Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default GOP wants to track your cell phone!

    Oh wait. My bad. It's just a little more "hope and change".

    (Did all of you actually vote for this?)

    February 11, 2010 4:00 AM PST
    Feds push for tracking cell phones
    by Declan McCullagh

    Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

    FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

    Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

    In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

    Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

    "This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."

    Not long ago, the concept of tracking cell phones would have been the stuff of spy movies. In 1998's "Enemy of the State," Gene Hackman warned that the National Security Agency has "been in bed with the entire telecommunications industry since the '40s--they've infected everything." After a decade of appearances in "24" and "Live Free or Die Hard," location-tracking has become such a trope that it was satirized in a scene with Seth Rogen from "Pineapple Express" (2008).

    Once a Hollywood plot, now 'commonplace'
    Whether state and federal police have been paying attention to Hollywood, or whether it was the other way around, cell phone tracking has become a regular feature in criminal investigations. It comes in two forms: police obtaining retrospective data kept by mobile providers for their own billing purposes that may not be very detailed, or prospective data that reveals the minute-by-minute location of a handset or mobile device.

    Obtaining location details is now "commonplace," says Al Gidari, a partner in the Seattle offices of Perkins Coie who represents wireless carriers. "It's in every pen register order these days."

    Gidari says that the Third Circuit case could have a significant impact on police investigations within the court's jurisdiction, namely Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it could be persuasive beyond those states. But, he cautions, "if the privacy groups win, the case won't be over. It will certainly be appealed."

    CNET was the first to report on prospective tracking in a 2005 news article. In a subsequent Arizona case, agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration tracked a tractor trailer with a drug shipment through a GPS-equipped Nextel phone owned by the suspect. Texas DEA agents have used cell site information in real time to locate a Chrysler 300M driving from Rio Grande City to a ranch about 50 miles away. Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile logs showing the location of mobile phones at the time calls were placed became evidence in a Los Angeles murder trial.

    And a mobile phone's fleeting connection with a remote cell tower operated by Edge Wireless is what led searchers to the family of the late James Kim, a CNET employee who died in the Oregon wilderness in 2006 after leaving a snowbound car to seek help.

    "This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century. If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."
    --Kevin Bankston, attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
    The way tracking works is simple: mobile phones are miniature radio transmitters and receivers. A cellular tower knows the general direction of a mobile phone (many cell sites have three antennas pointing in different directions), and if the phone is talking to multiple towers, triangulation yields a rough location fix. With this method, accuracy depends in part on the density of cell sites.

    The Federal Communications Commission's "Enhanced 911" (E911) requirements allowed rough estimates to be transformed into precise coordinates. Wireless carriers using CDMA networks, such as Verizon Wireless and Sprint Nextel, tend to use embedded GPS technology to fulfill E911 requirements. AT&T and T-Mobile comply with E911 regulations using network-based technology that computes a phone's location using signal analysis and triangulation between towers.

    T-Mobile, for instance, uses a GSM technology called Uplink Time Difference of Arrival, or U-TDOA, which calculates a position based on precisely how long it takes signals to reach towers. A company called TruePosition, which provides U-TDOA services to T-Mobile, boasts of "accuracy to under 50 meters" that's available "for start-of-call, midcall, or when idle" as soon as the call begins.

    A 2008 court order to T-Mobile in a criminal investigation of a marriage fraud scheme, which was originally sealed and later made public, says: "T-Mobile shall disclose at such intervals and times as directed by (the Department of Homeland Security), latitude and longitude data that establishes the approximate positions of the Subject Wireless Telephone, by unobtrusively initiating a signal on its network that will enable it to determine the locations of the Subject Wireless Telephone."

    'No reasonable expectation of privacy'
    In the case that's before the Third Circuit on Friday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, initially said it needed historical (meaning stored, not future) phone location information because a set of suspects "use their wireless telephones to arrange meetings and transactions in furtherance of their drug trafficking activities."

    U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Lenihan in Pennsylvania denied the Justice Department's attempt to obtain stored location data without a search warrant; prosecutors had invoked a different legal procedure. Lenihan's ruling, in effect, would require police to obtain a search warrant based on probable cause--a more privacy-protective standard.

    Lenihan's opinion (PDF)--which, in an unusual show of solidarity, was signed by four other magistrate judges--noted that location information can reveal sensitive information such as health treatments, financial difficulties, marital counseling, and extra-marital affairs.

    In its appeal to the Third Circuit, the Justice Department claims that Lenihan's opinion "contains, and relies upon, numerous errors" and should be overruled. In addition to a search warrant not being necessary, prosecutors said, because location "records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest."

    The Obama administration is not alone in making this argument. U.S. District Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee in New York, wrote in a 2009 opinion that a defendant in a drug trafficking case, Jose Navas, "did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cell phone" location. That's because Navas only used the cell phone "on public thoroughfares en route from California to New York" and "if Navas intended to keep the cell phone's location private, he simply could have turned it off."

    (Most cases have involved the ground rules for tracking cell phone users prospectively, and judges have disagreed over what legal rules apply. Only a minority has sided with the Justice Department, however.)

    Cellular providers tend not to retain moment-by-moment logs of when each mobile device contacts the tower, in part because there's no business reason to store the data, and in part because the storage costs would be prohibitive. They do, however, keep records of what tower is in use when a call is initiated or answered--and those records are generally stored for six months to a year, depending on the company.

    Verizon Wireless keeps "phone records including cell site location for 12 months," Drew Arena, Verizon's vice president and associate general counsel for law enforcement compliance, said at a federal task force meeting in Washington, D.C. last week. Arena said the company keeps "phone bills without cell site location for seven years," and stores SMS text messages for only a very brief time.

    Gidari, the Seattle attorney, said that wireless carriers have recently extended how long they store this information. "Prior to a year or two ago when location-based services became more common, if it were 30 days it would be surprising," he said.

    The ACLU, EFF, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and University of San Francisco law professor Susan Freiwald argue that the wording of the federal privacy law in question allows judges to require the level of proof required for a search warrant "before authorizing the disclosure of particularly novel or invasive types of information." In addition, they say, Americans do not "knowingly expose their location information and thereby surrender Fourth Amendment protection whenever they turn on or use their cell phones."

    "The biggest issue at stake is whether or not courts are going to accept the government's minimal view of what is protected by the Fourth Amendment," says EFF's Bankston. "The government is arguing that based on precedents from the 1970s, any record held by a third party about us, no matter how invasively collected, is not protected by the Fourth Amendment."
    Seriously. Is this REALLY what you thought you were getting?

    Can you imagine if the Bush administration had done this?
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    George,

    can you give me a source for this? Not asking to discredit you, asking because stuff like this is Bull!!! What happened to privacy, warrants, etc..?

    Thanks
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Thanks George.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" ( I like it !!!) that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

    FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

    Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices....
    Actually the rules are very clear. They are spelled out in the PATRIOT act as well as the EPCA. The fourth amendment only applies to our homes and our persons. Once an electronic communication leaves your possession it is no longer protected.

  6. #6
    Forum Member nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Actually birdbrain, it is still very very protected regardless of where the signal originated.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    George,

    can you give me a source for this? Not asking to discredit you, asking because stuff like this is Bull!!! What happened to privacy, warrants, etc..?

    Thanks
    Nothing happened to them.

    In order to obtain location information, it has to be done in conjunction with a pen register / trap and trace court order signed by a judge. In order to obtain that court order, the LEO must write a very lengthy and detailed affidavit spelling out who, when, where, and why to justify it to the judge. You actually have to justify it. Curiosity is NOT a reason. If the judge signs it, the order is sent to the phone company who is then obligated to provide the pens/trap-and-trace data. The order is only good for 30 days. After those 30 days, you can only renew it for another 30 days with another lengthy affidavit and a new court order.

    Location data is usually nothing more than cell site and sector. That means you get the location of the tower and the general direction from the tower. Nothing more. No GPS data, no exact location, no nothing. Just for example, somewhere northeast of the tower. Nextel to my knowlege is the only system that can provide an actual GPS location to law enforcement and it requires that you be on the phone with their LE relations bureau at the time while they push the ping button and read you the coordinates.

    So the notion that this is some rampant and wildly abused, commonplace practice is a fallacy of the news media who wants a sensational story. Its utterly blown out of proportion knowing that it will sell papers, get ratings, and generate website views for their ads.

    Next.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Filing with the court from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  8. #8
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,555

    Default

    Two years ago, when the FBI was stymied by a band of armed robbers known as the "Scarecrow Bandits" ( I like it !!!) that had robbed more than 20 Texas banks, it came up with a novel method of locating the thieves.

    FBI agents obtained logs from mobile phone companies corresponding to what their cellular towers had recorded at the time of a dozen different bank robberies in the Dallas area. The voluminous records showed that two phones had made calls around the time of all 12 heists, and that those phones belonged to men named Tony Hewitt and Corey Duffey. A jury eventually convicted the duo of multiple bank robbery and weapons charges.

    Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices....
    Maybe that is why Scarecrow thinks it is okay to hire felons.....
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    Actually birdbrain, it is still very very protected regardless of where the signal originated.


    Nothing happened to them.

    In order to obtain location information, it has to be done in conjunction with a pen register / trap and trace court order signed by a judge. In order to obtain that court order, the LEO must write a very lengthy and detailed affidavit spelling out who, when, where, and why to justify it to the judge. You actually have to justify it. Curiosity is NOT a reason. If the judge signs it, the order is sent to the phone company who is then obligated to provide the pens/trap-and-trace data. The order is only good for 30 days. After those 30 days, you can only renew it for another 30 days with another lengthy affidavit and a new court order.

    Location data is usually nothing more than cell site and sector. That means you get the location of the tower and the general direction from the tower. Nothing more. No GPS data, no exact location, no nothing. Just for example, somewhere northeast of the tower. Nextel to my knowlege is the only system that can provide an actual GPS location to law enforcement and it requires that you be on the phone with their LE relations bureau at the time while they push the ping button and read you the coordinates.

    So the notion that this is some rampant and wildly abused, commonplace practice is a fallacy of the news media who wants a sensational story. Its utterly blown out of proportion knowing that it will sell papers, get ratings, and generate website views for their ads.

    Next.
    It is protected by the laws not the constitution. There can be no expectation of privacy in a public internet. Be like standing in a crowded room and expecting privacy. That is why there are laws like the PATRIOT act, Electronic Communications Privacy act (ECPA), and wiretapping.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire View Post
    Actually birdbrain, it is still very very protected regardless of where the signal originated.


    Nothing happened to them.

    In order to obtain location information, it has to be done in conjunction with a pen register / trap and trace court order signed by a judge. In order to obtain that court order, the LEO must write a very lengthy and detailed affidavit spelling out who, when, where, and why to justify it to the judge. You actually have to justify it. Curiosity is NOT a reason. If the judge signs it, the order is sent to the phone company who is then obligated to provide the pens/trap-and-trace data. The order is only good for 30 days. After those 30 days, you can only renew it for another 30 days with another lengthy affidavit and a new court order.

    Location data is usually nothing more than cell site and sector. That means you get the location of the tower and the general direction from the tower. Nothing more. No GPS data, no exact location, no nothing. Just for example, somewhere northeast of the tower. Nextel to my knowlege is the only system that can provide an actual GPS location to law enforcement and it requires that you be on the phone with their LE relations bureau at the time while they push the ping button and read you the coordinates.

    So the notion that this is some rampant and wildly abused, commonplace practice is a fallacy of the news media who wants a sensational story. Its utterly blown out of proportion knowing that it will sell papers, get ratings, and generate website views for their ads.

    Next.
    Two questions...

    1. Have you ever written such an affidavit? I have. Several times.

    2. How is this blown out of proportion? Point out where it is false.

    In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
    The warrant requirements are there now. The Obama Administration appears to want to circumvent them. It looks to be that simple.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  11. #11
    Forum Member nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    I completely disagree with warrantless access to location data. It is needed now and it should stay that way. And Obama, as usual, can go shove it. Hoping for change in 2012.

    I'm pointing out the process in place now for the people who think that there is no process and law enforcement and the federal government can just do whatever they want whenever they want. Most people have no clue the process and work that goes into obtaining this kind of data and just assume we're "taking it".

    Too answer your question, not I have no written said affidavits because I am not a law enforcement officer. But I work with the results of said affidavits and copious amounts of data they give back on a daily basis. I wouldn't be any good at writing them because I think they're all guilty *******s and should go to jail.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Maybe I'm a little slow tonight, it's been a long week with all the snow here.

    Is this really that much of a big deal? If you're not doing something wrong, what's the big deal? As long as they aren't listening to my phone call, I couldn't care less if they know where I made it.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Thanks for the "interesting" story, do not be involved in things with FBI, trust me!
    __________________
    Cat Mimi used to be a boy working in blacksmith as an ironman. In his 18, he began to be involved in business area and study how to be a great businessman by himself. Now he is addicted to wholesale cell phone accessories.

  14. #14
    Forum Member Doorbreaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near Cooperstown N.Y.
    Posts
    111

    Default

    I'd like to know how this topic got so misnamed? It is Obama and the Democrats who are pushing for this new crap. Last I knew they were not the GOP...

    He even came out and stated that there is nothing wrong with it on some talk show. They had a sound clip about it on one of the local shows today.

    "In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls."

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doorbreaker View Post
    I'd like to know how this topic got so misnamed? It is Obama and the Democrats who are pushing for this new crap. Last I knew they were not the GOP......
    It's satire son. Otherwise know as poking a stick in the eye of the Obamaistas. You're not keeping up.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doorbreaker View Post
    I'd like to know how this topic got so misnamed? It is Obama and the Democrats
    This is actually the closest to bipartisanship we have come.

    The initial case started under W, and O is just running with it.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    865

    Angry Data

    Any cell phone data, internet records, bank data, Gun registration, etc. should require a warrant or a legal subpoena signed by a judge. Although I am a conservative, I think the warrantless wire tap provision of the Home Land Security Laws should be repealed.

    Obama's facist government should go pound sand!
    Last edited by donethat; 02-12-2010 at 10:48 AM.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    It is protected by the laws not the constitution. There can be no expectation of privacy in a public internet. Be like standing in a crowded room and expecting privacy. That is why there are laws like the PATRIOT act, Electronic Communications Privacy act (ECPA), and wiretapping.
    No, it is protected by the forth amendment as interrupted by the US Supreme Court. In a paper written by Cornell University Law School, they wrote that the Court ruled that emails are covered under the Forth Amendment.
    They wrote,
    Quote Originally Posted by Cornell University Law School
    Two general categories of electronic communication surveillance exist. Wire communications refer to the transfer of the human voice from one point to another via use of a wire, cable, or similar device. When law enforcement "taps" a wire, they use some mechanical or electrical device that gives them outside access to the vocal transfer, thus disclosing the contents of the conversation. Electronic communications refer to the transfer of information, data, or sounds from one location to another over a device designed for electronic transmissions. This type of communication includes email or information uploaded from a private computer to the internet.
    Just thought I would point this out.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acklan View Post
    No, it is protected by the forth amendment as interrupted by the US Supreme Court. In a paper written by Cornell University Law School, they wrote that the Court ruled that emails are covered under the Forth Amendment.
    They wrote,


    Just thought I would point this out.
    Not so sure I believe that in its entirety. For instance, when you use wireless communications there is no expectation of privacy. Your "stuff is sent out over the airwaves where anyone can intercept it and view it. Also, in the workplace this does not apply either. Look at O'Connor vs. Ortega. It comes down to is there an expectation of privacy, various courts have ruled differently.

    My course work has touched on this, the class in forensics and computer investigations went into really deep. And then there is the entire class on ethics and law that is upcoming. Trust me when I tell you this is not all that cut and dry.

    Giver me a little time, I have a site bookmarked somewhere (don't know which machine it is on) that is a dry read but goes into this exact topic in great detail. Much of the privacy protections you receive are based on laws, and not the fourth amendment.

  20. #20
    Forum Member nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Telephone communication is protected. It doesn't matter what you want to call it or what you think your bird brain learned in class. It is protected in a number of ways and you can not intercept the call details or the call content without appropriate court orders.

    If I could do it without a court order, I would put up a PR/T&T on your line just to see what planet you regularly phone home to.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Urban Myths And Cell Phones
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 08:54 AM
  2. Cell Phone Moble Repeater
    By caffder in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-11-2005, 04:34 PM
  3. Utah-Changes for Provos 911 System
    By UTFFEMT in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-29-2005, 03:34 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2003, 02:35 PM
  5. Cell Phone on Apparatus
    By tmacz23 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-28-2003, 01:34 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