| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Geraint
Moderator
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5045
Location: Glasgow
|
 Posted: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:38:06 +0000 Post subject: Herald: letters: Gross invasion of privacy |
 |
|
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2499517.0.Gross_invasion_of_privacy.php
| Quote: | Anne Johnstone is absolutely right to highlight the dangers of data sharing and the associated cost to privacy ("It's not what you know, it's who else knows it too", The Herald, April 2). Unfortunately, the potential "wolf in sheep's clothing" - the pensioners' free bus pass - is already well on the way to becoming a sinister national identity card. The cards, also issued to children as Young Scot cards, are a privacy disaster.
The cards' radio frequency identification chips transmit personally identifying information (including the unique citizen's reference number to which Anne Johnstone refers) whenever the card is scanned on a bus. Thus, bus companies have records of journeys made by each passenger; records which are then passed to the government for auditing.
When was there ever a debate in Scotland about whether pensioners and schoolchildren should have their journeys tracked routinely by government?
How have officials managed to design and implement such a surveillance system without parliamentary oversight?
Nor is the information stored securely. Many of the cards issued are based on the "Mifare" system, which has weak security that has long since been compromised. The cards can be cloned with ease and, using readily available software and a laptop computer, anyone sitting beside a cardholder on the bus could surreptiously extract personal information that is useful for credit fraudsters. The same cards are also used in some local authority areas to access library and leisure services or to pay for school meals; each time, exchanging unnecessary personal information to be recorded on a database, associated with the citizen's unique number.
Implemented well, simple entitlement cards could be of benefit to Scots without invading privacy. The scheme has not been designed or implemented well. The Scottish Government still has a long way to go before it can claim to be on the side of the angels. |
_________________
Geraint.
3085 D1DD B2A8 15ED 492F E75D 7175 7737 9D10 98D3 - Fingerprint |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Welford
C-List
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 612
Location: Edinburgh
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:49:17 +0000 Post subject: Re: Herald: letters: Gross invasion of privacy |
|
|
| Geraint wrote: | | Implemented well, simple entitlement cards could be of benefit to Scots without invading privacy. |
How?
How do you issue "free" travel vouchers to pensioners without invading privacy? How do you implement that scheme "well"? Where "well" includes the avoidance of abuse. How long can the design of such a scheme go on before the need for an audit trail is acknowledged?
Null hypothesis: free travel vouchers for pensioners cannot be granted without invading their privacy. Pensioners can have free travel or they can have privacy, one or the other, but not both. If they want privacy, they must reject free travel.
Please disprove.
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FishNChipPapers
Moderator
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 1816
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:12:23 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't privacy about the ability of an individual to control information about themselves. It isn't absolute. What I might consider private information you might happily disclose to all and sundry and if we are both in control of the information that is disclosed then our privacy has been protected. For example, I am FishNChipPapers but you are David Moss - do you feel your privacy has been invaded?
In the example of the free bus pass some may feel it an invasion of privacy to have to disclose name, date of birth whilst others may not.
I would agree with your comments if you replaced privacy with anonymity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:14:03 +0000 Post subject: Re: Herald: letters: Gross invasion of privacy |
|
|
| David Moss wrote: | | Geraint wrote: | | Implemented well, simple entitlement cards could be of benefit to Scots without invading privacy. |
How?
How do you issue "free" travel vouchers to pensioners without invading privacy? How do you implement that scheme "well"? Where "well" includes the avoidance of abuse. How long can the design of such a scheme go on before the need for an audit trail is acknowledged?
Null hypothesis: free travel vouchers for pensioners cannot be granted without invading their privacy. Pensioners can have free travel or they can have privacy, one or the other, but not both. If they want privacy, they must reject free travel.
Please disprove. |
Wilfully obtuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:34:19 +0000 Post subject: Re: Herald: letters: Gross invasion of privacy |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | | Wilfully obtuse. |
Once you've thought of a smashing phrase like "wilfully obtuse", the temptation to use it can be irresistible, even when it doesn't apply.
The government seem to be wilfully obtuse. We have to campaign against wilfully obtuse people. That's the job. Are you up to the job? Or are you saying that there's no point campaigning?
