Vladimir Berkov

Wireless internet

45 posts in this topic

I submit the two are fundamentally the same:

One contacts the property of another (the modem, etc) without that other's consent.

One contacts the property of another (the house, etc) without that other's consent.[

Contact with the person or property of another without their consent is the initiation of force.  In both instances, the form of force is trespass.

Not always though, as I said there is not one element to a test of criminal trespass. There is also an element requiring notice. Thus you may be on anothers property without their express consent and it may not yet be criminal trespass until they tell you to leave and you refuse.

The argument I present is not one pertaining to the signal.  It pertains to the hardware one must access (hub, cables, wire, etc) in order to do anything with that signal - ie to actually reach a web page, email, or anything else). That property is not one's own and one does not have permission to use it.

This argument by itself seems pointless because a person uses the hardware of others without their express consent all the time through normal browsing of the internet on one's own ISP.

Using the door example again.  According to the premise being presented, unless one blocks the view of one's front door from any other property, then if one leaves that door open, one is automatically granting permission for anyone who can see the open door to enter that house.  In other words, the claim is - because the home owner "decided" not to secure the house (by closing and locking the door) and "decided" not to hide the door from view of passers by (by putting a wall or shrubs or something in front of the door), that home owner is automatically granting anyone who can see the open door access to that property.

I have to say that premise is completely false - be it applied to the door, the signal, or any thing else.

Is your argument that, without a "No Trespassing" sign, anyone may enter your "real" property and use it if you leave your door open?  If so, I have to strenuously disagree.

I am not sure why this door argument is exactly relevant because the standards are different. It is not commonly understood that an open house door means consent has been granted for strangers to come inside. Whereas with an open door on a restaurant there is obviously a different standard.

To summarize the problem here I think the most important questions are:

1.) Whether or not a person broadcasting an unsecured wireless network can reasonably assume that it will be used by others unless steps are taken to secure it.

2.) Does the accesser of the wireless network have reason to believe that the signal is meant to be private?

I think given the changing state of technology the answer will start to be forming towards saying "yes" to the first and "no" to the second although we may not be at that exact stage yet.

Case in point. While at Starbucks the other night, I pulled out my laptop to check my mail and saw that in addition to Starbuck's wireless network two others had been detected. I have no idea where those others were coming from as it was long after dark and in the middle of a non-residential neighborhood. For all I know they might have simply been coming from the Japanese restaurant next door or God knows where else.

My point is that as this type of connection continues to spread (especially with the Google setup in San Francisco) people will be operating under the assumption that an public, unsecured wireless network is meant for public access or at least is not meant to be entirely private.

And as this trend continues, people will become more and more vigilant about protecting their networks as if they don't it will be obvious to them that strangers will be accessing them thinking they are meant to be public.

As I said, I don't think we are necessarily at this stage yet. In major metro areas we are probably much further along than in rural areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure why the fact that the radio waves did not exist or were not developed by the original owners of your property matters exactly. 

It matters because the original owners' claim is based on them taking something that was unowned and creating value. Presumably, they did this with the surface of the land. But the electromagnetic radio spectrum is a completely different entity. The phenomenon wasn't even known, so the original owners cannot have thought they had a right to use it. Its domain happens to "cross" my property, but that doesn't give me any rights to it. They didn't do anything to establish any rights to it. It's a completely different phenomenon: the use of my physical land and the use of the electromagnetic spectrum do not even affect each other, unless I take special steps.

For instance if a stream changes course so that it now runs on your property, you don't have a right to use it because it was not part of the original development of the land and rights gained by the first owner?

Here, I'll leave aside the fact that there may be special considerations related to water rights; I don't know about them. But, I do have the rights to the surface of my property. And the stream is on the surface of my property; it's unavoidably and inextricably mixed. There isn't any way I can use that part of my property without using or affecting the stream. So, the rights to it would be included with the rights established by the original owners.

Or if someone builds a drive-in theater across the street that you can see from your bedroom window you can't watch it because the rights to the film and projector were never part of the original value of your property?

