Re: [hrpc] hrpc Digest, Vol 74, Issue 1

[Sandra Braman <[e-mail]>]

Good to see that there is a new human rights guidelines draft. I won't be
able to review it or the association draft issues for a couple of weeks
yet, but just wanted to briefly note that the current Rapporteur for
Freedom of Expression is Irene Kahn.

Sandra Braman

On Sat, May 1, 2021 at 2:00 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Send hrpc mailing list submissions to
>         [e-mail]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         [e-mail]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         [e-mail]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of hrpc digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: My suggestion for the attribution paragraph (Niels ten Oever)
>    2. I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt
>       ([e-mail])
>    3. Fwd: New Version Notification for
>       draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt (Niels ten Oever)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 1 May 2021 17:05:03 +0200
> Subject: Re: [hrpc] My suggestion for the attribution paragraph
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry it has taken some time, but I have come up with new proposal text on
> the remedy-paragraph.
>
> __________________
>
> ### Remedy
>
> Question(s): Can your protocol facilitate a negatively impacted party's
> right to remedy without disproportionately impacting other parties' human
> rights, especially their right to privacy?
>
> Explanation: Access to remedy may help victims of human rights violation
> in seeking justice, or allow law enforcement agencies to identify a
> possible violator. However, such mechanisms may impede the exercise of the
> right to privacy. The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression has also
> argued that anonymity is an inherent part of freedom of expression [Kaye].
> Considering the adverse impact of attribution on the right to privacy and
> freedom of expression, enabling attribution on an individual level is most
> likely not consistent with human rights. However, providing access to
> remedy by states and corporations is an inherent part of the UN Guiding
> Principles on Business and Human Rights {{UNGP}}.
>
> Impacts:
>
> - Right to remedy
> - Right to security
> - Right to privacy
>
> _________________
>
> Happy to discuss!
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 20-03-2021 07:45, Mark Perkins wrote:
> > Hi & thanks Niels
> >
> > If this replacement can be done great- can we see how that will look?
> >
> > If we can also insert the principle 'no right may be used to undermine /
> annul other rights', as per Gurshabad Grover's text regarding remedy
> (originally attribution) re privacy/anonymity/freedom of speech, then
> things would be excellent
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mark P.
> >
> > Le 20/03/2021 à 10:04, Niels ten Oever a écrit :
> >> Excellent - so perhaps we should be dropping 'attribution' from the
> title and make a rewrite to focus on 'remedy'. I hope that will then fix
> the discussion.
> >>
> >> Would that approach make sense to you (specifically asking Mark,
> Farzaneh, and John :) )?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Niels
> >>
> >> On 19-03-2021 23:49, Mark Perkins wrote:
> >>> Niels
> >>>
> >>> I think that this could be a factor.
> >>>
> >>> A few points;
> >>>
> >>> Attribution (whichever meaning) does not equal remedy
> >>>
> >>> Attribution is an argument many governments are using against
> anonymity (India)  and end to end encryption (EU)
> >>>
> >>> Banks ensure payments over Internet via apps rather than underlying
> protocol; even on their proper network (ATM), payments are assured by law
> rather than protocol (given that banks had a poor track record...)
> >>>
> >>> 'Baking' attribution in at protocol level to aid with 'remedy' I fear
> will undermine the very human rights it is meant to help - something that
> human rights law is explictly opposed to (no right may be used to undermine
> / annul other rights)
> >>>
> >>> While I am opposed to including 'attribution', I understand that this
> may be a minority position; if it is included I think the paragraph should
> be much more nuanced, including the problems mentioned by myself  others
> >>>
> >>> Mark P.
> >>>
> >>> Le 20/03/2021 à 02:57, Niels ten Oever a écrit :
> >>>> Might it be that the discussion arises from the way attribution is
> used within the cybersecurity debate? Because here it has a very different
> meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Niels
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19-03-2021 16:24, farzaneh badii wrote:
> >>>>> We have raised the problem of cherry-picking in previous papers when
> criticizing the approach of HRPC, but in this case I don't think
> cherry-picking is involved. Your framing [attribution results in or can
> help with legal remedy] is problematic because it brings jurisdictional
> issues to this document. What legal remedy, based on which law? I heard
> that people were saying we are not trying to bring one set of legal systems
> into the discussion. And it's not even clear how you can create a direct
> link between attribution and legal remedy. Access to legal remedy in the
> human rights law field does not mean that a private protocol developer
> helps victims or law enforcement with gathering evidence! Help with
> gathering evidence does not result in legal remedy. Access to legal remedy
> is much more nuanced than that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we just did not discuss this issue carefully for the past
> couple of years. We didn't have legal experts and human rights law experts
> that could analyze this in depth and give us their perspective. I am very
> concerned about including this paragraph. I tried to help with revising it
> so it is not that I want to stop progress but as I have said, this
> paragraph can be potentially against human rights more than for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Farzaneh
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:20 AM John Curran <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       Mark -
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       The fact that protocol support for attribution is important to
> support some human rights (i.e. the right to legal remedy)
> >>>>>       but poses important concerns regarding potential implications
> for other rights would seem to me to argue more strongly on the need for
> its inclusion in the guidelines rather than its omission, However, I’ll
> admit that I haven’t done direct protocol development in more than two
> decades and lacking as I am in recent first-hand experience, I'll leave it
> to this group to decide as it deems best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       All I do ask is that the IETF document be accurate regarding
> scope – i.e. if there is a determination to omit inclusion of some human
> rights from the guidelines because they are inconvenient, then the document
> should clearly indicate that it provides guidelines for _select_ human
> rights (and this would also suggest that the language "this is by no means
> an attempt to exclude specific rights or prioritize some rights over
> others. If other rights seem relevant, please contact the authors.” should
> probably be struck.)  I think this would be major step backward (and do not
> recommend such an approach), but see no other way to address your concerns
> about the potential risk to inexperienced protocol developers being led
> astray by the inclusion of the right to legal remedy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       Thanks,
> >>>>>       /John
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>       On 11 Mar 2021, at 4:27 PM, Mark Perkins <marknoumea=
> [e-mail]  <mailto:marknoumea=[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>       An annoying P.S.: just for the record I hope this paragraph
> does not encourage protocol developers to design protocols that can
> attribute certain action to an individual or lead to identification of
> people. I hope it doesn't legitimize attribution using protocols, with no
> accountability or checks and balances. Attribution features can be abused.
> I still don't think attribution should have been included at all, but that
> ship has sailed. So, I compromise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>       MP>> This is exactly my fear, excepting that I disagree that
> "that ship has sailed", and am still not sure that consensus has been
> reached on this issue...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>       Mark P.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>       Le 12/03/2021 à 05:34, farzaneh badii a écrit :
> >>>>>>>       Thank you Gurshabad,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       Yes this is fine, though I would have removed "may.. be"
> from the following sentence and replace it with "is".
> >>>>>>>       attribution on an individual level [may] *is not [*be]
> consistent with those particular human rights.  and would have removed
> individual from "i.e. mechanisms in protocols or architectures
> >>>>>>>       that are designed to make communications or artifacts
> attributable to acertain computer*or individual)*"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       I can't think of a text that captures Mallory's suggestion
> right now but I am not insistent on further changes to be applied. So don't
> want to hold you back.
> >>>>>>>       All good and thank you for your hard and excellent work.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       An annoying P.S.: just for the record I hope this paragraph
> does not encourage protocol developers to design protocols that can
> attribute certain action to an individual or lead to identification of
> people. I hope it doesn't legitimize attribution using protocols, with no
> accountability or checks and balances. Attribution features can be abused.
> I still don't think attribution should have been included at all, but that
> ship has sailed. So, I compromise.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       Farzaneh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:00 PM Gurshabad Grover <
> [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>           Thanks, Farzaneh.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>           I was referring to these suggestions (which came through
> well to my mail
> >>>>>>>           at least), which I mostly incorporated. I realised from
> your chat
> >>>>>>>           messages during hrpc today that you were highlighting
> the importance of
> >>>>>>>           removing the reference to 'law enforcement agencies'.
> Taking that and
> >>>>>>>           the recent suggestions into account, would this text be
> fine?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>           """
> >>>>>>>           Question(s): Can your protocol facilitate a negatively
> impacted party's
> >>>>>>>           right to the appropriate remedy without
> disproportionately impacting
> >>>>>>>           other parties' human rights, especially their right to
> privacy?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>           Explanation: Attribution (i.e. mechanisms in protocols
> or architectures
> >>>>>>>           that are designed to make communications or artifacts
> attributable to a
> >>>>>>>           certain computer or individual) may help victims of
> crimes in seeking
> >>>>>>>           appropriate remedy.  However, attribution mechanisms may
> impede the
> >>>>>>>           exercise of the right to privacy.  The Special
> Rapporteur for Freedom of
> >>>>>>>           Expression has also argued that anonymity is an inherent
> part of freedom
> >>>>>>>           of expression. [Kaye] Considering the adverse impact of
> attribution on
> >>>>>>>           the right to privacy and freedom of expression, enabling
> attribution on
> >>>>>>>           an individual level may not be consistent with those
> particular human
> >>>>>>>           rights.
> >>>>>>>           """
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>           On a finer point: I do not think that it is appropriate
> to remove 'the
> >>>>>>>           right to remedy' from the 'Impacts' section, because it
> is precisely
> >>>>>>>           what this section about (regardless of the final
> position it takes).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>           -Gurshabad
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>           On 3/11/21 11:19 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> >>>>>>>           > Seems like the suggestion I made did not come through
> because I
> >>>>>>>           > strike-through
> >>>>>>>           > Screen Shot 2021-03-11 at 12.44.34 PM.png
> >>>>>>>           >  that didn't appear on the mailing list archive so I
> took a screenshot
> >>>>>>>           > of the changes I suggested which is attached.
> >>>>>>>           >
> >>>>>>>           > I will rewrite it here.
> >>>>>>>           > Farzaneh
> >>>>>>>           >
> >>>>>>>           > _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>           > hrpc mailing list
> >>>>>>>           >[e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>           >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
>   <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
> >
> >>>>>>>           >
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>       _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>       hrpc mailing list
> >>>>>>>       [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
>   <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
> >
> >>>>>>       <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4doRLm2g$
> >      Garanti sans virus.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4UK1VzvE$
>   <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4doRLm2g$
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>       _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>       hrpc mailing list
> >>>>>>       [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
>   <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
> >
> >>>>>       _______________________________________________
> >>>>>       hrpc mailing list
> >>>>>       [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
>   <
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> hrpc mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
> >>>>>
> >
>
> --
> Niels ten Oever, PhD
> Postdoctoral Researcher - Media Studies Department - University of
> Amsterdam
> Research Fellow - Centre for Internet and Human Rights - European
> University Viadrina
> Associated Scholar - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - Fundação Getúlio
> Vargas
> Affiliated Factulty - Digital Democracy Insitute - Simon Fraser University
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nielstenoever.net__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4eR7sa6w$
> - [e-mail] - @nielstenoever - [phone]
> PGP: 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3
>
> Read my latest article on Internet infrastructure governance in New Media
> & Society here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1461444820929320__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH426v5_WE$
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: [e-mail]
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 09:44:29 -0700
> Subject: [hrpc] I-D Action: draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Human Rights Protocol Considerations RG
> of the IRTF.
>
>         Title           : Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol and
> Architecture Considerations
>         Authors         : Gurshabad Grover
>                           Niels ten Oever
>         Filename        : draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt
>         Pages           : 31
>         Date            : 2021-05-01
>
> Abstract:
>    This document sets guidelines for human rights considerations for
>    developers working on network protocols and architectures, similar to
>    the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations [RFC6973].
>    This is an updated version of the guidelines for human rights
>    considerations in [RFC8280].
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines/__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4XEvAUMQ$
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4j2m3F7o$
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4UDFKYes$
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4NsD6hSY$
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4qkvmjSI$
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Niels ten Oever <[e-mail]>
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Sat, 1 May 2021 18:46:07 +0200
> Subject: [hrpc] Fwd: New Version Notification for
> draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt
> Hi all,
>
> I sought to address all outstanding issues that came up during last-call.
>
> Looking forward to the discussion and possible suggestions for
> improvements for this draft.
>
> As always, suggestions are welcomed both here and as pull requests here:
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/IRTF-HRPC/drafts/blob/main/draft-guidelines.md__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4whFmC2M$
>
> All the best,
>
> Niels
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt
> Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 09:44:29 -0700
> From: [e-mail]
> To: Gurshabad Grover <[e-mail]>, Niels ten Oever <
> [e-mail]>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Niels ten Oever and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines
> Revision:       07
> Title:          Guidelines for Human Rights Protocol and Architecture
> Considerations
> Document date:  2021-05-01
> Group:          hrpc
> Pages:          31
> URL:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07.txt__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH410aAPLU$
> Status:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines/__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4XEvAUMQ$
> Htmlized:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4f--gOZI$
> Htmlized:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4j2m3F7o$
> Diff:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-hrpc-guidelines-07__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4NsD6hSY$
>
> Abstract:
>    This document sets guidelines for human rights considerations for
>    developers working on network protocols and architectures, similar to
>    the work done on the guidelines for privacy considerations [RFC6973].
>    This is an updated version of the guidelines for human rights
>    considerations in [RFC8280].
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hrpc mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc__;!!KwNVnqRv!UbL4UycJmozSVLaUXTgtbS5heN3wSbpMthQjABi05Y0eYBk7mJhn0l-wXCH4LB6Trf8$
>