, while providing operators and government bodies with convenient new powers" comment, I'd like to highlight the following:

    "The purpose of stealing the handset and then discarding it is to delay pursuers, thus providing more time during which stolen credit cards and other spoils can be turned into cash."

    Is there a basis for this statement, or a citation from the police? Because on the face of it, it sounds like nonsense to me - if my wallet and phone are nicked, I'm cancelling the cards ASAP regardless of whether I think there's a chance of getting the phone back.

    The reason I say this is that I also call Great Big Hairy Nadgers on your assertion that thieves don't want the phone when mugging someone. A new iPhone 5 or equivalent-level smartphone, unlocked, costs around £500. You're smoking something fun if you think muggers and thieves don't want in on that action, even if the resale value of a hot one is only a fraction of the full retail price.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      " if my wallet and phone are nicked, I'm cancelling the cards ASAP regardless of whether I think there's a chance of getting the phone back."

      Yeah, but if you haven't got your phone anymore, it's going to take you longer to call to cancel the cards, isn't it?

  19. William Boyle
    Thumb Down

    ???

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong with this idea? Gah! This is why it should not be allowed for legislators to enact laws in technical domains about which they are totally clueless!

  20. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    At the risk of being accused of tinfoil hattery, I can't help wondering if there is something we're missing here. There seems to be an almost exponential rise in both the number and degree of irrational government actions worldwide.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I've always observed that most attacks on freedom or outright attacks for the last 50 years emanate from the US and spread outwards. Greed, Power and Ignorance behave like a virus which spread to infect the weak minded. With 98% of politicians already leaning towards weak minded, greedy, power crazed and ignorant, one tends to see the initial wave spread through the various governments quickly. As they observe they get away with more than they could ever dream of thanks to media control and apathetic citizens the process speeds up ad nauseum. Hence inmho your observation...

  21. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    So, the order goes out to kill the phone with a given number…

    … and the monkey behind the keyboard keys in the wrong number (gets two digits transposed, off-by-one error on the keypad, etc)… and instead of killing the target phone, it kills some innocent person's phone.

    What then? Who's accountable? Does the "kill switch" get remotely turned off, reviving the phone? Do the feds responsible reimburse the victim the cost of replacing the phone with a workable replacement?

    Or do they pretend the phone just magically died? I think I know the answer already.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No more popular uprising

    If all mobiles could be cut, crowd control and propaganda would be easier

    1. Chris_B

      Re: No more popular uprising

      Not heard of walkie-talkies then and normal cameras?

  23. mickey mouse the fith
    WTF?

    imei

    What I dont get is why the imei isnt set in stone on every handset. On my old zte blade, changing the imei was as easy as hex editing an unencrypted file.

    If the imei was hard coded, and fees to access the blocking database were waivered/subsidised for poorer countries comms providers there would be no need for this poorly thought out and almost certain to backfire plan.

    Of course, the real reason they want this new kill switch function is to install a 2 way backchannel for the purpose of snooping. If you can remote brick a device, you also have the capability to open up the mic, camera, forward sms, eavesdrop on calls etc.

  24. John Tserkezis

    To reach out to a stolen phone it has to be identifiable, beyond the easily-changed mobile number. All (GSM) phones have an International Mobile Equipment Identifier (IMEI - press *#06# to see it) number, and the majority of mobile networks subscribe to a system which blocks stolen IMEI numbers from their networks.

    I've already verified this is NOT the case with australian carriers. Regardless of the fact they claim it is. At one stage there was talk of a stolen IMEI database that was accessable to all carriers - so a stolen phone could not be used on any carrier - yeah well, like I say, talk is cheap, actually doing something about it is another matter entirely.

    There is no incentive for the carriers to do anything, because they don't lose anything through a stolen phone. New "owner" buys a brand spanking new SIM card (legally), and as long as they pay their bills, the carriers don't care one squat.

    If, and only if, the carriers see a downshift in subscribers due to being pissed off and going to another carrier that's reputed to be more "secure", THEN we might see them actually doing anything about it.

    Till then, don't lose your phone.

  25. Lord Elpuss Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    iOS7 killtech is at the OS level, not IMEI

    As I understand it (details were thin on the ground) the iOS7 kill switch is an OS-level instruction, requiring the Apple ID to do anything useful with a blocked phone. A thief could presumably change the IMEI but would still encounter the screen asking for the Apple ID in order to use it.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: iOS7 killtech is at the OS level, not IMEI

      Would this OS-level instruction survive a wipe or factory reset?

  26. Dogsauce

    Doughnut time

    This is presumably about saving the police time from doing anything in the event of a crime other than tell you to get your mobile provider to flick a switch. However, it'll make no difference anyway given the number of cases I've heard of where people have tracked their stolen phone (or other goods) to an address only for the police to say they're unprepared to do anything about it.

  27. qzdave
    Holmes

    Get the basics right?

    The user should have the kill switch. I still don't understand (perhaps I'll be enlightened) by phone operators let stolen equipment function.

    Sherlock, because that's what Verizon weren't. When my wife's IP4 was stolen they didn't care. But Verizon don't use a SIM card system, so presumably it was still on their network, just in the hands of a thief.

  28. Twits R 4 Twats

    Kill Switch?

    Most phones comes with a software solution to do that, and if you don't trust your vendor find a third party application designed to do just that- regardless the SIM.

    Changing the IMEI is not trivial which means you will have plenty of time to track your phone. Then again, more important in a security and privacy sense is to me the ability to wipe it remotely than getting it back... Included in all those apps as well°!

    Clearly this official effort has a not even so hidden agenda. Reducing phone theft is a byproduct at best.

  29. JCitizen Bronze badge
    Thumb Down

    Yep!

    And of course the government would never use this as a blackout method during periods of public dissent right?

  30. ThePhantomBovine
    Linux

    Can the government ever win?

    I love the idea of a kill switch. I say put one in every piece of electrical equipment. How many people have been beaten, stabbed or murdered for the content of their wallet, house or for their phone. If a phone holds no value, why steal it. If a wallet only contains digital currency that can't be used by a theif, why steal it.

    The only people who wouldn't be happy with this are the insurance companies who cover theft of electrical items. Implementing these kill technologies would be a cost for the company not the government, and as people pay tax that pays for government law enforcement, think about how much tax money goes towards dealing with theft related crime.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Can the government ever win?

      There's still a "grace" period between when you get nicked and when the phone's locked out. The same thing happens for credit cards. The savvy thieves know to do what they have to do during the grace period and then abandon the device (or in the case of the phone, maybe find a way to alter the IMEI or otherwise keep the phone from being locked out and either use it themselves or fence it).

  31. R 16

    Huh

    Why wouldnt we have the access>?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021