I think this is different from the electromagnetic radio spectrum, because here, all I am taking advantage of is the phenomenon of sight (my own). Everybody knew about this when the original rights to my property were established, so clearly, ownership of my property includes the right to use my eyes (at least unaided!) to look at whatever I can see from my property. Sight isn't anything new, and I would actually have to actively take steps to not use it in this case. There are clearly some interesting borderline cases though: I'm not free to use a telescope from my property and peek into my neighbors' windows. (At least I don't think I am.)

Or consider this hypothetical.  Suppose that someone starts a regular broadcast TV station but says that the station isn't free, if you want to watch it you must send them $10 each month.  Since every home with a TV can just tune in the channel with their rabbit-ears, is everybody supposed to just close their eyes and plug their ears when flipping through the channels in case they accidentially start watching the "pay" channel by mistake?

I would say that if I can be reasonably expected to know that this isn't a free channel, I should have to pay for it in order to enjoy it.

...

My claim about the electromagnetic radio spectrum is analogous to airspace rights. Today I don't have the right to charge airplanes to fly over my property, because I don't have the right to the airspace above where I live. Again, it comes back to the fact that the original owners of my property didn't do anything to develop the airspace. (Of course, in the case of air space, somebody who establishes rights to this cannot, in the process of exercising them, violate my surface rights. For example, he would have to fly airplanes over my house in ways that did not interfere with the reasonable use of my property.)

What it comes down to for radio waves is that they're a completely different kind of property than real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument by itself seems pointless because a person uses the hardware of others without their express consent all the time through normal browsing of the internet on one's own ISP.
The argument is right on target. Express consent is not required: implicit consent suffices. It is not possible to imagine a person "accidentally" constructing a web page that others can see, in the course of performing a different activity (e.g. reading email, printing a document). It is trivial to accidentally expose your internet connection to hijacking by outsiders: buy a wireless router and connect it. Good grief, have you looked at the Windows "Help" files about securing a wireless connection? Correspondingly, implicit consent cannot be assumed in such a (non-)knowledge context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....

Case in point.  While at Starbucks the other night, I pulled out my laptop to check my mail and saw that in addition to Starbuck's wireless network two others had been detected.  I have no idea where those others were coming from as it was long after dark and in the middle of a non-residential neighborhood.  For all I know they might have simply been coming from the Japanese restaurant next door or God knows where else.

My point is that as this type of connection continues to spread (especially with the Google setup in San Francisco) people will be operating under the assumption that an public, unsecured wireless network is meant for public access or at least is not meant to be entirely private. 

And as this trend continues, people will become more and more vigilant about protecting their networks as if they don't it will be obvious to them that strangers will be accessing them thinking they are meant to be public.

As I said, I don't think we are necessarily at this stage yet.  In major metro areas we are probably much further along than in rural areas.

Good point. If it gets so that there are so many public networks out there, then it might be reasonable to (at least in some areas) assume that if one finds a network he can connect to, it would be be public. (I myself don't know exactly how one is told about the networks on a laptop, since I'm not a laptop or wireless network user yet.)

Today I suppose that if I'm in a place like Starbucks and I know that they have a wireless network they provide for their customers, I'd assume that if I found a wireless network to connect to, it would be the Starbucks one that I had a right to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument is right on target. Express consent is not required: implicit consent suffices. It is not possible to imagine a person "accidentally" constructing a web page that others can see, in the course of performing a different activity (e.g. reading email, printing a document). It is trivial to accidentally expose your internet connection to hijacking by outsiders: buy a wireless router and connect it. Good grief, have you looked at the Windows "Help" files about securing a wireless connection? Correspondingly, implicit consent cannot be assumed in such a (non-)knowledge context.

As I said, this whole issue is tied to the fact that this is an evolving field of technology and public perceptions and standards are also evolving.

To a person with any computer sense whatsoever, starting up a wireless network has obvious implications. Basically any article you read about the subject has a cautionary bit in there somewhere telling you that if you don't secure the network, anybody within range of the transmitter may use it.

I am not saying that ignorance of this fact is unimportant, but just that the way the technology is evolving eventually such ignorance is going to eventually no longer matter as wireless networks become pretty much universal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here is under what conditions may a person use the property of another.

My position is that one may not use the property of another without permission - without the consent of the property owner.

