Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 66 of 66
  1. #61

    Uncle Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Bunnell
    Posts
    5,547
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default And the Nobel Peace Prize Goes to… Edward Snowden!

    President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” according to the Nobel Foundation. He had been in office less than half a year when he won and was commanding American troops in two wars.
    Now Obama could get some unwelcome company.
    Two Norwegian politicians have nominated NSA leaker Edward Snowden for that same prize. Bard Vegar Solhjell and Snorre Valen of Norway s Socialist Left Party announced Wednesday that they had nominated Snowden for the award. They praised his leaks for raising the curtain on modern surveillance techniques.


    “There is no doubt that the actions of Edward Snowden may have damaged the security interests of several nations in the short term. We do not necessarily condone or support all of his disclosures,” they said in their statement announcing the nomination. “We are, however, convinced that the public debate and changes in policy that have followed in the wake of Snowden s whistleblowing have contributed to a more stable and peaceful world order.”
    They added that the actions of the former IT contractor have “led to the reintroduction of trust and transparency as a leading principle in global security policies. Its value can't be overestimated.”
    Being nominated for the $1.2 million Nobel peace prize is a far cry from actually winning it; in theory, you or I or anyone on the street could be a nominee. The peace prize is considered one of the most controversial of all the Nobels (Gandhi never won it, for example). Obama s prize is criticized because of our use of unmanned drones, which have killed civilians. On the other hand, important global figures such as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and the Dali Lama have all won. Comparing Edward Snowden to Nelson Mandela would be like comparing Houdini to Jesus Christ.
    Still, it s a reminder of just how serious many in Europe take American surveillance issues and how popular Snowden is there. He s been invited to speak to the German government, has been nominated for a student rector position at a university in Scotland, and has delivered a Christmas message on British television.


    But the Nobel Peace Prize nomination is also a reminder of the hypocrisy Snowden s actions have exposed. Norway was an active participant in NSA surveillance, collecting some 33 million mobile phone records for the agency. Snowden is also being protected by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader with a human rights record that rivals a third world dictator.
    Snowden s been nominated for other prizes before, and has even won one – the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence, given by a group of retired CIA officers. Being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize isn t likely to change opinions on his actions; those who believe he s hurting national security are likely to continue to do so, while those who think he did the world a great service would view the prize as evidence that they were right—at least until the next terror attack.
    Snowden s leaks have made him famous. A Nobel would make him immortal.

  2. #62
    Stikini Slayer Penguin Pass Champion, Block n Roll Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Falafel King Champion, Donkey Tail Champion, Little Protectors Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Grid Iron Champion, Z-Wars Champion, Tribal Jungle Fruit Quest Champion, Open Source Rock Paper Scissors Champion, Nature Race Champion, DirtyColor Champion, American 8-Ball Pool Champion, Gumball Line-up Champion, Digi-Digi Champion, SevenYo! Champion, Firebug 2 Champion, hit the target Champion, Guns Defense Champion, Robot In The Hole Champion, Chicken Licken Champion, Gemollection Players Pack Champion, Fred's Pick Up Tour 3 Champion, Korrode Champion, Zaptonia Defense Champion, The Eggs Mystery Champion, Underwater TD Champion, Easter Defence Champion, CrissCross Champion, Rooftop Sniper Champion, Dragon Ambush 2 Champion, Zombie Smash Tower Defense Champion, US Border TD Champion, Underworld TD Champion, Zombie Trailer Park Champion, Potion Panic 2 Champion, WDYK? 3 Urban Lingo Champion, Bloons Tower Defense 4 Champion, Medicine Dealer Champion, The Blocks Revenge Champion, Animal Catcher Champion, Zombie Disposal Champion, Omg Scary Smiley Champion, The Flame Champion, TumbleDots Champion, Politricks Champion, Pirates Champion, City Digger Champion, redwhite slice Champion, Grammachnophobia Champion, Tabla Champion, Pixelshocks' Tower Defence II Champion, DropSum Champion, Blackbeard's Island Deluxe Champion, Short History of the World Champion, Anatomicus Anatomy Game Champion, Socium Champion, Magic Defense Champion, Bowmaster Champion, Kingdom Of Saguenay TD Champion, Ninjas vs Pirates TD 3 Champion, WasteLand Defender v2 Champion, Red Red Champion, Lucky Coins Champion, Handless Millionaire 2 Champion, TOTWO DARK Champion, Take a Walk Champion, Beat Chaser 2 Champion, 1 Will Survive Champion, Lines Game - Master Champion, Mickey Ball Champion, Windowcleaner Eyetoygame Champion
    ROOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Palm Coast, Florida, United States
    Posts
    20,805
    Blog Entries
    29
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: And the Nobel Peace Prize Goes to… Edward Snowden!

