Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet The Military Technology

US Has Secret Tools To Force Internet On Dictatorships 282

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the information-is-power dept.
4phun found a Wired story that talks about the military options when a dictatorship decides to cut off internet access to its population. "The American military does have a second set of options if it ever wants to force connectivity on a country against its ruler’s wishes. There’s just one wrinkle. 'It could be considered an act of war.'" Hopefully the same options will be available for us when our government gets around to implementing our own kill switch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Has Secret Tools To Force Internet On Dictatorships

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Anything to break the usual Comcast/whatever monopoly for ISP service would be welcomed.

  • by Trip6 (1184883) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:07AM (#35126224)

    ...the access would be for the people to communicate and keep it real, that we're the white hats. But of course the access would only be granted to advance a military objective, such as continuing and fanning an uprising perceived beneficial to our interests.

    Why stop there? Why not seed blogs, twitter and facebook and initiate a misinformation campaign?

    • by Illicon (1588477) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:10AM (#35126262)

      Why stop there? Why not seed blogs, twitter and facebook and initiate a misinformation campaign?

      Patience, Grasshopper.

    • Why stop there? Why not seed blogs, twitter and facebook and initiate a misinformation campaign?

      You mean like the news story I saw Sunday morning interviewing a "protester" that said (paraphrase) We Need you Obama, do something, people are dying!. This is from an "Egyptian" in the square no less.

      • by afidel (530433)
        Considering that it was government thugs killing protesters I don't see why you think that it was disengenous to expect that a real person on the street might plead to us to stop the violence. We appear to be fairly influential in keeping the military in check (they'd like to keep our billions in aid) so why wouldn't they ask that we try to keep the secret police in check as well.
        • by chudnall (514856)

          I don't see why you think that it was disingenuous to expect that a real person on the street might plead to us to stop the violence.

          All good propaganda starts out being perfectly plausible.

    • by sznupi (719324)
      Well, the quote does say if - "if if it ever wants to force connectivity on a country against its ruler’s wishes". Obviously it doesn't include situations when the dictatorship is on the "good" side, duh!

      Generally, has it ever been not about our interests [chomsky.info]?...
    • Re:We assume that... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gnieboer (1272482) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:46AM (#35126678)

      Why not seed blogs, twitter and facebook...

      Because by Executive Order (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-30.pdf, page 19), "U.S. PSYOP forces will not target U.S. citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances"

      The internet causes a problem in this regard, as obviously it's designed so that all of it accessible from everyplace else (generally speaking). So while it's possible to put a server someplace that is firewalled to only send/relay info from a range of IP addresses, the military can't do that with Twitter; if they started putting PSYOPS on Twitter, it'd be accessible to US citizens, would could then be considered 'targeted'.

      Of course, these restrictions are by executive order, not US law, and they apply to the US Military only.

      Side note: on the next page, it spells out copyright issues as an area of concern... don't want to get sued by the MPAA in the middle of WW III because you broadcast a video of Mickey Mouse without permission...

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Entropius (188861)

        I've seen US military propaganda all over the place, targeted at US citizens...

  • That would work, although it'd be rather expensive - http://www.thuraya.com/ [thuraya.com]

    444 kbit/s. I guess that's better than what most citizens have even when the internet is working.

    • by kalirion (728907)

      444 kbit/s. I guess that's better than what most citizens have even when the internet is working.

      Yeah, that's pretty much what my Verizon DSL tops out at.

      • by kalirion (728907)

        Huh? italics don't work anymore in either "Plain Old Text" or "HTML Formatted"? bold still works in both though.

        Wonder if this is Taco's way of nudging users towards the non-classic Slashdot format (which AFAIK makes it impossible to directly go to your comment from your comments page.)

    • by Compaqt (1758360)

      Good in a sense, but I guess just having a sat phone will be enough to send you to a dark prison somewhere.

      It's nice that the newer generation of sat phones seem to vaguely resemble cell phones, though.

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:11AM (#35126274)
    I am pretty suspicious of all the things that people claim as " inviolable human rights" now. Would the USA put its money where its mouth is and give money to foreign powers to give people internet access? Would they even pay for someone in part of the USA who can't afford access in a remote area?

    If anything this dilutes the idea of real human rights - if every country in the world doesn't provide "human rights" to someone or other it becomes meaningless to criticise counties on this ground. Human rights should be confined to life, liberty, and essentials that we would all agree on.
    • by NevarMore (248971)

      The thing about rights is that they are NEVER given or granted by a government. Rights are inherent. A government may protect or make exercising rights easier. More commonly they restrict, prohibit, and block exercising rights.

      Human rights should be confined to life, liberty, and essentials that we would all agree on.

      Good luck with that. I respect your utopian idea that we can all agree on basic, inherent, and fundamental rights but it won't happen. The best thing you can do to protect rights for yourself and others is to exercise them regularly and often and always stop and think if something you

      • by sznupi (719324)

        always stop and think if something you're doing will be infringing on the rights of someone else

        But a straightforward ability to ignore such violations, to convince oneself in being oh so good and having higher moral ground, is one of the nicest things about the export of suffering [chomsky.info]...

      • by CRCulver (715279)

        The thing about rights is that they are NEVER given or granted by a government. Rights are inherent.

        So people claimed during the Enlightenment. But they also believed that rights were inherent because they were granted to every human being by a Creator. In contemporary society, when people are less likely to believe in a "magical sky fairy", there isn't such a convenient basis for natural rights. If there are no objective moral values, as has been argued by many proponents of Utilitarianism and taken up by

        • by Compaqt (1758360)

          So are do you argue that there should not be natural rights (I realize your post wasn't normative) since there are no sky fairies?

          Or the reverse? There are no rights without sky fairies, therefore we should believe in some or another $DEITY.

          Also, since you seem to be Phil major, is the above line of reasoning basically Nietzsche's, or have there been other developments before or after?

          • by gfreeman (456642)

            What are these natural rights? Got a list of them? Are you sure there aren't any more than those on that list?

          • "So are do you argue that there should not be natural rights (I realize your post wasn't normative) since there are no sky fairies?"

            The question is not whether they should exist, but whether they do exist. He said, rights are social constructs (even human rights) so there are no inherent/natural/objective rights. And if human rights are social constructs, then they can differ from culture to culture. (Ok, there was a UN decision about that, but that only applies to those participating.)

      • by chill (34294)

        There is no such thing as an "inherent" right, despite flowery language.

        If you believe there is a right to life, feel free to wander thru a wild area with carnivores and debate your "right". Or drop off in the middle of the ocean and scream about your "right" to life as you drown.

        If a "right" was granted by God, no mere mortal could take it away, even if they tried.

        Rights are granted by society. Society is who will punish you if you try to exercise a "right" they say you don't have.

    • by commodore6502 (1981532) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:23AM (#35126394)

      I think he meant "internet is a right" in the same way that "freedom of the press" is a right. It doesn't mean the government has to give you a printing press.

    • by noidentity (188756) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:26AM (#35126430)
      Right to access internet seems to be merely the obvious conclusion of the fundamental rights. This doesn't mean that anyone has to provide you internet, just that they may not attempt to prevent you from accessing if you've got a means.
    • "Human rights should be confined to life, liberty, and essentials that we would all agree on."

      I definitely would have a problem with that. In fact the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution precisely for the reason that the Founders were concerned about the "tyranny of the majority" resulting in the limitation of rights by the voting population. The States, at the time the Constitution was written did after all permit slavery. And we have all seen opinion polls where voters were shown one of the first

      • Given the important of the internet in commerce, politics and society... can you really have liberty without it?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sarten-X (1102295)

      Nonsense. This is the 21st century!

      Everything I want is a human right, guaranteed by that Constitution I read last week in high school. I can say anything to anybody, and they can't complain because I have free speech. Freedom of religion means that anything contradicting my religion should be prohibited from being within the same state as me, and right to bear arms means I can have keep a cruise missile in my bedroom.

      There's some other stuff too, but I got bored reading. Lawyers ned 2 lern 2 rite, u no? I

      • by chill (34294)

        ...and right to bear arms means I can have keep a cruise missile in my bedroom.

        That's what I tell my wife, anyway. :-)

    • by Compaqt (1758360)

      I think it's not that you're obligated to provide Internet access (though social democracies like in Scandinavia do believe that).

      It's more that you can't (or ought not) restrict Internet access (privately paid for).

    • I was listening to TWIL and they had a Libertarian lawyer on who said he agrees with the sentiment that people have about the internet being a right, however, he disagrees with how it is being portrayed as a positive right rather than a negative right.

      He would rather see it described as something akin to the freedom of speech (which access to the internet can be considered a subset of) for example:

      "The government shall not interferer with the ability of a person to use the internet to communicate in a free

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:18AM (#35126344)

    People who want internet access write down the URL on a piece of paper, smuggle the piece of paper to a CIA operative, and the response is broadcast in the form of printouts of the requested web page dumped out of a Hercules C130.

    • Good luck with that, even if you manage to smuggle fast enough for your amazon session not to expire, all your neighbours in a 100m radius will be able to read your order in the printout-drops, never mind that hardcore porn...

    • by kellyb9 (954229)

      the response is broadcast in the form of printouts of the requested web page dumped out of a Hercules C130.

      Why use a plane? Theres already an RFC for carrier pidgeons.

  • Satphones (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dargaud (518470) <slashdot2NO@SPAMgdargaud.net> on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:19AM (#35126352) Homepage
    Use drones to airdrop a small kit containing a satphones with free satellite access for a while and a solar charger. Make sure the satphone is by default enabled as an open wifi hotspot. Spread all over the country. Be sure to include free porn memberships in uptight countries. I mean, come on, this has got to be a lot more efficient for democracy than sending tanks (and cheaper to boot), and a lot safer than sending journalists.
    • i remember when people said the way to defeat totalitarian/hard-line islamic countries was not to drop bombs, but to drop TVs and fridges filled with coke...

      Now we are talking about dropping smartphones with free pron subscriptions, progress!

      • by Compaqt (1758360)

        Could the Afghanistan war could have been averted simply by giving the Taliban rulers free stuff in exchange for giving up their overstaying guests, OBL's crew?

    • I've been looking out from my balcony since I read this article, looking for the drone that will drop my satphone for free, fast Internet access. I haven't seen one yet.

      Oh, wait. The country where I live is not at war with the USA. Does anyone know how to start a war? Maybe we need a dictator or something.

      • by DavidTC (10147)

        If you've never seen the movie 'The Mouse that Roared', go find it.

        Basically, a microscopic European country of a few thousand people, after a economic disaster, realizes that countries that the US defeats in battle are actually better off than countries that it did not fight, thanks to all the aid it gives out.

        So this tiny country, armed with pikes and swords, declares war on the US and invades New York, and already have their surrender prepared.

        And, because this is a movie, they accidentally win the wa

    • by rednip (186217)
      As if satellite phone service was free; You'll need do drop calling cards too; and chargers; don't forget power. Why don't you just fork cash out the back of the C-130s?
    • by limaxray (1292094)
      Not to be a negative-nancy or anything, but current satphones max out at a hair over 2000bps. Unless ASCII porn is your thing, you're pretty limited in today's internet.

      Usable data rates would require a dish antenna and, depending where in the world we're talking about, putting new satellites in orbit.
  • I'm not sure my friends out in the "sticks" would enjoy drones circling overhead, but they would get excited about FTD (faster than dialup) internet. And this would give the military a way to practice their internet enabling battle plans.
  • A severed fibre or disconnected plug has little in the way of backdoors.

  • the american president is not going to cut off the internet and start goose stepping around the white house. this ranks right up there with other paranoid schizophrenic fantasies like rednecks with guns in the woods are going to save us from fascism. please stop mentioning the american internet kill switch in the same sentence as egypt, china, or iran. its just... dumb

    we live in an abused, yes, compromised, yes, but still functioning democracy. meaning rule is by consent, not force and fear. any president who cuts off the internet is going to have to explain his or herself to the people who elected him or her. and the american people are still electing presidents (now comes the part where some genius complains about liberal media and propagandized morons or conservative media and propagandized morons... snore... thank you for thinking so lowly of your fellow citizens. oh where is your nonexistent utopia where every citizen is perfectly ideologically in tune with you as only an "educated" person would be?)

    in egypt or china or iran the kill switch can be invoked, and then: you got a problem with that? there's no accountability to the people of those countries. if the people get angry, crack skulls until they cower again in fear (until blessedly, as the people in egypt show us, the people just aren't afraid anymore, and it is revealed to the world exactly why democracy, as messy as it is, is still so superior to despotism: its simply more stable because it manufactures legitimacy by consulting the people)

    but fear is not how it works in the usa. really, mr. snarky teenager. do you feel afraid criticizing the us government on slashdot? oh, why not? maybe because you have that right AND THAT RIGHT IS RESPECTED. aka: you do not live in a society ruled by fear. want to test that? ok: try criticizing the chinese government in china or the iranian government in iran as vocally and as vociferously and as loudly and as repeatedly as some of you false equivalency geniuses, who think your democracy is just as bad as despotism. go ahead, go on with your bad self. what happens to squeaky wheels like you in iran, china, or egypt?

    now that you understand the difference, please understand that the reasons for the use of an internet kill switch are for entirely different criteria in democracies versus despotic countries. a valid use: some armageddeon level ddos or a warhol virus, versus an invalid use: preventing the people from coordinating and rising up against their oppressors

    look: there are many problems with the american government. i repeat: there are many problems with the american government. i am not an american apologist. but making snark about the american internet kill switch in the same breath as the policies of egypt, or iran, or china, governments clearly far, far worse in terms of the rights of its citizens, that doesn't advance any cause you believe in. it just makes you look stupid and either ungrateful for how well you have it, or simply naive and uneducated about how little rights people have in other countries

    teenage level snark might get snickers from other snarky teenagers, but its not the path to valid commentary on your government or any other government in the world

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      Great post. I do find it amusing that people worry about the US government cutting off the Internet. If any kill switch is invoked it would tend to be a boarder kill switch. AKA cut the US from the rest of the world not the internal networks. Just as the US cut off telephone, telex, and telegraph access to Japan, Germany, and Italy during WWII. Even that would take a something horrific to trip.

      Yes this fear is right up there with the nut cases that read the Turner Diaries and feel that it is important.

      • If any kill switch is invoked it would tend to be a boarder kill switch.

        Phew! That makes me feel better knowing that the government only has the power to cut us off from the rest of the world internet-wise. That power is necessary and they should totally have it.

    • by sznupi (719324)
      Indeed, many places are (or were) "far, far worse in terms of the rights of its citizens" [chomsky.info], as you put it; we should be grateful they're even willing to accept import of suffering.

      (why do you think "rule by consent" precludes fear and, partly, force from being elements of it?)
      • this shit is a legacy of the cold war. the ussr did the same

        that doesn't excuse this disgusting behavior. i agree with you: this shit better stop. it does no good anymore to get in bed with strongmen. the usa might be inclined to continue to do so in the middle east, but that only increases the people's hartred of the usa and makes the usa a valid target in their eyes

        the only valid foreign policy for the usa is: spread democracy with soft power. its the only way to not appear a hypocrite. it might cost the

        • by sznupi (719324)
          One would think 2 decades (and not a very clear end in sight yet) should be enough... besides, when retreating to "legacy", it's only prudent to mention earlier steps (to not sound like another PR). Maybe back to, say, mentioned in the above link drive in Russia to break away from semi-colonial dependency almost a century ago?

          (I know perfectly what they did BTW, having intimate experience with one place formerly behind the Iron Curtain; it's just how the very successful PR of one side - demonstrated also
    • I don't think I would worry about Obama or any other president in the near future cutting off Internet access to the country. There would be tons of lawsuits and our country is too legal-based for this to stand for long. What I would be concerned about, though, is our government shutting down websites/seizing domain names of companies that it decrees are illegal without any previous due process. (Fighting a lengthy court battle to recover your domain name while you are down or online under a lesser-known

    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday February 07, 2011 @11:05AM (#35126946) Homepage

      We live in an abused, yes, compromised, yes, but still functioning democracy, meaning rule is by consent, not force and fear.

      ... unless you're Muslim or involved in any way in Wikileaks, in which case most bets are off. You can have your property seized, be searched and harassed at airports, and of course be labeled an enemy combatant and sent to Gitmo or maybe sent to our good friends to be tortured. Julian Assange has been very clear that the reason he's fighting extradition is because he doesn't trust the Swedes to not hand him over to the United States, and he doesn't trust the United States to follow its own laws right now.

      Maybe because you have that right AND THAT RIGHT IS RESPECTED.

      An example of how this is being undermined: A good friend of Bradley Manning visited him in prison regularly, and reported on the conditions Manning was being held under, conditions which were very different from what the US military said they were in public statements. This eventually got national attention by the mainstream media. Shortly afterwords, when this friend went back for another visit, most of what he took with him, including his laptop, was seized. No charges, no due process, no probable cause.

      Or when a foreigner who had done some work defending Wikileaks went to visit the US, upon arrival at US customs all his electronics were seized, again without any kind of charges or judicial review. The foreigner had anticipated this and had a representative of the ACLU meet him there to argue his case, to no avail. He'd also had the good sense to ensure that the electronics in question just had a copy of the US Bill of Rights on them.

      That's even ignoring issues like "Free Speech Zones", police aggression against protesters and reporters at events like party conventions or pro-immigration rallies, and the occasional lethal penalty for Driving/Walking While Not White.

      So no, that right isn't really respected. There exists a classified list of actions that will cause you to be mistreated by the US government. Right now, that appears to be a fairly small list, but we have no idea really what's on it.

      • by Cruciform (42896)

        It's the Plebian Laws of Rome all over again.
        The aristocracy created laws for the Plebs to adhere to, except the Plebs had no idea what those laws were.
        You found out when the lictors were beating you in the streets with cudgels.

        The methodology has changed but as long as countries have secret laws no citizens are safe.

      • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Monday February 07, 2011 @11:46AM (#35127296)

        No charges, no due process, no probable cause.

        Of course! He endangered national security, was a terrorist, and failed to think of the children! How could you seemingly support such a person?

        So no, that right isn't really respected.

        Well, there's a good excuse for that! In some places, people have it far worse than us. Therefore, as long as we aren't as bad off as them, our government should be able to abuse us as they please. Don't you dare complain about this...

      • look i said it twice: "there are many problems with the american government"

        do you want me to say it four more times?

        i get the impression you read my words and thought "this jerkwad is saying that since china does something bad, it's ok the usa does something bad. well let me remind this jerkwad how much the usa really sucks"

        no

        what i am saying is: when china does something really bad, don't dismiss it because the usa does bad things too

        THAT'S my point. i am not an apologist for the usa, i am not deflecting

    • by Compaqt (1758360) on Monday February 07, 2011 @11:08AM (#35126968) Homepage

      The reason for all those liberties is that someone, somewhere, sometime, was vigilant in either having them recognized, or conserving them.

      So when people talk about kill switches, they're just being vigilant, thereby preserving those liberties.

      And if the President isn't going to (or shouldn't) kill the Internet, why bring it up at all (as some Senators did)?

      Don't forget Joe Lieberman killed Wikileaks' access to the Internet with just a phone call.

      • And if the President isn't going to (or shouldn't) kill the Internet, why bring it up at all (as some Senators did)?

        Because some people think he should have the power to protect critical computer systems across the country from compromise. But hey, let's just pretend for a moment that people aren't once again talking out of their asses for political purposes when they talk about the Internet kill switch. The Communications Act of 1934 *already gives* the President the power to close or take control over "any facility or station for wire communication" when the U.S. is at war. Go ahead, read 47 U.S.C. 606, I'll wait.

        If

    • by Zebedeu (739988)

      Is your shift key broken?

      I couldn't read your text, I was distracted by that. Sorry.

    • the american president is not going to cut off the internet and start goose stepping around the white house. this ranks right up there with other paranoid schizophrenic fantasies like rednecks with guns in the woods are going to save us from fascism. please stop mentioning the american internet kill switch in the same sentence as egypt, china, or iran. its just... dumb

      we live in an abused, yes, compromised, yes, but still functioning democracy. meaning rule is by consent, not force and fear...

      Goddamnit, dude. Way to miss the point. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, is saying the US is as bad as Egypt or China. What we do say when we compare the proposal for the kill switch in the US with what happened in Egypt is that we don't want to move in that direction. It's not that we fear tomorrow the President is going to go dictator on us...it's that we don't want to make it any easier for this to one day happen, even 200 or 400 years from now.

      but fear is not how it works in the usa. really, mr. snarky teenager. do you feel afraid criticizing the us government on slashdot? oh, why not? maybe because you have that right AND THAT RIGHT IS RESPECTED.

      Exactly. So now is the time to use those rights.

  • by Timmmm (636430) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:34AM (#35126514)

    Wow this article is full of "Well we would , but we don't want to go into those military secrets."

    > operatives could smuggle small satellite dishes into a country

    Seriously?

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      Actually this is all just guess work. It is public knowledge that the US has flying TV and radio stations. It is also public knowledge that the US has flying cell sites. I mean think about it. Put two and to together and you have a way to put up internet and cell service in an area.
      It could be used to provide communications during a natural disaster or to broadcast information to a populace you want to provide information and news too. One man's news is another propaganda. Think of Voice of America and Radi

      • by Timmmm (636430)

        I think there are better ways to provide access to the internet to people in a hostile country than invading their airspace!

  • by Goalie_Ca (584234) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:42AM (#35126610)
    Aren't the Egyptians telling you guys to stay out!? Maybe it's better if you don't get involved for once.
  • by rickb928 (945187) on Monday February 07, 2011 @10:42AM (#35126616) Homepage Journal

    I ask that rhetorically, but has VOA become so neutered and politically correct that it could not at least broadcast current events to the Egyptian people? It wasn't that long ago that VOA was jammed regularly in the former Soviet Union.

    Carpet-bombing the country with 'cheap' sat phones or wireless routers for use with a foreign-sponsored offshore Internet service sounds like fun, though. All we need to do is figure out how to set up the link so aircraft don't need to overfly the target nation, and set these up as mesh nodes to extend the network into the interior. And keep the airborne links far enough outside the target's borders to pretend they are in 'international' airspace. Battery power is not a good idea, but it may be the simplest thing. Imagine a national ban on batteries... USB-powered devices would be ideal, but that's a tall order technilogically...

    These flying access points better be remotely piloted, though. Hosni in particular knows his way around air defense, and has good equipment.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      You overfly some cheap drones, you drop some solar-powered access point lawn darts, done. We already have ample overhead communications options to provide the rest of the system.

  • Simple Send up an 'easily hacked' constellation of satellites.

    Dictator: Shut down your satellite access
    US: Oh were really sorry those wascally hackers keep breaking our pass codes! Were trying really hard to lock them out (changes password to fred ) there that should do it.

    One could construe their satellite hacking problems in Brazil [wired.com] to be laying ground work for this position.

  • I think it would be nice/responsible if the U.N. had this technology and could deploy it whenever ANY country uses its kill switch. (Including freakin America.)

    Unfortunately, I don't believe the current U.N. would act in a timely fashion for the tech to do them any good.

  • bidirectional traffic using the Echelon satellites to and from the mobile phone towers - rumors have it that this was already used in Iran to provoke many people to come to the areas where protests were staged.

    Trojan Boot Loaders in all routers ( and maybe switches ) overriding configured settings - this does not prevent disruption of communication if the Internet providers really have to pull the plug - literally the fibre patch cables.

  • The cellphone provider would have to fly in a tight circle to serve a small area on the ground (otherwise you'd lose connection). This makes it impractical to serve a large area (you'd need too many aircraft).

    Wifi is even more difficult, since the range of standard wifi is not enough.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Monday February 07, 2011 @12:05PM (#35127474) Homepage
    brought to you by the united states of america! (note: offer not valid in guantanamo bay, some restrictions may apply, see abu graib for details. offer void if found on US Targeted Killing list)

Innovation is hard to schedule. -- Dan Fylstra

Working...