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:44:07 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| FishNChipPapers wrote: | Isn't privacy about the ability of an individual to control information about themselves. It isn't absolute. What I might consider private information you might happily disclose to all and sundry and if we are both in control of the information that is disclosed then our privacy has been protected. For example, I am FishNChipPapers but you are David Moss - do you feel your privacy has been invaded?
In the example of the free bus pass some may feel it an invasion of privacy to have to disclose name, date of birth whilst others may not.
I would agree with your comments if you replaced privacy with anonymity. |
Anonymity – the absence of identity – may well be part of disproving the null hypothesis. Good. That's one step forward. Let's riff on anonymity.
Your suggestions that the concept of privacy is (a) subjective and (b) relative and (c) to do with control are all also worthy of amplification.
This is a campaign about privacy. Privacy is our stock in trade. If we can't answer these questions, disprove that null hypothesis, agree some definitions, ..., we run the risk of being accused of not knowing what we're talking about, of not knowing what we're campaigning about.
FishNChipPapers has got us off to a good start. Now, to repeat, how do you design a free travel scheme for pensioners without invading their privacy, how do you implement the scheme well?
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NaturalBorn
C-List
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 891
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:02:20 +0000 Post subject: Re: Herald: letters: Gross invasion of privacy |
|
|
| David Moss wrote: | How long can the design of such a scheme go on before the need for an audit trail is acknowledged?
|
The words of a true managerialist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:38:42 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| David Moss wrote: | | Now, to repeat, how do you design a free travel scheme for pensioners without invading their privacy, how do you implement the scheme well? |
1) make sure it's not a high-value thing
2) point (1) makes design of a reasonably non-forgeable token easier
3) You already know who the pensioners are
4) for each pensioner, create a token:
4a) the unique token number can be generated from a timestamp, a random number, and possibly their name - mash these together, and use that as the source for generating a suitably large, non-colliding and (effectively) non-reversible number
4b) print a card with lots of holograms etc with that number on it, and a lost-my-card ticket and send both to the pensioner
4c) the number may not be stored with, in, around, or anywhere near the pensioner's record though there may be a note of how many cards have been issued to that person.
4d) if you need an audit trail, you can use the non-reversible token number
4e) if you are worried about forgeries, maintain a list of valid cards
5) cards can be permanent, or can expire after a period of time and be taken off the database in (4e) (or marked as invalid) after that time or if someone sends in a lost-my-card ticket.
5a) any card-usage audit trail will not point to a particular person because the card is not linked to the person
6) Sending in a lost-my-card ticket will need a return name and address. If there is a card database, just make sure it has no fields other than card number, validity and expiry date
6a) on receiving a lost-my-card notification, sub-department-A invalidates the old card, sub-department-B checks the return name/address, instructs sub-department-B to issue a new card and adds "1" to the number of cards issued.
People will inevitably lose their paperwork. But if someone's record shows that they have lost their paperwork (cannot invalidate an unknown card number) 20 times in the last year then questions might be asked.
How much fraud is anyone willing to risk? How many people will be prepared to get a grey wig to get the free travel? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:40:50 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Re: my long list there.
Just off the top of my head, so don't expect perfection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:40:26 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | Re: my long list there.
Just off the top of my head, so don't expect perfection. |
Jolly good list. Not asking for perfection. Not yet. Still at the braindump phase of specification. Shouldn't be. Not after all these years. But that's where we seem to be. Never too late ...
Just off the top of my head:1. How would your scheme differ from the ITSO/SNEC scheme which actually exists?
2. If it wouldn't, what are we complaining about?
3. If it would, is the difference something to do with privacy?
4. If so, so what? What is the benefit? Can we get a handle on the value of privacy?
5. Apart from holograms, what would be shown on the face of the card, visible to the naked eye of a busy bus driver? The bus driver may be satisfied that the card Janet presents him with is authentic and hasn't been revoked. But was it issued to Janet? Is the bearer entitled to free travel simply in virtue of bearing the card or do they have to look like the picture on the card?
6. Janet from the doctor's surgery rings up Tannochbrae District Council and complains that her travel card hasn't arrived by post. What do the Council do? Send another one without checking? Or do they have a list somewhere recording the fact that a card has been sent to Janet at her address already? Can anonymity be preserved?
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:00:58 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
>> 1. How would your scheme differ from the ITSO/SNEC
and >> 2
and >> 3
There is no link between the card and the person.
>> 5. Apart from holograms, what would be shown on the face of the card, visible to the naked eye of a busy bus driver?
A thing that says "OAP bus pass" and if the person holding the card looks old enough to buy alcohol (see Tesco for details) just let them on. Or better yet, sell them a discounted or peppercorn-priced ticket instead of making it completely free, otherwise you get problems with over-use.
Anyone who looks like an OAP would probably qualify for a card in any case. Pensioner bus passes are 'ageist' by nature so this isn't really breaking any new ground.
>> 6. Janet from the doctor's surgery rings up Tannochbrae District Council and complains that her travel card hasn't arrived by post. What do the Council do? Send another one without checking?
Yes. They add "1" to the count of cards issued for that person and send a new card. If you are that worried, give the cards an axpiry date. This limits any loss to a fixed period of time. On the diminishing returns principle, better in practical terms to go for limited loss than absolute certainty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FishNChipPapers
Moderator
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 1816
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:19:42 +0000 Post subject: Re: Herald: letters: Gross invasion of privacy |
|
|
| David Moss wrote: | | How do you implement that scheme "well"? Where "well" includes the avoidance of abuse. How long can the design of such a scheme go on before the need for an audit trail is acknowledged? |
"Well" should be "Well enough" in terms of the likely cost of abuse rather than avoiding abuse all together. It would not make sense to implement a bullet-proof system for £X if the likely cost of abuse is £X/10.
How easily would it be to abuse the system? If a pensioner is issued with a card that says OAP with their photo on it on an annual, monthly whatever basis because they receive the pension and then hands it to their granddaughter or daughter how likely is it that abuse would occur i.e. that the bus driver lets someone use the card who isn't old enought to use it? The issuing of the card does not require any additional information to be handed over and the photo on the card is hardly disclosing more information than the person is disclosing by virtue of travelling on public transport.
The challenge comes when the human beings are taken out of the loop and swipe cards are used. Perhaps a system like they have with the oyster card which flashes that a young persons card has been used allowing the driver to make a visual assessment of whether the person is old enough to use the card.
There will be situations where people approaching the entitlement age makes use of some one else's card but I can't imagine the costs would be sufficient to justify significant investment to counter it.
There are certaily flaws in the approach I have outlined but the question is whether they are such that the scheme does not perform "well enough" to counter the likely abuse.
I wonder whether a cost/benefit/risk analysis has been produced for these free bus passes? How much is the scheme costing? What is the projected cost of likely abuse? What are the rollout timescales? What are the potential risks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harlequin
B-List
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 1221
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:28:10 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| FishNChipPapers wrote: | | Isn't privacy about the ability of an individual to control information about themselves. |
Yes, it's the ability to decide who does and does not have access to information and what they may then use that information for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:15:36 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| Anonymous wrote: | | There is no link between the card and the person ... Anyone who looks like an OAP would probably qualify for a card in any case ... On the diminishing returns principle, better in practical terms to go for limited loss than absolute certainty. |
It's beginning to look – correct me if I'm wrong – as though there's no point having the card. If you look the part, to the bus driver, you get to travel "free".
People who look the part would include tourists, among others. Do they get to travel "free"? People who have made no long term contribution to public services?
Fare-paying passengers might start to feel resentful.
Taxpayers in general, ditto.
How would you handle this resentment if it arose?
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:23:56 +0000 Post subject: Re: Herald: letters: Gross invasion of privacy |
|
|
| FishNChipPapers wrote: | | I wonder whether a cost/benefit/risk analysis has been produced for these free bus passes? How much is the scheme costing? What is the projected cost of likely abuse? What are the rollout timescales? What are the potential risks? |
No bus company – whether private or publicly onwed – can carry passengers for free, the cost of OAPs is borne by higher fares for farepayers and higher taxes for taxpayers. That is, if OAPs did not go free, non-OAPs could pay lower fares and taxpayers could pay lower taxes.
If campaigners against SNEC don't already know how much local authorities are paying the bus companies/subsidising them for OAPs, they had better find out quickly. It seems like rather basic campaign information.
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geraint
Moderator
Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5045
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:41:18 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
In days of old ...
pensioners were issued with a card (made of laminated cardboard) which included no chip. The card had a photo, so that the bus driver could verify that the card related to the carrier; an expiry date (not really sure why); a logo to identify the card issuer; a name (not sure why - certainly unnecessary); and a card number (not really necessary). You can see a photo of John's old bus pass.
The name, expiry date and card number aren't really necessary, but they don't unduly invade anyone's privacy, written as they are on the card. The card is not capable of being scanned (except by camera) and served perfectly well.
Why is that system no longer sufficient? Why must technology be introduced unnecessarily?
Bus passes might be the first application of Scottish National Entitlement Cards, but they certainly don't provide justification for them.
_________________
Geraint.
3085 D1DD B2A8 15ED 492F E75D 7175 7737 9D10 98D3 - Fingerprint |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FishNChipPapers
Moderator
Joined: 20 Jul 2007
Posts: 1816
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:54:57 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| Geraint wrote: | In days of old ...
pensioners were issued with a card (made of laminated cardboard) which included no chip. The card had a photo, so that the bus driver could verify that the card related to the carrier; an expiry date (not really sure why); a logo to identify the card issuer; a name (not sure why - certainly unnecessary); and a card number (not really necessary). You can see a photo of John's old bus pass.
The name, expiry date and card number aren't really necessary, but they don't unduly invade anyone's privacy, written as they are on the card. The card is not capable of being scanned (except by camera) and served perfectly well.
Why is that system no longer sufficient? Why must technology be introduced unnecessarily?
Bus passes might be the first application of Scottish National Entitlement Cards, but they certainly don't provide justification for them. |
Exactly! My proposal above is, in the main, the existing system. I think there are parallels with the lack of justification for fingerprint registration, library loans and meals in schools. A technology solution looking for a problem rather than the other way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
capnbob
A-List
Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1568
Location: Shrewsbury
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:07:13 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
As David alludes... Perhaps the purpose of the audit trail is not to check up on the pensioner, but to check up on the bus company? After all, they are being paid by somebody to carry these free rides, and if it's a fee per passenger then it would be open to potential abuse.
_________________
Rob Findlay
But we have nothing to hide or be ashamed of... I see how everybody votes for the Benefactor and everybody sees how I vote for the Benefactor. We |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest-p104841
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:13:17 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
name change - based on my list being at post#104841
| David Moss wrote: | | It's beginning to look – correct me if I'm wrong – as though there's no point having the card. If you look the part, to the bus driver, you get to travel "free". |
No the driver either has to inspect the holograms and listen to the tune or stick it in the machine that goes ping. The OAP then pays the super-reduced or flat rate for the ticket and the driver has something on the system to confirm that he wasn't just letting a mate get cheap travel so the accountants are happy too.
The card can even have a hole in it for a bit of string so it's harder to lose. Anyone else losing their discount card has to pay fullprice until they get a replacement and OAP's do not need to be exempt from this.
Plain old cardboard cards would be less fiddly but these days they are too easy to print and people would assume everything is a fake and OAPs would end up having to take their passports on a bus journey! It would only take one or two fake-pass incidents to have people demanding super hi-tech ones - bizarrely on the grounds of saving taxpayers money.
Back to the bit about limiting risk and "good enough" instead of perfect solution.
I want to rewind my post! Instead of that list, "a concessionary fare card with a photo stuck on it". Job done.
This now costs a million or two less than the budget. Do we blow all that spare money on cake and chocolate or do we give it back to the taxpayer because we didn't actually need it? Or do we just go ahead and buy the expensive one anyway because we have the money right here and it's not as if we care where it goes, just so long as we get a big fancy project on our CV? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:31:44 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| Geraint wrote: | In days of old ...
pensioners were issued with a card (made of laminated cardboard) which included no chip. The card had a photo, so that the bus driver could verify that the card related to the carrier; an expiry date (not really sure why); a logo to identify the card issuer; a name (not sure why - certainly unnecessary); and a card number (not really necessary). You can see a photo of John's old bus pass. |
Light is dawning.
The null hypothesis is wobbling very unsteadily.
Privacy is finessed. You don't have to say what it is or why it needs to be preserved, you just have to identify a cheaper practical alternative to the unnecessarily highly engineered SNEC.
Why did anyone want a highly engineered scheme? guest-p104841's suggestion looks about right:
| guest-p104841 wrote: | I want to rewind my post! Instead of that list, "a concessionary fare card with a photo stuck on it". Job done.
This now costs a million or two less than the budget. Do we blow all that spare money on cake and chocolate or do we give it back to the taxpayer because we didn't actually need it? Or do we just go ahead and buy the expensive one anyway because we have the money right here and it's not as if we care where it goes, just so long as we get a big fancy project on our CV? |
I think there's a lesson there. Arguments about privacy are too difficult. Keep away from them. Concentrate on practical matters.
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AndrewNi
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Location: Cornwall
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:39:02 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| The free bus travel works quite simply here - a form is filled in with name, address, DOB and a photo. They get sent a card. Every time they desire free travel, they show the card to the driver (no swiping or scanning). The driver prints out a ticket with concession written on it and gives it over. I assume the ticket printer logs all tickets issued, allowing for an audit trail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:32:41 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
| capnbob wrote: | | As David alludes... Perhaps the purpose of the audit trail is not to check up on the pensioner, but to check up on the bus company? After all, they are being paid by somebody to carry these free rides, and if it's a fee per passenger then it would be open to potential abuse. |
Agreed, obviously, and thank you for that Cap'n, but of course you could have the high-tech SNEC and still have abuse.
AndrewNi is on to something:
| Quote: | | I assume the ticket printer logs all tickets issued, allowing for an audit trail. |
And then, we could re-invent the ticket inspector.
Or we could work out the percentage of OAPs in the population and gross up takings from farepayers. (Seasonal and geographical and diurnal variations ... One-year research project for a university to work out the figures and an on-going assignment to monitor them.)
There would be errors. There would be abuses. The scale could be minimised at low cost relative to MiFARE/ITSO/SNEC. Jobs would be created, necessarily in Scotland, and amen to that.
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Moss
A-List
Joined: 07 Apr 2007
Posts: 2219
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:23:33 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Some contradiction ...
| David Moss wrote: | | This is a campaign about privacy. Privacy is our stock in trade. If we can't answer these questions, disprove that null hypothesis, agree some definitions, ..., we run the risk of being accused of not knowing what we're talking about, of not knowing what we're campaigning about. |
... surely:
| David Moss wrote: | | Privacy is finessed. You don't have to say what it is or why it needs to be preserved, you just have to identify a cheaper practical alternative to the unnecessarily highly engineered SNEC. |
_________________
http://DematerialisedID.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Welford
C-List
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 612
Location: Edinburgh
|
| Posted: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:45:10 +0000 Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking as a pensioner...
Indeed, speaking as the aforementioned possessor of this old Edinburgh bus pass...
1. My old bus pass was effectively just a proof-of-age card. And, as Geraint has pointed out, it really didn't need to carry my name. All it needed was the photo.
2. The new [SNEC] "bus pass" (the dishonest title used to promote it) was nothing of the sort, but is a highly intrusive ID card, with properties closely paralleling those of the UK ID card. Thus, there is unique person numbering and a national identity register (called "citizen's account" so as not to give the game away to impressionable pensioners).
3. Having signed up to the NO2ID Pledge there was no problem with me using my old bus pass. But, of course, I could not possibly use the SNEC card, and so I sent it back. As a result, I have lost my entitlement to free bus travel during the past three years since the new cards were introduced.
All the reasons I have been given for the move to the SNEC card are, in my view, bogus. In particular, there are always alternative ways of dealing with the various forms of cheating, either by citizens or bus drivers. However, there is absolutely no doubt about what was the real reason for introducing SNEC cards (by the former Scottish Labour Executive), it was to promote Westminster's Transformational Government agenda. In particular, to install the necessary infrastructure for ID card use at the local authority level - for example, automated library and school meal services that depend on the use of a SNEC-type card.
Thus, we now have the bizarre situation in Scotland of a Scottish Parliament which is strenuously opposed to the UK identity card scheme, but which at the same time is administering a Scottish identity card scheme all of its own! So one is forced to ask: are these Scottish MSPs just too dense to actually understand what is going on - or are they in denial - or else are they really in favour of ID cards? Perhaps time will tell.
In the meantime, you can follow our ongoing campaign north of the border here.
_________________
John
http://www.jwelford.demon.co.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