    The Irony of Snowden and Obama sharing the same Nobel Peace prize. Its likely he could win it, If he did I wonder if Obama would give him a pardon on exiting his office.
    we are vastly more focused on what divides us than what unites us

  3. #63
    Cracklin
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Guardian Op-Ed: The NSA is still violating our rights, despite what James Clapper sa

    Director of Intelligence James Clapper now says the National Security Agency (NSA) should have been more open about the fact that they were spying on all Americans. I'm glad he said this. But there is no excuse for lying in the first place. When Senator Ron Wyden (a Democrat from Oregon) asked Director Clapper during an intelligence hearing in March of last year if the NSA was collecting the data of millions of Americans, the director lied under oath and denied the charge. When new revelations disproved this last June, Clapper then said the NSA had to keep the metadata collection program a secret for national security purposes. Now says Clapper: Had we been transparent about this from the outset right after 9/11 - which is the genesis of the 215 program - and said both to the American people and to their elected representatives, we need to cover this gap, we need to make sure this never happens to us again, so here is what we are going to set up, here is how it's going to work, and why we have to do it, and here are the safeguards... We wouldn't have had the problem we had. The United States needs intelligence gathering, the ability to obtain and keep secrets, spying on foreign powers and genuine threats and all the other tools nations use to protect their security. No one is disputing this. But Clapper is being somewhat disingenuous here. Part of the reason our government does some things behind Americans' backs is not for security, but because certain activities, if known, would outrage the public. Spying on every American certainly falls into this category. I also believe it is blatantly unconstitutional, and bringing these activities to light would immediately spark debates the NSA would rather not hear. The notion that if the NSA had informed us they were monitoring every American would somehow make it OK, does not make it OK. Explaining why you are violating the Fourth Amendment does not invalidate the Fourth Amendment. Americans are as upset at the act itself, not the mere knowledge of it. A cheating spouse can be upfront about his affairs from the beginning, but nobody thinks such behavior is right. The purpose of being forthright about wrongdoing is usually repentance. I do not get the sense from Clapper that he thinks his agency did anything wrong. Americans have a right to know when their rights are being violated, but that's where my agreement with Director Clapper, or at least agreement with his latest statement, ends. The Fourth Amendment states that warrants issued must be specific to a person, place or task and this provision of the Bill of Rights exists explicitly to guard against the notion of a general warrant, where government can plunder through anyone's privacy at will. The NSA's metadata collection program is a general warrant for the modern age, reflecting the same kind of tyranny our nation's founders fought a revolution to make sure would never happen again. It shouldn't happen again, and I will keep fighting to protect the US constitution I took an oath to uphold. It's time to trash the NSA's mass surveillance of Americans, for good. Read more from the Guardian HERE.

    More...

  4. #64
    Marshtackie
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,349
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A lot of Washington influence is never disclosed

    (Image credit: Sunlight Foundation)There’s a lot more influence peddling in Washington than is ever disclosed to the public. As my colleague Peter Olsen-Phillips demonstrated in a piece on Tuesday, defense giant Northrop Grumman employs dozens of people, many of whom came from prominent positions in government service, whose titles and online biographies indicate that their jobs involve interaction with government officials — but do not register as lobbyists. Included in that list are not one but two former generals who led missile commands for the Army and Air Force and now oversee the sale of Northrop Grumman’s missiles to their old units; a former head of the Defense Counterintelligence and HUMINT Center of the Defense Intelligence Agency who now sells Northrop Grumman spy technology and tradecraft to Fort Meade, home of both the National Security Agency and the United States Cyber Command; and several other former high ranking soldiers who manage their company’s sales, annually totaling billions of dollars, to their former colleagues.
    As Olsen-Phillips’ piece points out, the legal definition of who’s a lobbyist and who isn’t doesn’t require these individuals to lobby, but that doesn’t mean that company officials acting in a similar capacity don’t use their powers of persuasion to influence the government. In fact, a pair of inspector general reports shows just how effective company officials seeking federal dollars can be in cutting deals that benefit their bottom lines, arguably leaving taxpayers with less bang for their buck.
    A 2013 General Services Administration inspector general’s investigation found that executives from three companies went over the head of contracting officers, the specialists in federal agencies who are charged with getting the best price for taxpayers when buying goods and services from the private sector, to find more favorable terms. Deloitte Consulting LLP officials met with managers in the General Services Administration’s Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) in 2012 trying to get better terms on a contract up for renewal. They succeeded, winning labor rates for some jobs as much as 18.5 percent higher. Not one of Deloitte’s lobbying disclosure forms in 2012 list the General Services Administration as an agency it lobbied.
    The same investigation found executives for Carahsoft, a major vendor of IT services, also met with FAS managers in 2011 when a contract officer determined that it wasn’t in taxpayers’ best interest to renew a contract worth $432 million to the firm in 2011. The pressure worked, netting the firm an agreement that resulted in “the lengthy extension of a contract with inflated pricing and other terms and conditions unfavorable” to taxpayers. Carahsoft disclosed lobbying Congress in 2011, but not GSA.
    According to the GSA inspector general's report, only Oracle used a registered lobbyist to promote the software giant’s case with FAS managers; it disclosed lobbying GSA on “General issues regarding government procurement policy. General issues related to IT procurement. Matters surrounding cybersecurity and procurement.” Oddly enough, it was the only of the three that ultimately did not have its contract renewed.
    An even more tangled affair resulted when a Veterans Affairs (VA) official froze the contract of reverse-auctioneer FedBid over concerns that the company was charging the government exorbitant transaction fees. The company mounted a temporarily successful full-court press to reverse the decision. Its then-CEO, Ali Saadat, sent a company-wide email thanking several big names for their efforts to persuade Congress and top officials at the VA, including Edward Shinseki, then the head of the agency, for helping the company “come out victorious, untainted and, in fact, in a much better position than we were before this issue began.” People praised included Steve Case, the AOL founder and a major investor in the company; retired Gen. George Casey, a company board member; advisor and procurement expert Steve Kelman, who wrote op-eds praising the company; Jim Noone, a lobbyist at Mercury Clark & Weinstock; and former Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas.
    But Saadat spoke too soon. A scathing inspector general report released in June 2014 found that a VA official had improperly intervened on behalf of FedBid, which was in fact charging high transaction fees. In January of this year, the Veterans Administration announced it would no longer award new business to the firm; the company, under a new CEO, told The Washington Post at the time it is cooperating with the government and is responding to the concerns raised by the inspector general. As for the supporters who pushed VA officials and members of Congress singled out by Saadat for high praise, only one — James Noone — was registered to lobby the federal government at the time.
    So we end where we began: There’s a lot more influence peddling in Washington than is ever disclosed to the public.



    The Rest of the story ...

  5. #65
    Marshtackie
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,349
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Consent decrees open police data, but for a limited time only

    Who polices the police?

    (Photo credit: Joe Gratz/Flickr)
    Well, since the enactment of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act a portion of that responsibility has gone to the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). When a local or state police department exhibits a pattern of unconstitutional practices or policies, Section 14141 of the 1994 bill gives the DOJ jurisdiction to investigate and litigate that department.
    These investigations often result in an agreement between the DOJ and the police department called a consent decree (also known as a 'memorandum of agreement' or 'settlement agreement'). This May, Cleveland entered into a consent decree after the DOJ reported “systemic deficiencies and practices” that contributed to unreasonable police use of force throughout the police department. The consent decree outlines requirements that will make policies, procedures, audits and select police data publicly available. Specifically, the agreement encourages transparency for use of force justifications, the establishment of a 13-member citizen advisory committee and revisions to search and seizure policies.
    In March, the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) received findings from their Section 14141 investigation and is currently negotiating a consent decree with the DOJ; alike to Cleveland, FPD also received recommendations to improve the openness of its data. If FPD does not settle with the DOJ, they could risk dissolution or further litigation.
    Consent decrees can help achieve greater transparency and accountability in policing because they often require departments to institute new policy, collect new data and report data publicly. New Orleans’ 2012 consent decree was particularly expansive, requiring the police department to improve the quality and availability of police data, policies, manuals, reports and audits. The policy changes required by the consent decree opened a multitude of police datasets, making New Orleans a leading city in open data and police accountability.
    However, consent decrees and their associated federal oversight eventually end. And when this oversight is gone, the reforms instituted under the consent decree often dissolve.
    Consent decree longevity

    For example, the Rampart Scandal of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) lead to the implementation of a consent decree requiring the collection and public availability of stop and frisk data. However, the LAPD’s consent decree has now been lifted and that data is no longer publicly available, with the last report dated 2006.
    In 2001, Washington, D.C. entered into a memorandum of agreement with the DOJ after the Washington Post reported that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) killed more people per capita than any other major city police department. Unlike most DOJ investigations, this one was requested by MPD’s Chief of Police at the time, Charles Ramsey. This request resulted in a consent decree requiring the department to make quarterly reports on use of force statistics and complaints publicly available. The required quarterly reporting spawned the Force Investigation Team, which was later dissolved once the decree had expired as part of a "departmental reorganization." Today, without a consent decree binding MPD to release use of force statistics, the only publicly available use of force data comes out of two annual reports — from the Office of Police Complaints and the MPD — that do little beyond reporting annual counts.
    Chart of annual use of force statistics from Metropolitan Police Department's 2013 annual report (Image credit: Metropolitan Police Department)
    The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) is finding opportunity outside of its consent decree to open data through its participation in the White House’s Police Data Initiative (in which Sunlight is also proud to participate) and a meeting at the White House addressing how to use technology and data to improve community policing. In this meeting, the NOPD made a commitment to release use of force data, car and body camera metadata, results from disciplinary investigations and both pedestrian and vehicle stop data. NOPD made this commitment “because people are asking for that information and [they] want to be transparent about it” and that releasing this data will “build legitimacy and build trust in police and the community,” according to NOPD’s Superintendent Michael Harrison.
    In cities such as New Orleans, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., consent decrees have been responsible for opening police data that may not have otherwise been made public. These public datasets are integral to police accountability and building community trust, but unfortunately are only guaranteed while federal oversight exists — as evidenced in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. While consent decrees are powerful, change within a department must be systemic and well accepted, or else the department may abandon reforms in favor of cost-reduction or traditional practice.
    NOPD is aware of this challenge and has committed itself to establishing a police culture that ensures long-lasting adoption of consent decree reforms.
    It’s my job, along with our entire executive team and command staff team [...] to change our culture...I think the systems of accountability that we’re building and implementing are the kind of systems that are strong and are flexible to change over time as things change with this police community. I’d like to think these systems of accountability will always be there, whether I’m the chief or not, to make us the kind of police department that we promised the citizens we would be.
    NOPD Superintendent Michael Harrison
    In addition to the necessary intra-departmental cultural change, community buy-in is also important in ensuring lasting reform adoption. NOPD Deputy Chief of Staff Jonathan Wisbey agrees:
    Once you start establishing expectations with the community, by providing data, it makes it very difficult for someone in the future to go back and say this thing that we’ve provided for years...we’re no longer going to do so.
    Of course, consent decrees do not guarantee greater transparency or data availability. Some consent decrees, like Detroit’s (ongoing from 2003) do not include requirements to make data publicly available. Although Detroit’s consent decree requires the department to collect new data and statistics, they are only required to report them to the consent decree monitor, the City and the DOJ. Instead of hosting their own crime statistics, the Detroit Police Department (DPD) links to city-data.com. We were unable to identify the source of this data as city-data.com does not cite sources and did not reply to our inquiries. Due in part to the consent decree and an Executive Order establishing Detroit's Open Data Initiative earlier this year, the City of Detroit holds DPD crime data and has recently made it publicly available on the City's open data portal alongside data from eight other agencies. Detroit is a prime example that consent decrees, while often helpful in increasing transparency and accountability in policing, are just one of the methods by which a city can open its police data.
    Cost of consent decrees