A secondary issue here is whether the absence of a sign proclaiming "Keep Out" or "No Trespass" etc means that any and all individuals are welcome to use that property as they see fit. In other words, if the absence of explicit prohibition is an implicit invitation.

My position is that explicit prohibition is not an implicit invitation.

Another issue raised in the thread is whether one is using the property of others without their consent when one accesses the internet.

This I have to say is completely false. An individual contracts with an ISP to access their lines, their modems, their servers, etc. ISP's contract with phone, and satellite companies etc to transmit signals through their property. Individuals contract with designers and web hosters and the web address assigners and a host of other organizations in order to display their sites. The list goes on and on. No one is acting without permission of someone else. No one is acting either against or regardless of the consent of the individuals involved. They are all acting with permission of all the participants.

The individual who tries to access the modem in someone else's house has not contracted with anyone for anything. They have no permission via anyone to contact the modem, which then gives them, through a link of other permissions, gives them consensual access to the rest of the web.

The point I raised is whether one has the permission to access the property of a home owner (his particular modem, his particular lines, his particular hub, etc etc). No response beyond the assertion that the internet is full of non-consensual use of property has been presented. Since that is not an argument, nor addresses the question raised, the issue still stands.

A further issue has been raised. Is an open door to a modem comparable to an open door to a house or is it comparable to an open door to a business.

My position is that - unless one knows the open door leads to a business and not a home, one does not enter it. And even at a business, if there is not an OPEN sign on the door or the like, one knocks before entering, and upon entering one makes sure it is ok to enter - ie one searches for the owner or his representative. If there is no one around to provide permission to enter and remain on the property, one leaves. One does not start using that property as if it were one's own.

To use an example provided: if one sees three open doors, one leading into a Starbucks and two others leading into darkened property which is not one's own, one enters the Starbucks because one has prior knowledge that one has permission to enter and use that property under certain circumstances. One does not enter those other two properties and use them as if they were one's own. To do so would be a crime. To do so would be trespassing.

Put simply, one's lack of knowledge about a property owner's intent does not somehow become permission to act. Ignorance is not permission.

This is true no matter how many people "assume" otherwise. An open door is not permission to use the property within. As such, the number of people who make that assumption - ie the number of people who violate the right to property does not change the fact that they are rights and that the violation of them is an injustice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that as this type of connection continues to spread (especially with the Google setup in San Francisco) people will be operating under the assumption that an public, unsecured wireless network is meant for public access or at least is not meant to be entirely private. 

I think that point will arrive relatively soon. Right now, if I am not mistaken, there is a charge by the provider of the hotspot for Starbuck's wireless access. But every time I go inside one, the places are usually full of people with laptops. The cost of a T-1 runs about $500 per month anymore and the equipment to create a hot spot is not all that expensive - which means that, in the context of running a business, it does not cost very much to provide free wireless access as a courtesy to customers. I wouldn't be at all surprised that not very far into the future any coffee shop, fast food joint, shopping mall and travel center/truck stop that does not offer a free public hotspot for their patrons will pretty much be regarded in the same light as restaurants that do not accept credit cards (and I have actually run into a few of these over the years, which I discovered AFTER the fact and without sufficient cash in my wallet to cover the ticket!)

Personally, I can't wait until they find a way to get cheap, unlimited highspeed access into people's cars - so they can listen to Radio Dismuke, of course! That will revolutionize the world of popular music in so many ways. There are literally tens of thousands of Internet radio stations out there with any type of format conceivable. No longer will motorists (who are always the largest segment of the radio audience) be confined to their own private music collections or the lowest common denominator bilge that is currently spewed out by AM/FM stations. One's choices will be virtually unlimited.

Right now Verizon is offering high speed cellular Internet access for about $70 per month in certain markets. It is nowhere near as fast as a good dsl or cable connection - but it is sufficient to stream audio and do most of the other normal tasks people do on the Internet. That is pretty expensive compared with other highspeed options - but, in time, I am sure it will come down. If it catches on, perhaps hotspots will become as obsolete as floppy drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To a person with any computer sense whatsoever, starting up a wireless network has obvious implications.  Basically any article you read about the subject has a cautionary bit in there somewhere telling you that if you don't secure the network, anybody within range of the transmitter may use it.
Such an argument is irrelevant.

To use a very simple example: To a person with any building sense whatsoever, building a house and putting an opening in it has obvious implications. Basically anyone will tell you that if you don't secure your house, anyone who comes close enough will be able to see they can enter it.

Of course, the ease or difficulty in which one can enter someone else's property does not somehow convey upon them a right or a permission to use that property. Thus the fact that the modem or house door is open is not an argument on whether one can enter either one of them or not.

To put this simply, the right to property does not require one that one secure that property from unauthorized use by others. While such securing might indeed help prevent theives from stealing one's values, it is not a requisite for the property and its use to remain one's own to control.

In other words, if I do not even put a front door on my house, if someone enters the house, their entry is still a violation of my property rights. The person entering the property is still a criminal. Lack of bars or locks or any other form of protection do not change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me try to reiterate my point one more time in a more succinct manner.

You stated that you believed one could not use the property of another without their consent. That is a general moral argument. The legal argument has two extra essential factors. To be guilty of criminal trespass you must either:

a.) Had notice that entry was forbidden or

b.) Recieved notice to depart but failed to do so.

Simply being on the property of another without their prior express consent is NOT criminal trespass without one of the above two criteria being met.

And note that notice does not only mean a written statement, oral instruction, etc. It also includes the state of the physical property itself. For instance, if you build a fence around your property that constitutes notice that entry is forbidden. Basically the potential offender must know in some way that entry is forbidden. If he knows about it before he enters the property then he is guilty, and if he finds out once he is on the property and refuses to leave he is guilty. Note that there is no duty of the property owner to secure the property in order to keep the offender out. He only has to give notice somehow, even if there are no physical barriers to keep the offender out whatsoever.

This is entirely rational and practical. Think about all the times you are on other people's property without their express oral or written consent. In deciding whether to go on the property you look at numerous factors and reasonably decide whether entry is forbidden or not.

Now, applying the above rationale to the wireless internet question the main issue becomes whether the existance of an unsecured wireless network inherently constitutes notice that entry is forbidden. There is obviously no oral or written prior notice, but is there some other factor which would lead a reasonable man to conclude that he is being kept out?

I argue that on an unsecured network there is not. The presence of a password, firewall, etc is the internet equivilant of the "fence" found in the criminal trespass statute. It is a clear and objective notice to potential trespassers that entry to that property is forbidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me try to reiterate my point one more time in a more succinct manner.

You stated that you believed one could not use the property of another without their consent.  That is a general moral argument.

OK. You acknowledge that the moral argument is that one does not use someone else's property without their consent. As such, anyone who uses someone's wireless connection without permission is immoral. And since absence of prohibition is not permission, the lack of security preventing use without permission is not permission.
The legal argument has two extra essential factors.  To be guilty of criminal trespass you must either:

a.) Had notice that entry was forbidden or

b.) Recieved notice to depart but failed to do so.

Simply being on the property of another without their prior express consent is NOT criminal trespass without one of the above two criteria being met.  And note that notice does not only mean a written statement, oral instruction, etc.  It also includes the state of the physical property itself.

According to this principle, if someone did not have "Keep Out" signs posted on their property and their door was left open, then it would be perfectly legal for anyone to enter the house, sleep in the beds, use the telephone, eat the food, etc - ie use the property inside as they see fit. Just as it is claimed to be perfectly legal to enter through the signal that has no firewall and no password and then use their modem, use their computer, alter their files, delete things from the Hard Drive, etc - ie use the property inside as they see fit.

Because, where there is no prohibition, there is thus permission.

I am sorry but a principle which allows contact with and use of another man's property without his consent must be considered an invalid principle. The proper default position is not that people are free to use any property they want to whatever ends they choose unless it is somehow secured (by wall or by word). The proper default position is that people are not free to use property unless they have permission to do so.

Think about all the times you are on other people's property without their express oral or written consent.
When would those times be exactly? If I go to a restaurant, I do not enter if it says Closed. I enter if it says Open - or Store Hours xyz - etc. The same is true for any business or the like. When visiting doctors or lawyers, I make appointments ahead of time for instance.

In virtually every aspect of life today, one acts with the consent of those whom one is interacting with. In fact, the only instance that I can think of off hand that does not currently supposedly require permission, is walking up to a stranger's door and knocking, in order to contact the stranger directly. One can easily make an argument that even that is a violation in a proper society (though it would be quite a misdemeanor violation, generally not worth pursuing) -ie one could argue that written contact left in a publicly accessible and identified mailbox, or by phone, or even yelling up at the house if it is close enough, is proper method of establishing initial permissions with a stranger, rather than simply trespassing across his property without any idea of permission, 'Innocent' trespass is simply considered so common place that no one even thinks twice about it. They automatically take it as an undeniable right. The fact that it is a habit in our society, though, does not make it proper behavior. And notice, even in this society, the only reason one does walk up to someone's door like that is to get permission for some form of additional contact. And if one doesn't find someone at home to give them such permission, they properly leave.

In other words, the claim that we use property without permission all the time is untrue. Thus the claim we should be able to use property without permission in this instance because it is done in so many other instances is also untrue (Not that one violation of rights makes another violation permissible anyway). However, even if it were true, the examples in which it is considered true are not even close to analogous to the wireless example. Walking on someone's property to get permission to use their property is quite the opposite of walking on someone's property simply to use the property without regard for permission.

Simply put, no matter what justification is dug up to claim use of private property without the owner's consent, one cannot get around the fact that contact with the person or property of another without the other's consent is an initiation of force - ie a violation of their rights. A lack of a sign does not change this fact. A lack of a fence does not change this fact. A lack of a door does not change this fact. A lack of a firewall does not change this fact. And neither does a law requiring any of these things. Such a law itself is simply a violation of one's property rights. It is the legalization of the initiation of force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me offer a general question to the thread which might help cut through some of the distracting secondary or non-issues:

Would anyone here consider a law to be proper (ie to be a valid application of an proper moral principle) if it treated the mere fact of an opening (be it door, window, whatever) on a home to be permission granted by the owner to any non-owner to enter the home and dispose of it as the non-owner sees fit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian Smith, I have a question for you about a very briefly mentioned detail in this thread.

By default, Windows XP will automatically connect to an "unsecured" wireless network. This setting is located in the Advanced section of the 'Wireless Network Connection Properties' and is called "Automatically connect to non-preferred networks."

Just as the average home user may not have secured their network, they probably have not changed this particular setting. Therefore they may not only be unknowingly broadcasting an open wireless connection but also unknowingly be connected to and using their neighbor's unsecured wireless network. (hell, their neighbor might be in the same situation!)

A real life example: My brother updated the firmware on his router which then resets all of its settings. When he attempted to log into his router using the factory default login he unintentionally logged into a neigbor's router. Much to our surprise instead of seeing a page for a Belkin router in his browser we were looking at a Dell-brand router page! It seems while his router updated and reset, his notebook connected to a local unsecured connection, that is, the next available wireless connection.

In summary, while the broacasting of wireless access is quite open, so is the ability to connect to them. Since the major issue here is use of property without consent my question is: How, if at all, does this affect the application of morality and property rights on this subject?

While I clearly see the principles and consistency in your arguments I find it difficult to consider myself or my brother as initiators of force. Given the default open nature of this wireless protocol, I would find it difficult to place any blame or fault for those in the same position. (let alone those who have little interest in computers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would anyone here consider a law to be proper (ie to be a valid application of an proper moral principle) if it treated the mere fact of an opening (be it door, window, whatever) on a home to be permission granted by the owner to any non-owner to enter the home and dispose of it as the non-owner sees fit?

Definately not. Accessibility does not imply permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as the average home user may not have secured their network, they probably have not changed this particular setting.  Therefore they may not only be unknowingly broadcasting an open wireless connection but also unknowingly be connected to and using their neighbor's unsecured wireless network.
This would still be trespass, just as it would be if you wandered off your own 20 acre spread and onto your neighbor's without realizing it. But the difference here is context. To use a more serious example, it is the difference between murder and manslaughter. In other words, the difference is that of accidental and purposeful intrusion - accidental and purposeful contact without consent.

It is in instances such as this that warning signs or verbal warnings then become relevant. It is when one realizes through one means or another that one is unknowingly in contact with someone else's property that one acts to vacate that property or seek permission to remain.

Thus, to take the example of your brother, he did indeed trespass onto the property of another person. But he did not do so knowingly. And I assume once he realized he was not where he belonged, he returned to his own property. As such, the incident was a minor infraction at worst.

How, if at all, does this affect the application of morality and property rights on this subject?
It affects it the same way it does if a person kills another person - depending on the context, the killing can be identified as murder, accident, or self-defense. And naturally, the moral/legal response to each will be different.
While I clearly see the principles and consistency in your arguments I find it difficult to consider myself or my brother as initiators of force.
Well, you guys certainly are not murderers, so rest easy. :lol:

Seriously, trespass of this sort is a relatively minor infraction of an individual's property rights. And if one does so accidently, the proper and proportional response would be negligible - likely simply a legal (perhaps even verbal) warning not to do so again (if it even got that far). Of course, if you did any damage to the property while you were trespassing, you would naturally be responsible for rectifying that situation - since you did not have the permission to be there or to take whatever action you took which resulted in the damage. For instance, if you thought you were on your own property and cut down a tree, and then found out you were not on your property at all but someone else's instead, you would properly be held responsible for replacing that tree.

Thus, while the blame or fault (ie the responsibility) for the intrusion ultimately does lie with the computer user, in the context cited, it would certainly not amount to a criminal violation of another's rights, even though it is indeed a violation of those rights.

{As an aside, the fact that MS makes automatic connections to unknown networks the default position, one could make an argument that MS is culpable to some degree here - and that the default position should not be one of automatic connection if the network is unknown. But ultimately, a property owner (ie the computer user) is responsible for their own property (the computer and their use of it).}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an aside, the fact that MS makes automatic connections to unknown networks the default position, one could make an argument that MS is culpable to some degree here - and that the default position should not be one of automatic connection if the network is unknown.
The same courtesy of blame should be extended to router manufacturers, who ship routers pre-configured to be unsecured. Of course, people would whine that they can't get their new wireless to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same courtesy of blame should be extended to router manufacturers, who ship routers pre-configured to be unsecured.
I would disagree with this assertion. A door manufacturer is not required to include any specific means of securing the door. In fact, most doors don't come with a handle/lock (ie they come "pre-configured to be unsecured"). It is up to the owner to choose to buy a lock and specify the type - ie simple, heavy duty, multiple locks etc. - or use no locks at all. As such, the door manufacturer (or in this case, the hub manufacturer) would not be responsible for any breach of security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A door manufacturer is not required to include any specific means of securing the door.
Then how in the world can you lay partial blame on Microsoft for the way it default-configures its product?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because MS has devised and activated a means of automatically entering any unlocked or open door regardless of permission of the owner - or knowledge of the person entering the opening. And contact with the person or property of another regardless of consent is an initiation of force (ie a violation of rights).

On the other hand, leaving a door unlocked when it is purchased - and leaving it up to the owner whether he will lock it or not when he installs it - are not instances of contact with the person or property of another regardless of consent. As such, they are not a violation of rights. In fact, they are an acceptance of an individual's right to his property - including the right to dispose of it as he sees fit (ie whether he sees fit to lock or leave open his door after he has installed it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see now, my mistake was overestimating the moral/political stature of such a breach... which then caused me to question it as an act of force. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now back to the The Good, in wireless networking.

Accessibility is the most important feature of wireless. That is, accessibility to other computers and networks, but namely, access to the internet. In essence, this feature allows a greater integration of the power and value of the internet in our lives.

The impact, both present and future, that these technologies will have on individuals is exciting. Imagine the power of: All long-distance communications, grocery planning and shopping, news and current events, planning and implementing major purchases, making appointments or interviews, getting an education, etc. All made available while you are sitting in traffic, on a plane trip, riding on a train, taking a brake at school or work, or... well... perhaps while at the Grand Canyon. :lol: All of which would be done on your own personal computer and connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites