Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.

'Spying' on Islamic State instead of hacking them

In the wake of the Paris attacks, the vigilante hacker group Anonymous has declared war on so-called Islamic State using the internet and claims to have shut thousands of Twitter accounts used by IS operatives. But a much smaller online group has also emerged, with quite a different strategy - and they claim they've already thwarted at least one terror attack.
This group say they were fed up with what they saw as unsophisticated Anonymous tactics. Things came to a head after the Charlie Hebdo attack in January, and after that, the founding members of Ghost Security Group decided to make a clean break from Anonymous.
"They [Anonymous] don't have any counterterrorism experience whatsoever," said Ghost Security Group's executive director, who spoke to BBC Trending via phone, asking for anonymity protect his safety. "We felt that not enough was being done and the Charlie Hebdo attack made it clear that ISIS was not confined to the Middle East."
Security agencies such as the US FBI have refused to comment on the group - and it's difficult to independently verify the claims they have made.
But the director of Ghost Security Group said volunteers live in the US, Europe, and the Middle East, and include linguists and "people familiar with intelligence gathering techniques."
Instead of trying to shut down accounts and attack jihadi websites with distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks - basically flooding a website with traffic to take it offline - Ghost Security Group members operate more like spies than hackers. They monitor suspected IS Twitter accounts and infiltrate militant message boards to find information, which they say they then pass along to law enforcement.
"We would much prefer to stop attacks than shut down websites," the executive director said. "I don't think DDoS attacks do a huge amount of damage to Islamic State. Anonymous are hitting some extremist forums that have intelligence value, but we would like forums to stay online so we can see what people are saying and gather intelligence from them."
The group claims that it has already helped to thwart one attack in Tunisia by picking up on what they say was online jihadi chatter which indicated that militants would attack a specific location on the island of Djerba. The plot, Ghost Security says, was designed to be a follow up to the June beach massacre which killed 38 people, mostly British tourists. Reports indicate that Djerba did indeed appear on a list of IS targets in Tunisia in July. Like the other claims the groups have made, though, it's difficult to verify that they thwarted an attack.
Michael Smith, chief operating officer of security consultancy Kronos Advisory, works with the group and says they spotted tweets that were being sent back and forth between IS accounts. Although the tweets would sometimes only exist for minutes before being deleted, Ghost Security Group operatives were watching. The group sent Trending screen grabs of examples of the types of messages it found on now-deleted Twitter accounts:
"They are not just identifying channels [of communication], they have put together a list of accounts which are utilised by people with influence," Smith said. "These people have saved lives."
Smith told Trending he works with the group to funnel the information they gather to security services, and said they came to him after realising they needed a conduit to pass along information, and to alert authorities to their operations so that they themselves wouldn't be targeted for investigation, thus wasting time and resources.

Follow BBC Trending on Facebook

Join the conversation on this and other stories here.

By breaking away from Anonymous, the Ghost Security Group director said, the group says it has managed to sidestep the hackers' often thorny relationship with the authorities. In the past, Anonymous has targeted various government agencies - for instance US police officers after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The director told Trending that working with the American government is a trade-off worth making.
"We have data. We can't do anything with that data unless we work with the US government. They have the guns and the boots on the ground, they can disrupt terrorist operations."
The group has not been immune to the kind of criticism and infighting that has hit Anonymous, however. One member of Anonymous who contacted BBC Trending on Twitter accused the group of cosying up to governments and exaggerating its accomplishments. Anonymous operatives reject criticism of their mission and say they're genuinely disrupting IS recruitment with their hacks.
"It stops them from talking. It stops them from recruiting young kids that have no place to go or people that are sick in the head," an Anonymous operative told BBC Radio 4's Profile. "A lot of people think that some of the stuff we do, we just blurt names out, but that's not solely how we operate."
At the beginning of November the group rebranded from "Ghost Security" to "Ghost Security Group", abandoning an earlier version of its website. In a press release announcing the change, the group took a dig at Anonymous: "[Ghost Security Group's] new trademarked look discards the hoodies and Guy Fawkes masks so often associated with publicity stunts and distributed denial-of-service attacks on government, religious, and corporate websites in favour of pristine, white graphics devoid of any reference to illegal activities."
Smith said that although Ghost Security Group operatives do things that fall into "legal grey areas" in many countries, they eschew hacks which are clearly illegal in most parts of the world, and disagreements about the use of illegal hacks and the group's relationship to governments led to the split and rebranding.

Recently, Smith says, jihadis have moved from Twitter to more secure systems such as the messaging app Telegram - which has been closing Islamic State-affiliated channels since the Paris attacks - and that Ghost Security Group has made inroads into infiltrating difficult-to-penetrate networks.
The group's director said he's urging members of the public to report suspicious online activity via their website, but wouldn't reveal details of the group's current operations regarding the attacks in Paris, saying that to do so might put them in jeopardy.
"We're trying to identify any social media accounts that may have been involved in communicating about those attacks," he said, adding that when it comes to future plots "we definitely hope to uncover them before they happen."

The department pretending to run North Korea

A section of the Berlin Wall on display in Seoul acts as a reminder of South Korea's fractured relationship with the North. But thoughts of reunification are never far away and there's a whole government department dedicated to the idea, although its staff don't seem very busy, writes Stephen Evans.
There is now a bit of the Berlin Wall in the middle of the South Korean capital. A concrete section of three slabs stands outside one of the museums as part of an exhibition comparing divided Korea with divided Germany.
Schoolchildren gaze attentively. They touch the rough concrete and take selfies in front of it. They are entranced by it - as they would be.
"If reunification could happen in Germany, why not in Korea?" is the question hanging over them and their country.
Under the South Korean constitution, the five provinces of North Korea remain part of the united Korea (which last existed 70 years ago) that South Korea continues to pretend to administer. I say pretend because in Seoul there is a whole building full of civil servants who technically oversee North Korea. There are departments for each of the provinces.
Except that they can't administer it from Seoul because it's in North Korea. There is the small matter of the inaptly named demilitarized zone in the way - Korea's version of the Berlin Wall.
I went to visit the ministry the other day and it has to be said that the Southern administrators of North Korea do not seem to be overburdened. There seemed to be a bit of online shopping occurring on some of the computer screens. And who can blame them? The imminent collapse of the North Korean regime has been predicted since 1990. And today it seems no nearer.

The shadow government is in a gloomy building, with a staff of 44 people preparing for something not likely to happen soon and perhaps not ever. The corridors are long and empty and quiet.

I met one of North Korea's putative rulers who told me that one of their main roles is to keep North Korean culture alive until the great day of reunification comes. That means organising folk-dancing displays in the South.
On their way into work, these theoretical administrators of North Korea pass a light blue postbox by the main entrance. On it is written in English: "Homesickness Post Box". This is for people from the North living in the South to post letters home - except that the letters will never get there because there is no postal service between the two Koreas. The postbox is a gesture, the administrator told me.
So is the ministry, if you ask me. There was a time, back in the 1950s and 60s, when the department was seen as a real government-in-exile, ready to take over. Nowadays, it is not. The bureaucrats there do not imagine that they will soon be sitting in similar seats in Pyongyang running the place instead of Kim Jong-un.
The talk in the South these days is not so much about the imminence of the collapse of the North, but more about the consequences whenever - if ever - it happens.
The exhibition in Seoul with the chunk of the Berlin Wall makes clear how different the Korean and the German situations are. There are charts showing how, even during the last years of divided Germany six million people were reunited with their families from the other side of the wall.
In Korea, in the past 14 years, the number has been less than 2,000. People in North Korea have virtually no contact with outsiders. All of East Germany, apart from the most eastern part around Dresden, could watch West German TV every night - they saw the outside world. North Koreans do not.

Incomes in South Korea are 10 to 20 times higher than they are in North Korea - a much bigger gap than that between East and West Germany. That means that if reunification happened, the economic jolt would be much, much greater.
Already, North Koreans who defect find that their skills aren't adequate for South Korea. Doctors who defect from the North often fail to pass standard South Korean medical exams.
This all indicates that the immense effort and money required for reunification would dwarf the scale of the task in Germany. But the bureaucrats in the shadow ministry in Seoul have some time yet to ponder the problem.
Kim Jong-un does not fear their imminent arrival to take his job in Pyongyang. In the meantime there is much to do - like a spot of online shopping and organising folk dances.

Belgian police arrest 16 in anti-terror raids

Belgian police have made 16 arrests in anti-terror raids but suspected Paris attacks gunman Salah Abdeslam remains at large, the authorities have said.
A total of 22 raids were carried out on Sunday across Brussels and Charleroi, Belgian prosecutor Eric van der Sypt told a news conference.
Police fired two shots at a car during an operation in Molenbeek, injuring one suspect who was later arrested.
More than 130 people died and some 350 were injured in the attacks in Paris.
No weapons or explosives were found during the searches on Sunday, Mr van der Sypt said.
Brussels will remain on the highest level of terror alert, Belgium's Prime Minister Charles Michel said. Universities, schools and the city's metro system will also remain shut.

How the day's events unfolded
Interview transcript: 'My brothers were manipulated, not radicalised'
Abdeslam: Suspect 'meant to blow himself up'
Brussels terror threat: 'Everyone is on edge'
Belgium's jihadist networks

Brussels has been on lockdown all weekend amid a manhunt for Abdeslam, who is suspected of being among the assailants who killed 130 people in Paris on Friday.
Mr Michel told reporters that authorities feared "an attack similar to the one in Paris, with several individuals who could also possibly launch several attacks at the same time in multiple locations".

Meanwhile, the BBC understands that another of the suspected attackers - pictured in a new French police appeal issued on Sunday - arrived in Greece under the name of M al-Mahmod.
The BBC's Ed Thomas has matched the image released by French police with a photo on the arrival papers of a man who reached the Greek island of Leros on 3 October.
French police have asked for more information about the man, whom they say was the third suicide bomber to strike the Stade de France on 13 November.
Earlier, Belgian Interior Minister Jan Jambon said the danger to Belgium was not tied to Abdeslam alone.

"The threat is broader than the one suspected terrorist," he told Flemish broadcaster VRT.
It was not clear if Mr Jambon was referring to those involved in the Paris attacks, or others who might be planning attacks in Belgium.
Soldiers joined police officers on patrols in Brussels over the weekend. Many public spaces in the usually bustling capital were deserted, as people heeded official warnings to avoid crowds.
Mohammed Abdeslam, the brother of Brahim Abdeslam who blew himself up in Paris and Salah Abdeslam, spoke to Belgian TV on Sunday to urge his fugitive brother to hand himself in.

The Belgian authorities have so far charged three people with involvement in the Paris attacks, claimed by Islamic State militants.
French media have reported that nine militants carried out the attacks, and seven died on Friday night.
Eagles of Death Metal describe gig horror
Paris attacks caused archbishop 'doubt'
Paris attacks: The unanswered questions
Special report: In-depth coverage of the attacks and their aftermath

BBC correspondents make US 2016 election predictions

It's a year out from the US presidential election. What do BBC reporters think will happen?
This time next year, barring a repeat of the cliffhanger election of 2000, we will know who the next president of the United States will be.
Before the votes are cast and counted, however, the candidates must survive a campaign that so far has confounded conventional wisdom.
Despite the risks, our team of BBC experts agreed to take a stab at how they think events will unfold in 2016

Who will win the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses?
Ben Carson - I am not sure his view on the Egyptian pyramids being a grain store will be a help or hindrance in this farming state, but his evangelical views and outsider status will be a big help and will see him emerge victorious.
Hillary Clinton will do what she failed to do in 2008 and win Iowa.
What issue/factors will be decisive in the nomination battle (for both parties)?
Longevity, ground game, money, the polls - naturally.
But ideological purity whether on the left or right will only carry you so far. Candidates have to appeal to a broad swath of the electorate, and convince voters that they are the answer to what America needs and wants
How will the 2016 campaign be different to any previous election?
Insurgency politics. There seems to be a willingness, yearning even, to embrace the outspoken, the outsider, the untried and untested like never before. I have heard it described as the "post-truth age of politics", where empirical data and analysis are a hindrance.
Who will be on the final ticket for each party?
Predictable one: Hillary Clinton for the Democrats. Unpredictable left field GOP option: John Kasich.

Katty Kay, Presenter, BBC World News America

Who wins in Iowa?
Ben Carson for the same reasons Rick Santorum won in 2012, Dr Carson is a true evangelical conservative.
Hillary Clinton - she lost it last time. Do you really think she's going to lose it again?
What decides the nomination?
Getting out the vote. Getting out the vote. Getting out the vote. Ask Mitt Romney.
How will 2016 be different?
It already is different. We've never seen anything like this. Take record dissatisfaction with politicians, a political system that has failed to produce results for the past six years, and a desire for simplicity and reassurance in a time of complexity and disquiet and you have the perfect setting for political chaos (and that's not just in the US).
Who will be on the ticket?
I am not qualified to answer this question. On the day Trump announced, I said that would be the highlight of his campaign. I take little comfort from the fact that 90% of my colleagues said the same thing. However, if you put a gun to my head, or threaten to suspend my pay if I don't answer, I'd probably mumble very quietly, so almost no one could hear.….Rubio and Hillary. (Actually I'd say, and have said all along, "Hillary" in a more confident voice.)

Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America Reporter


Who wins in Iowa?
Although Donald Trump and Ben Carson currently lead the polls on the Republican side, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has the money, grass-roots organisation and evangelical appeal to eke out a narrow win in the first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Democrat Hillary Clinton lost Iowa to Barack Obama in 2008 in part because she didn't spend enough time courting the notoriously fickle voters in smaller, more personal settings.
She's not making that mistake this time around, and combined with a massive team of on-the-ground personnel, she cruises to victory.
What decides the nomination?
The 2016 Democratic nomination effectively was decided in 2008, when Hillary Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton, played the good soldiers and campaigned for Barack Obama despite a bruising primary battle that went all the way to the wire.
It will take some time for the Republican nomination to be locked up, but when it is it will be due to the party's delegate math. As campaign guru Charlie Cook points out, Republican voters in populous left-leaning "blue zone" states have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process. These voters tend to give the nod to a more moderate, electable choice.

How will 2016 be different?
The 2008 and 2012 elections were all about how social networks had revolutionised presidential campaigns by allowing likeminded people to meld into a powerful political force. In 2016 we will see this technology have an opposite, fragmentary effect. Narrow political interests, empowered by the social media megaphone, will have a corrosive effect on party unity.
Bernie Sanders progressives and Black Lives Matters activists won't be reliable team players for the Democrats, and neither will Tea Party grass-roots conservatives or Donald Trump nativists on the Republican side.
Who will be on the ticket?
For the Republicans it's Marco Rubio and Nikki Haley for vice president. The Florida senator emerges as the establishment pick and outlasts Donald Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who divide up the outsider/anti-establishment vote.
Mr Rubio opts to put a woman on the ticket and goes for Ms Haley - the young, charismatic governor of South Carolina who gained national recognition after the Charleston shootings.

The Democratic team will be Hillary Clinton and Julian Castro. The former secretary of state surely will have a few more bumps on the road to the nomination, but the Sanders swoon has played itself out.
In a move to court the Latino vote, she picks the charismatic but untested Housing and Urban Development secretary, who served three terms as mayor of San Antonio.

Nick Bryant, BBC New York Correspondent

Who wins in Iowa?
On the Republican side, Iowa has not been indicative in recent cycles of who will become the eventual nominee. In 2012, the winner was Rick Santorum. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won. So let's not obsess about who comes out on top in the Hawkeye state.
Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa are better at picking their party's eventual presidential nominees. I'm assuming they'll opt for Hillary Clinton.
What decides the nomination?
On the GOP side, will Republican primary voters ultimately adhere to something approaching normal political rules, and opt for a candidate who has a plausible chance of winning a national election, or will the insurgent anger that is propelling Ben Carson and Donald Trump eventually win out? Right now, given the dominance of the outsider candidates, it looks like they will not just rip up the rulebook, but nuke it. The new normal in GOP politics is that there is no normal.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton already has the aura of inevitability. Imagining scenarios that will derail her takes you into the terrain of federal indictments in connection with her private email server or some other catastrophic revelation, which the Clintons have a habit of surviving in any case. Remember New Hampshire in 1992? Remember impeachment?
How will the 2016 be different?
In 1996, I thought Bob Dole would emerge as the Republican nominee. In 2000, I thought George W Bush. In 2008, John McCain seemed the obvious choice. In 2012, Mitt Romney.
None of this involved any great perspicacity. On the contrary, it seemed obvious.

The biggest change this year, then, from previous contests is the unpredictability of the Republican primary race. Pundits make predictions based on political rationality: Who passes the plausibility test? Who looks like a president?
Republican primary voters, this cycle more than any other, are marked more by rebelliousness than rationality.
Who will be on the ticket?
Two women, I suspect, will feature. Hillary Clinton will lead the Democratic ticket. Because of the party's advantages in the Electoral College and demographic factors, such as the relative shrinkage of America's white male electorate, she should start the race as favourite to become president.
Carly Fiorina is positioning herself as a strong contender for the vice-presidential slot on the GOP ticket.
As for the GOP's presidential nominee? See above. But I'm not anticipating a dynastic showdown between Clinton and Bush.


Critics slate Jolie and Pitt's latest film By The Sea

Critics have given a lukewarm reception to Angelina Jolie's By The Sea, in which she stars with husband Brad Pitt, calling it a "vanity project".
The relationship drama, written and directed by Jolie, opened this year's American Film Institute Film Festival in LA.
Hollywood Reporter said it was "far too long" and suffered from "stasis and dramatic flatness".
Variety added that it "it leaves the heart and mind coolly unstirred".

It summed up the film as "a gorgeously unhappy 1970s American couple seeking to escape their demons during an extended stay on the Maltese coast".
Screen Daily said it was "an intimate art-house film for a major studio" and that it was "sure to garner attention because of the marquee attraction" of its stars.
It is the first film in which they have starred together since 2005's Mr & Mrs Smith and is Jolie's third film as director, after Unbroken (2014) and In The Land of Blood and Honey (2011).
Screen Daily said Jolie's "commitment to serious themes is undercut by a rigid, overblown style".
"No matter the type of story she's trying to tell, she often bears down on it so hard that the film doesn't have much room to breathe," it added.
The Wrap called the film "a soporific drama that teeters on parody", adding: "Angelina Jolie Pitt's reputation as a competent filmmaker won't be entirely undone by her third directorial effort but neither will it be enhanced."
It said it was "hard enough watching these two talented actors play blanks who have no chemistry with each other, but the effort seems especially pointless when we learn the root of their problems".
The film is released in the US on 13 November and in the UK on 11 December.

Barely three hours from Slovenia’s capital, Ljubljana, Lake Bohinj is in the middle of nowhere – out of season and time – and it’s wonderful.

“We have a saying here in Slovenia,” said Grega Silc, a Hike & Bike Slovenia tour guide, as we cycled around the riotous green of the ridge. “In Bohinj, we're a day or two behind the rest of the world.”
Silc grinned; a day or two is manageable. The lag used to be worse. For centuries, the sheep- and goat-herding villages around the glacial Lake Bohinj were cut off from the rest of Slovenia by poor roads and vertiginous terrain, clustered in the shadow of the Julian Alps. Transport to Ukanc – a hamlet on the far side of the lake whose name loosely translates to “the end of the world” – could take weeks.
However in 1906, during the waning days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, tunnels were blasted through the mountainside and a railway was added along the water, connecting the northern mining town of Jesenice to the empire's Adriatic port of Trieste in the south. While the Bohinj region became slightly less remote geographically, it later spent decades as part of communist Yugoslavia, becoming isolated from the rest of Europe politically. And despite Slovenia’s independence in 1991 and admission into the Eurozone in 2007, a deep connection to the past and a slower-paced life remains.
Here, among the wooden houses and open haylofts of Bohinj's sparse and scattered villages, it’s easy to pretend the Austro-Hungarian Empire has never fallen. Alpine shepherds and cowherds still head to the top of Mount Vogel to graze their livestock on wildflowers. Every September, villagers still celebrate their return on the banks of the lake with folk singing and dancing at the “Cow Ball”.
On the spring day that Silc and I went cycling through the region, we saw at most a hiker or two on the footpaths or cycle roads. The lake was so still it was impossible to tell where the pine-streaked ridges ended and the waters began. The silence was overwhelming.
In the hamlet of Ribčev Laz, we took a break from peddling and stood at the edge of the lake by the milk-coloured Church of St. John the Baptist. “A mystery”, Silc said. Nobody knows exactly how old it is – it was built sometime before the 15th Century – and no one knows the meaning of the interior fresco: a white devil sits on Cain’s shoulder and the angels have vampire fangs. But, as Silc explained, it was common for Christian dogma to meld with folk traditions in a place as historically isolated as Bohinj.
Across the bank from the church stands the slender, dark bronze statue of the Zlatorog, or Golden Horn – the magical stag believed to guard the ridges around the lake. In the glint of the afternoon light, it almost looks real. A 20-minute cycle ride from the church, “Devil's Bridge” spans over a furious gorge. According to legend, the devil built it in exchange for the soul of the first one to cross; however, clever villagers tricked a dog into making the trip. This is a land of stories. It’s the sort of place where one’s imagination might run wild.
We continued to cycle through villages, alpine fields dotted with wildflowers and forests where the branches trellised above our heads. The white of the clouds, soft against the blue of the sky, faded into the snow on the mountaintops. It was the sort of place, I thought, where you can forget any other places exist.
“Agatha Christie used to come here,” Silc told me proudly. “But she never set any of her works here. She said it was too beautiful a place to set any murders.”
And Christie wasn't the only writer to fall for Bohinj’s charms. Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was a regular visitor to Ukanc. “An existentialist going to the town of the end of the world,” Silc acknowledged. “Makes sense.”
We stopped at the bottom of Mount Vogel, a seasonal ski resort, where a cable car took us to the top. A sign compared the current wait time – 15 minutes – to the six hours or more it took during the days of communist Yugoslavia, when facilities were limited and people queued up at dawn in the hope of a single trip up and down the slope.
As the car pulled us upward, forests gave way to bare cliffs. Silc pointed out a goat-like chamoix leaping across the snowdrifts. Spring – or summer – does not exist at the top of Mount Vogel. While people are swimming in the lake, up here, snow shrouds the horizon. Without even the changing seasons to mark the passage of months, time felt slower still.
We sat in the chalet at the top of the cable car, huddled over cabbage stew that had been sharpened with sausage and thickened with beans. Silc ran into two friends – also tour guides – napping against the wood-slat walls while their guests wandered the mountainside.
“A hard life”, one of them winked at me. “I quit. I am going back to the factory – first thing tomorrow.”
The Bohinj region is barely three hours from Slovenia’s capital, Ljubljana, but we hardly noticed. We were in the middle of nowhere, out of season and time – and it was wonderful.

Athletics doping: Wada commission wants Russia ban

Russia should be banned from athletics competition, a World Anti-Doping Agency commission report has recommended.
Wada's independent commission examined allegations of doping, cover-ups, and extortion in Russian athletics, which also implicated the IAAF, the sport's world governing body.
It also wants five athletes and five coaches to get lifetime doping bans.
The report also identified "systemic failures" in the IAAF that prevent an "effective" anti-doping programme.
In addition, it states the London 2012 Olympics were "sabotaged" by the "widespread inaction" against Russian athletes with suspicious doping profiles by the IAAF and the Russian athletics federation.
More on this story
Interpol to co-ordinate doping probe
Corruption report 'a game-changer'
German TV documentary alleges Russian doping scandal
Wada commission leader Dick Pound said Russia seemed to have been running a "state-supported" doping programme.
Lord Coe, president of the International Association of Athletics Federations, said these were "dark days for the sport" and added that it faced a "long road to redemption".

What are the key findings?

The report's co-author, sports lawyer Richard McLaren, believes it shows "a different scale of corruption", even compared with the ongoing Fifa scandal, saying actual results at international athletics competitions had been changed because of cheating.
The report also:
  • Revealed many instances of inadequate testing and poor compliance around testing standards.
  • Recommended that Wada withdraw its accreditation of the Moscow laboratory as soon as possible and that its director, Grigory Rodchenko, be permanently removed from his position.
  • Found that a number of Russian athletes suspected of doping could have been prevented from competing at the London 2012 Olympics had it not been for "the collective and inexplicable laissez-faire policy" adopted by the IAAF and the Russian athletics federation.
  • Suggested that neither the Russian athletics federation (Araf) the Russian anti-doping agency (Rusada), nor the Russian Federation can be considered anti-doping code-compliant.
  • Confirmed allegations that some Russian doctors and/or laboratory personnel acted as enablers for systematic cheating along with athletics coaches.
  • Identified the intentional and malicious destruction of more than 1,400 samples by Moscow laboratory officials after receiving written notification from Wada to preserve target samples.

Which doping scandal is this?

The report was commissioned on a "very narrow mandate" to "determine the accuracy" of allegations made in a German TV documentary about Russian athletics last December.
It claimed Russian athletes paid 5% of their earnings to domestic doping officials to supply banned substances and cover up tests, while athletics' world governing body the IAAF was implicated in covering up the abuse.
The programme's claims of widespread doping were made by former Russian Anti-Doping Agency (Rusada) official Vitaly Stepanov and his wife Yulia (nee Rusanova), formerly an 800m runner who was banned for doping.
While former discus thrower Yevgeniya Pecherina said that "most, the majority, 99%" of athletes selected to represent Russia use banned substances.
Pecherina is currently serving a 10-year doping ban that is due to end in 2023. Another banned athlete, Liliya Shobukhova, who won the London Marathon in 2010 said she paid the Russian Athletics Federation 450,000 euros (£350,000) to cover up a positive doping test.
The documentary also included an undercover video purporting to show 800m runner Mariya Savinova, who won gold at the 2012 Olympics in London, admitting to using the banned steroid oxandrolone.
The commission was not asked to examine separate doping claims made in August when The Sunday Times and a German broadcaster claimed leaked blood tests from 5,000 athletes over 11 years showed an "extraordinary extent of cheating". The IAAF said the claims were "sensationalist and infuriating". Wada is investigating these claims separately.

What happens next?

It will now be down to Wada to implement the report.
Although the commission has no power to act on its findings, the report's co-author McLaren told BBC World Service he wanted to see the recommendations adopted.
"It certainly means that you have to change the governance structure significantly and probably the doping regime and how it's administered," he said.
When asked about the possibility of kicking Russia out of international competitions, Lord Coe told BBC Radio 5 live's Sportsweek on Sunday that his instinct was "engagement rather than isolation".

'Major disturbance' and fires at Christmas Island detention centre

Inmates have lit fires at Australia's Christmas Island detention centre in a "major disturbance" that is yet to be resolved, say government officials.
The immigration department confirmed in a statement that guards had been withdrawn for "safety reasons".
Medical, educational and sporting facilities have been damaged.
The statement denied a "large-scale riot" was taking place but said the situation at the centre for refugees and asylum seekers was "tense".
The Christmas Island centre also houses New Zealanders facing deportation from Australia.
Inmate's death 'sparked riot'
The unrest is believed to have started after inmates became suspicious about the death of an Iranian Kurd named Fazel Chegeni, who escaped from the facility on Saturday.
Mr Chegeni's body was found at the bottom of a cliff one day later, the Department of Immigration said. A report on his death was being prepared for the coroner.
"The protest action began when a small group of Iranian detainees took part in a peaceful protest following the escape from, and death outside the centre, of a detainee on Sunday," the statement said.
"While peaceful protest is permissible, other detainees took advantage of the situation to engage in property damage and general unrest."
Ian Rintoul, of the Refugee Action Coalition group, told the Sydney Morning Herald that Mr Chegeni was "suffering the effects of long-term arbitrary detention".
"He had told other detainees that he could no longer stand being in detention and just wanted 'to go outside'," he said.

'Fires everywhere'

ABC News quoted a 25-year-old detainee, Matej Cuperka, who said he feared for his safety.
"They are starting fires everywhere … they have broken into the canteen, into the property area," Mr Cuperka, was quoted as saying earlier.
"There are cars full of officers driving around the complex. They are just having a look through the window, but nobody is helping us."
Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said the Christmas Island centre was "in meltdown".
"I have spoken with people who are locked up in the centre and they say that there is widespread unrest and fires across the facility," Ms Hanson-Young said.
"With all Serco guards being removed from the centre late last night, the people who are locked up there are being left to fend for themselves."
Ms Hanson-Young said she was concerned that asylum seekers had been locked up with other detainees, putting them "at risk".
"The government was warned repeatedly about the increasingly toxic situation on Christmas Island but, regrettably, those warnings were ignored," she said.

Controversial policy

Australia sends intercepted asylum seekers to Christmas Island, a remote outpost 2,650km (1,650 miles) north-west of Perth and 380km south of Java in Indonesia.
Others are sent to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and Nauru in the South Pacific.
The government says the journey the asylum seekers make by sea to reach Australia is dangerous and controlled by criminal gangs and they have a duty to stop it. Critics say opposition to asylum is often racially motivated and is damaging Australia's reputation.
Its policy was branded a "disaster" by Human Rights Watch's Australia director in July. The group also raised concern over conditions at the Manus camp.
Last February, an Iranian man was killed during a riot at the camp on Manus. The trial of a Salvation Army worker and a camp guard accused over his murder restarts later this month.
The number of New Zealanders held on Christmas Island has increased since Canberra began cancelling visas of those with criminal records.

Surveillance bill includes internet records storage

Internet firms will have to store data on what people access online for a year, under new surveillance law plans.
At the same time, ministers are proposing senior judges will have unprecedented powers to block operations to intercept communications.
The draft Investigatory Powers Bill aims to completely overhaul how police and security agencies use covert powers to detect and stop crime.
Home Secretary Theresa May is now unveiling the plans in the Commons.
  • Follow the latest developments on our live page
The large and complex bill also contains proposals covering how the state can hack devices and run operations to sweep up large amounts of data as it flows through the internet, enshrining in law the previously covert activities of GCHQ, as uncovered by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Mrs May told MPs the draft bill was a "significant departure" from previous plans, dubbed the "snooper's charter" by critics, which were blocked by the Lib Dems, and it was needed to help fight serious crime and terrorism.
It will "provide some of the strongest protections and safeguards anywhere in the democratic world and an approach that sets new standards for openness, transparency and oversight," the home secretary told MPs.
The legislation brings together a variety of existing powers that cover how the home secretary and other ministers can authorise operations to intercept communications - such as telephone taps and other surveillance.

'Itemised phone bill'

But it also proposes to order communications companies, such as broadband firms, to hold basic details of the services that someone has accessed online - something that has been repeatedly proposed but never enacted.
This duty would include forcing firms to hold a schedule of which websites someone visits and the apps they connect to through computers, smartphones, tablets and other devices.
Police and other agencies would be then able to access these records in pursuit of criminals - but also seek to retrieve data in a wider range of inquiries, such as missing people.
Mrs May stressed that the authorities would not be able to access to everyone's browsing history, just basic data, which was the "modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".
Such data would consist of a basic domain address, and not a full browsing history of pages within that site or search terms entered.
For example, police could see that someone visited www.bbc.co.uk - but not the individual pages they viewed.
Local councils will retain some investigatory powers, such as surveillance of benefit cheats, but they will not be able to access this online data.
Under the proposals, a new team of judges will form a new Investigatory Powers Commission, which the Home Office says will provide world-leading oversight of how police, MI5 and others intercept and gather data.

Critical intelligence

When police or security agencies apply to intercept someone's communications, their plans would have to be first signed off by the home secretary - as is currently the case - but then approved by one of these judges.
In urgent situations, such as when someone's life is in danger or there is a unique opportunity to gather critical intelligence, the home secretary would have the power to approve an interception warrant without immediate judicial approval.
The judges would also be able to refer serious errors to an outside tribunal which could then decide to tell the individual their data has been illegally collected.
The bill also proposes:
  • Making the Wilson doctrine - preventing surveillance of Parliamentarians' communications - law
  • Placing a legal duty on British companies to help law enforcement agencies hack devices to acquire information if it is reasonably practical to do so
The bill does not propose forcing overseas companies to comply with these orders.
Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, David Cameron said the bill was "one of the most important this House will discuss", adding: "We must help the police and security and intelligence services to keep us safe."
London Mayor Boris Johnson warned that the new powers must not be used as an "instrument of oppression", saying the proposed law was "defensible if and only if it's supervised by a judge".
Labour's shadow home secretary Andy Burnham backed the draft bill, saying it was "neither a snooper's charter nor a plan for mass surveillance".

Why do the british drink so much??

I first met alcohol in the late 1980s. It was the morning after one of my parents’ parties. My sister and I, aged nine or 10, were up alone. We trawled the lounge for abandoned cans. I remember being methodical: pick one up, give it a shake to see if there’s anything inside and, if there is, drink! I can still taste the stale, metallic tang of Heineken on my tongue. Just mind the ones with cigarette butts in.
But it was at university that booze and I became properly acquainted. My memory of my first week is of social anxiety offset by cheap alcohol – a harbinger of the next four years. At one ball, I drank so much free wine that I vomited the stud out of my nose and down the sink. My diary entry that night consisted of four oversized words scrawled in turquoise pen: “drunk + sick / Freshers’ Ball”. But that was how it was: sometimes you were the one bundling people into a taxi, sometimes you were the one being bundled.

Recently, I started to wonder if my generation’s relationship with alcohol was abnormal. When I looked into the numbers, I realised that it was.
I discovered that 2004 was Peak Booze: the year when Brits drank more than they had done for a century, and more than they have done in the decade since. Leading the way to this alcoholic apogee were those of us born around 1980. No other generation drank so much in their early 20s. Why us?
In 2004, we were drinking 9.5 litres of pure alcohol – the equivalent of more than 100 bottles of wine – each year
Everyone in alcohol research knows the graph. It plots the change in annual consumption of alcohol in the UK, calculated in litres of pure alcohol per person. (None of us drinks pure alcohol, thankfully; one litre of pure alcohol is equivalent to 35 pints of strong beer.) In 1950, Brits drank an average of 3.9 litres per person. Look to the right and at first the line barely rises. Then, in 1960, it begins to creep upward. The climb becomes steadier during the 1970s. The upward trajectory ends in 1980, but that turns out to be temporary. By the late 1990s consumption is rising rapidly again.
Come Peak Booze, in 2004, we were drinking 9.5 litres of alcohol per person – the equivalent of more than 100 bottles of wine – each year.
It’s impossible to untangle the forces behind the graph’s every rise and fall, but I’ve talked to researchers who have studied our relationship with alcohol. They told me how everything from recessions to marketing to sexism has shaped the way the British drink. This is the story of that research, and of what it tells us about the ascent to Peak Booze. It begins more than half a century ago, in the pub.
The postwar pub
During the late 1930s, a group of observers set out to record what went on in British pubs. The result was a book called ‘The Pub and the People’. The part of the pub where working-class men gathered was known as the vault: “Along the base of the bar counter, whose top is of well worn, well wiped mahogany, runs a line of scattered sawdust, about six inches wide, on to which people spit, throw fag ends, matches and empty cigarette packets.” The authors list the activities that took place there and elsewhere in the pub: talking, thinking, smoking, spitting, playing games, betting, singing, playing the piano, buying and selling goods, including hot pies and bootlaces.
And, of course, drinking. In post-war Britain, much of the drinking took place in pubs. It was mainly men that drank there, generally beer. Relatively little changed in the two decades after ‘The Pub and the People’ was published. It wasn’t until the 1960s that British drinking culture began to shift in more fundamental ways.
Part of this change was about Brits learning – or being persuaded – to enjoy a drink they had long shunned. Josef Groll made the first batch of Pilsner, the light, golden beer we know as lager, in the Czech town of Pilsen in 1842. Word spread and, thanks to Europe’s developing train network, so did the drink. Soon brewers from Germany started to make their own Pils, and ‘Pilsner’ no longer meant just a beer from Pilsen, but a new type of beer.
Lager spread around the world, but British drinkers of the time stuck to their home-brewed pale ales. These drinks were weaker than the 5% alcohol content of many lagers, and suited British drinking habits. “Mild [a type of beer] was about 3%,” says beer writer Pete Brown. “Men who worked in factories and mines would drink pints and pints of it after work, partially to rehydrate without getting hammered.” It also suited the UK tax system, under which beer is taxed in proportion to its strength. Even Prince Albert enthusing about lager after a trip to Germany wasn’t enough to get British drinkers to switch.
Lager suddenly exploded, very quickly, after years of unsuccessful marketing – Pete Brown
But you can’t keep the drinks industry down. The brewers promoted lager intensively after World War II. In the generation that came of age in the late 1960s – one thirsty for change – they finally found an audience. “Lager suddenly exploded, very quickly, after years of unsuccessful marketing,” says Brown. “We were still doing most of our drinking in pubs, they were still male-dominated environments, the beers were still the same strength. But [Dutch brewer] Heineken in its advertising used ‘refreshment’ as a key benefit for the very first time in British beer advertising.”
When the ads first aired in 1974, the campaign was doing “okay”, says Brown. But when Britain experienced unusually hot summers in 1975 and 1976, the refreshment angle gelled. Suddenly, lager started selling.
Heineken’s television ads were game-changers. They promised a lager that “refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach”. In one, a man sits in an armchair reading a newspaper, surrounded by furniture covered in sheets. Hearing someone approach, he leaps up and pretends to study the wallpaper. Enter his wife, angry. The decorating must be done by the time she’s back. The man waits until he hears the car door shut, then sits back down and lifts a small dustsheet to reveal a tankard of foaming Heineken. Off to his side, we see his pet dog whistling, roller in paw, painting the wall. A Scandinavian-sounding voiceover says, “So you see, Heineken even refreshes the pets other beers cannot reach.” It’s bizarre but distinctly British: the nagging wife and recalcitrant husband, and the absurd painting pet, which references the “Dulux dog”, an Old English Sheepdog used in the UK to advertise a popular brand of paint.
Lager is firmly lodged in British identity
Decades later, I can recall the slogans from other lager ads of the time: “I bet he drinks Carling Black Label” and “Australians wouldn’t give a Castlemaine XXXX for anything else”. On holiday with my cousins, sometime in the late 1980s, I remember one of the older boys emulating the swaggering walk of the bear used to promote Hofmeister.
The ads paid off. Between 1971 and 1985, annual sales of ale and stout fell by 10 million barrels, while sales of lager grew by nearly 12 million barrels. Lager now accounts for some three-quarters of total UK beer sales. The drink is firmly lodged in British identity: it’s the pint of choice for banter-loving, football-watching blokes. And that helped the alcohol industry realise the extent to which it could reshape drinking traditions – which it has been doing ever since.
Bottled up
Around the same time, British drinkers were also developing a taste for another foreign import: wine. In 1960, wine accounted for less than one-tenth of British alcohol consumption. But a few years later the government made it easier for British supermarkets to sell wine. The amount drunk nearly quadrupled by 1980, and then nearly doubled again between 1980 and 2000. In a survey of 4,000 UK adults published early this year, 60% said they chose wine over other alcoholic drinks.
This extra drinking helped push us to Peak Booze, but wine is also important because it’s mostly drunk at home. It’s one reason why the pub is no longer the sole focus of British drinking. “The popularisation of wine represents one of the most significant developments in British drinking cultures over the last half-century – and it has been driven primarily by sales in off-licenses and supermarkets,” writes James Nicholls, Director of Research and Policy Development at Alcohol Research UK.
The story of wine in Britain is also the story of female drinkers. Pubs were traditionally not particularly welcoming to women. As the authors of ‘The Pub and the People’ noted, women were excluded from certain rooms: “Vault and taproom are for men only, [taboo] to women, who drink in the parlour. And beer is a penny a pint more in the parlour.” Another custom was that women didn’t stand at the bar. Even the researchers who compiled the report used language we’d now consider sexist. One observer described a pub waitress as “a plump piece well painted”. The book also features a “dossier on some of the pub whores”.
The story of wine in Britain is the story of female drinkers
“Drinking spaces always excluded women, until fairly recently,” Clare Herrick, a geographer at King’s College London, told me. There was also the idea that “women should drink sweet sherry, or have a half-pint, not a pint.” This, she argues, came from the fear of women becoming more masculine than men, competing with men, drinking the same drinks as men. I remember experiencing the tail end of this culture when ordering beers as a student. The barman pulled a pint for my male friend and then reached, without asking, for a half-pint for me.
Today, it’s taken for granted that a woman can walk into a pub and order whatever she wants. It’s largely the result of the profound change in women’s financial and social status over the past half-century. It’s also a big part of why my generation drank so much. Alcohol consumption by women almost doubled in the three decades leading up to Peak Booze, a change that was one of the “key drivers” of the UK’s increased consumption.
The rave wave
The 1980s were an unusual time for the drinks industry. After 30 years of near-continuous increases, British drinking pretty much levelled out between 1980 and 1995 – the nation’s thirst reined in, perhaps, by the high unemployment that gripped the country. But the alcohol industry had not pressed pause. It was preparing to target a new generation of drinkers, and would go on to transform the places Brits drank in. These changes would set the scene for one of the most rapid increases in alcohol consumption seen in the last century.
One of the industry’s initiatives was the introduction of a new category of drink – a drink with origins in a culture that once posed a threat to alcohol companies.
Rave culture was part of my generation’s adolescence, even if the closest some of us got to it was buying glow-in-the-dark bracelets and smiley-face T-shirts. I still remember the Shamen’s number-one hit, with its “Es are good” chorus. My friends and I sang along, even if we didn’t know for ourselves.
But there wouldn’t have been many smileys in alcohol company boardrooms: ravers didn’t want beer when they had ecstasy. That’s probably part of the reason pub attendance fell 11% between 1987 and 1992. The industry’s solution wasn’t long in coming, however. It began when the government used new legislation to force rave entrepreneurs into what alcohol policy consultant Phil Hadfield calls a stark choice: “work within the system… or be closed down”. Some chose the latter option, but the more successful started licensed indoor dance venues, such as the Ministry of Sound in London.
Ravers didn’t want beer when they had ecstasy
The drinks industry wasn’t going to miss an opportunity like that. It saw a chance “to reposition alcohol as a consumer product which could compete in the psychoactive night time drugs economies,” according to alcohol researchers Fiona Measham and Kevin Brain. The industry launched new and stronger drinks, which it targeted at a young and culturally diverse crowd. First were strong bottled lagers, beers and ciders. Then came alcopops, including Hooch, in the mid-1990s. A few years later, drinks containing stimulants such as caffeine and guarana arrived. It was all part of the industry’s desire to recast alcohol from a bloating depressant into a pleasant-tasting, stimulating drink that fitted the youth culture. The dance scene, say Measham and Brain, helped bring about a “revolution in the 1990s alcohol industry”.
The industry was also hard at work transforming British pubs. Soon after alcopops were introduced, pub chains such as the Firkin Brewery decided to convert old buildings – banks, theatres, even factories – into new drinking warehouses, often in city centres. Expanses of glass replaced external brick walls. This overhaul, argue Measham and Brain, was designed to attract “a new customer base… whose leisure sites were to be found in dance clubs, gyms, shopping centres”. Not just old men, in other words.
Smaller, higher tables replaced lower ones with seats, because drinkers are thought to consume more when they stand
Shots were popular in these new pubs. Whisky chasers had accompanied beer in Scotland for years, but shots for their own sake were new to the rest of the UK. Also new were members of bar staff coming to tables to sell the shots, sometimes dispensed from guns or holsters.
What the industry calls “vertical drinking” was the norm in these new venues. Smaller, higher tables replaced lower ones surrounded by seats, because drinkers are thought to consume more when they stand rather than sit. The loss of surfaces forced customers to hold onto drinks, making them drink faster. Noisy surroundings made chatting harder, so people drank instead. “Most bars have cleared out their interior walls and furniture to accommodate more of what the industry names ‘mass volume vertical drinkers’ (with the heart-warming humanistic touch for which it is famous),” write Simon Winlow and Steve Hall, a sociologist and a criminologist who have studied Britain’s night-time economy.
Some pub managers were offered £20,000 bonuses if they used sales techniques – like upselling singles to doubles – to exceed revenue targets
Marketing practices in pubs, bars and clubs, including happy hours and other drinks deals, encouraged the British to drink more, too. In 2005, when changes in the law allowed pubs to stay open for longer, managers at some large vertical-drinking pubs were reportedly offered bonuses of up to £20,000 if they used sales techniques – upselling singles to doubles, for instance – to exceed revenue targets. All this was happening as the real cost of purchasing alcohol, allowing for inflation and changes in disposable income, fell every year from 1984 to 2007. As one liver consultant put it to me: “My patient who’s drinking 100–120 units per week can afford to buy three times as much alcohol now as they did in the mid-1980s.”
‘Determined drunkenness’
These changes, from the falling price of alcohol to the marketing of stronger, more easily consumed drinks, are thought to be behind the rise of what researchers call “determined drunkenness”. Forty-somethings might get drunk on a night out, but it wouldn’t be their explicit aim. It increasingly was for those in their 20s. Young people “regard alcohol itself as crucial to a ‘good night’,” write the authors of the book ‘Alcohol, Drinking, Drunkenness: (Dis)orderly spaces’. They deliberately try to accelerate their drunkenness by ‘preloading’ at home before they go out, playing drinking games and mixing drinks.
As the new century began, alcohol was easier to access, cheaper to buy and more enthusiastically marketed than it had been for decades. By 2004, Brits were drinking well over twice as much as they had been half a century earlier. The nation stood atop Peak Booze, and my generation was drinking the most.
By 2004, Brits were drinking well over twice as much as they had been half a century earlier
More than 500 people were killed by drunk drivers on British roads that year. Young drivers were most likely to have drink-drive accidents, and while a large majority of those drivers were men, women made up nearly a third of the casualties.
Alcohol makes many of us unpleasant; around half of violent offenders are thought by their victims to be under the influence of alcohol. There’s a horrifying scene in the 1996 film Trainspotting where one of the characters attacks a man in a pub by thrusting a full pint glass straight into his face. ‘Glassing’ is a common enough problem that some pubs have started using pint glasses made from plastic or strengthened glass that are very hard to smash. (It says something about British drinking culture that images from Trainspotting were used in the 10th anniversary press campaign for Revolution Vodka bars.)
It’s tempting to link the amount we drink with the frequency of alcohol-related harm, but it’s hard to do so definitively because many factors are involved. Drink-driving casualties have been falling since the 1970s, for example, probably due to media campaigns and better education for offenders. British roads might also be safer because more of our drinking now takes place at home. Still, the steady decline in drink-driving fatalities of the last 40 years was temporarily reversed between 1999 and 2004 – a period that closely matches the rapid rise in alcohol consumption that led to Peak Booze. We just don’t know if this is coincidence or causation.
In any case, the members of generation Peak Booze may well have harmed themselves already. There are no pain fibres in the liver, so we can’t feel damage we may be doing there. But the statistics roughly track consumption: annual alcohol-related liver deaths in England and Wales climbed steadily until around 2008, when the numbers levelled off. Several experts told me that changes – since reversed – in alcohol policy that made booze less affordable were having a positive effect on liver deaths. The incidence of alcohol-related deaths, which includes nervous system degeneration and poisoning as well as liver disease, also began falling a few years after Peak Booze. Again, we don’t know this is correlation or causation.
The trend seems different in the generation after mine. Young people are drinking less frequently, and more of them are teetotal. It could be financial hardship, an increase in the proportion that don’t drink for religious reasons, or increased time spent online. We don’t know whether the decline will continue. Still, this generation’s relative reluctance to drink is part of the reason UK alcohol consumption in 2013 was only 7.7 litres per person, the lowest since 1996 and nearly two litres lower than Peak Booze.
Drinking because you’re happy, because you’re sad, because there’s a random beer in the fridge – for many in my generation, all normal
For many in my generation, it’s still normal to go to the bar after work on Friday. Drinking because you’re happy, because you’re sad, because there’s a random beer in the fridge – also normal. Even in our thirties, with partners and babies and jobs and mortgages, we understand when someone loses their purse while drunk, vomits in a taxi or sleeps in their clothes and crawls into work with a hangover. In fact, drinking isn’t just normal to our generation. In some ways, it defines us. It’s hard not to think that this isn’t partly because we grew up watching alcohol adverts on the TV, surrounded by plentiful, cheap booze in the supermarket. Today the drinks commercials are more tightly regulated, but the wine-sponsored TV cookery contest and beer-branded football shirt are here, reminding us that alcohol is a normal part of everyday life.
Beyond the health risks and potential harm, that’s the more insidious aspect of Peak Booze: the mental baggage. A fair few of us are more dependent than we’d like to be on that cold glass of white wine or cheeky gin and tonic at the end of the day. It’s important to me to know that drinking is a choice, not a need. But if I choose not to drink for one night out, I find myself rambling an explanation, assuring people that, no, I’m not pregnant. The fact that staying sober for a month is seen as a feat of willpower and the subject of charity campaigns such as Dry January shows just how embedded alcohol is in our lives. It’s the grease that keeps many of our days moving.
This would be fine if we chose to be part of the drinking culture. Sometimes, it feels like it chose us.
Please Enable JavaScript!
Mohon Aktifkan Javascript![ Enable JavaScript ]

Follow by Email