    While there are many benefits realized from consent decrees, their implementation is often met with resistance over associated costs and administrative changes. Consent decrees can cost a city millions of dollars a year — and last many years — causing government and public concern over associated costs of implementing required reforms.
    New Orleans’ 2015 budget includes $7.3 million to cover the costs of implementing of the city’s consent decree. In 2014, Seattle Police Department spent $5.8 million on consent decree implementation. Cleveland’s recently established consent decree was met with financial concerns as the consent decree’s requirements, which include adopting updated technology, hosting more trainings, hiring new staff and establishing external agency monitoring, will cost the city millions. Some have argued that, while expensive, the implementation of consent decrees may reduce civil liability and be a worthwhile long-term investment. Further, a consent decree can help a department get the resources they need when they would otherwise be met with pushback (page 34) from the city or unions.
    Despite the promise of reduced civil liability and better resources, officers do not always welcome the intrusion of the federal government on their agency. Because the purpose of a consent decree is to reform police department policies and practices, the behaviors of police officers take center-stage. Officers often view these agreements negatively and resist suggested changes in favor of traditional practice.
    It’s often hard to reform police departments without external intervention...Institutions are resistant to change. None of us like to have somebody outside telling us what to do. And police departments are especially that way.
    Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Irvine Law School



    The Rest of the story ...

  6. #66
    Stikini Slayer Penguin Pass Champion, Block n Roll Champion, Attack Of The Fan Girls Champion, Falafel King Champion, Donkey Tail Champion, Little Protectors Champion, When Penguins Attack TD Champion, Grid Iron Champion, Z-Wars Champion, Tribal Jungle Fruit Quest Champion, Open Source Rock Paper Scissors Champion, Nature Race Champion, DirtyColor Champion, American 8-Ball Pool Champion, Gumball Line-up Champion, Digi-Digi Champion, SevenYo! Champion, Firebug 2 Champion, hit the target Champion, Guns Defense Champion, Robot In The Hole Champion, Chicken Licken Champion, Gemollection Players Pack Champion, Fred's Pick Up Tour 3 Champion, Korrode Champion, Zaptonia Defense Champion, The Eggs Mystery Champion, Underwater TD Champion, Easter Defence Champion, CrissCross Champion, Rooftop Sniper Champion, Dragon Ambush 2 Champion, Zombie Smash Tower Defense Champion, US Border TD Champion, Underworld TD Champion, Zombie Trailer Park Champion, Potion Panic 2 Champion, WDYK? 3 Urban Lingo Champion, Bloons Tower Defense 4 Champion, Medicine Dealer Champion, The Blocks Revenge Champion, Animal Catcher Champion, Zombie Disposal Champion, Omg Scary Smiley Champion, The Flame Champion, TumbleDots Champion, Politricks Champion, Pirates Champion, City Digger Champion, redwhite slice Champion, Grammachnophobia Champion, Tabla Champion, Pixelshocks' Tower Defence II Champion, DropSum Champion, Blackbeard's Island Deluxe Champion, Short History of the World Champion, Anatomicus Anatomy Game Champion, Socium Champion, Magic Defense Champion, Bowmaster Champion, Kingdom Of Saguenay TD Champion, Ninjas vs Pirates TD 3 Champion, WasteLand Defender v2 Champion, Red Red Champion, Lucky Coins Champion, Handless Millionaire 2 Champion, TOTWO DARK Champion, Take a Walk Champion, Beat Chaser 2 Champion, 1 Will Survive Champion, Lines Game - Master Champion, Mickey Ball Champion, Windowcleaner Eyetoygame Champion
    ROOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Palm Coast, Florida, United States
    Posts
    20,805
    Blog Entries
    29
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: U.S. spy agencies say won't read Americans' email for cybersecurity

    From the this-is-why-no-one-trusts-them dept

    NSA Goes From Saying Bulk Metadata Collection 'Saves Lives' To 'Prevented 54 Attacks' To 'Well, It's A Nice Insurance Policy'

    Want to know why no one trusts anything NSA officials and their defenders have to say any more? When the bulk metadata collection was first revealed, those defenders went on and on about how the program "saved countless lives" and was instrumental in stopping terrorist attacks. Some skeptics then asked what terrorist attacks, and we were told "around 50" though details weren't forthcoming. Eventually, we were told that the real number was "54 terrorist events" (note: not attacks) and a review of them later revealed that basically none of them were legitimate. There was one "event" prevented via the program on US soil, and it was a taxi driver in San Diego sending some money to a terrorist group in Somalia, rather than an actual terrorist attack.

    In fact, both judges and the intelligence task force seemed shocked at the lack of any actual evidence to support that these programs were useful.

    And yet, the NSA and its defenders keep insisting that they're necessary. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, a few months ago, tried out a new spin, claiming that effectiveness wasn't the right metric, but rather "peace of mind." Of course, the obvious response to that is to point out that spying on everyone makes most of us fairly uneasy, and we'd have a lot more "peace of mind" if they dropped the program.

    And, now, the NSA number 2 guy, who's about to retire, John C. "Chris" Inglis, gave a long interview with NPR, in which he is now claiming that even if the program hasn't been particularly useful in the past, that "it's a good insurance policy."
    "I'm not going to give that insurance policy up, because it's a necessary component to cover a seam that I can't otherwise cover."
    Basically, we want to keep this information because we want that information, even if it's not been shown to be at all useful. Of course, that's the same logic one can use to defend just about any violation of the 4th Amendment. Putting a private drone with a camera and a recording device streaming everything it sees and hears while following around NSA deputy director Chris Inglis may not discover that he's a corrupt bureaucrat willing to lie to the public, but it seems like a reasonable "insurance policy" to make sure he stays honest. After all, without that, the American public can't prove that he's not corrupt -- so it seems like a reasonable "insurance policy to cover a seam we can't otherwise cover." At least, in the logic of Chris Inglis.
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...e-policy.shtml
    we are vastly more focused on what divides us than what unites us

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)
    By ROOT in forum Political discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 4th, 2015, 06:40 PM
  2. Law agencies increasingly 'like' social websites
    By Uncle Charlie in forum Political discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2012, 05:35 AM
  3. 11/16/2011: Please read this important message about a new email scam.
    By SJCSO in forum St Johns County Crime Watch
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 16th, 2011, 03:47 PM
  4. Obama chooses Howard Schmidt to coordinate national cybersecurity
    By Leonardo di Ser Piero in forum Health, Science, Technology and Arts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2009, 03:50 PM
  5. Credit Reporting Agencies
    By Crimefighter in forum Flagler County Crime Watch
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 25th, 2009, 11:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •