The Value Of Privacy 72
This FTC release details what can happen to web sites that collect infomation about underage users without parental consent. "The FTC charged Monarch Services, Inc. and Girls Life, Inc., operators of www.girlslife.com; Bigmailbox.com, Inc., and Nolan Quan, operators of www.bigmailbox.com; and Looksmart Ltd., operator of www.insidetheweb.com with illegally collecting personally identifying information from children under 13 years of age without parental consent, in violation of the COPPA Rule." For collecting things like name and age (and in the case of the BigMailbox.com, making the info available to a 3rd party), the three companies were fined a sum of 100,000 dollars. You might like to read more on COPPA as well, and then the Center for Media Education's report on COPPA.
In related news, Spain imposed a fine on Microsoft for violating Spanish laws on data-transfer, for transfering employee information from servers in Spain to the U.S.
Information wants to be free - for the children. (Score:2)
The children are underage - they do not have much money. But marjeters have a legitimate interest in them - it has been shown that children under the age of ten make most major purchasing decisions in family homes. If you are selling a car, or a house, or a bedspread, or an Operating System, getting to the children is the thing to do.
But why punish them for this? It is the fault of the parents for listening to their children. If parents had a more Victorian attitude to bringing up youngsters, these problems would not exist.
I think that it is not the children that should be punished, but rather the parents.
In a free market, information should not be a commodity. With this much I agree. Information should be free - by illegalising information, in this case information describing children, we are making it a more valuable commodity than ever.
It is time to let the companies off the leash, and have parents be responsible, not children.
--
Re:Privacy is quixotic (Score:1)
your ideal world is dream, a flight of imagination, and cannot be had. Privacy can. Not always, but often enough to be worth preserving.
--
Privacy is quixotic (Score:1)
The truth is, privacy is no better than a children's tune. It's a crutch that we resort to when we find ourselves unable to interact properly with our compatriots and social bedfellows. Why do we seek privacy? We don't know how to demand our priviledges according to intellectual arguments, so we fall back on the childish notion of "give me what I want because I asked for it so there!"
In an ideal world, privacy would be unnecessary. Instead of focusing on how to achieve privacy, we should be focusing on implementing that ideal world. Privacy is a dream, a flight of imagination, an untethered ox whisping on the tendrils of aethereal currents. Woe be to the one who stands underhoof when the ox whisps overhead.
Privacy is dead - live with it (Score:3)
Of course it is not all bad, since these exact same tools could be used to monitor the monitors. The police may be able to use these tools to watch us, but we will also be able to use them to watch the police.
Rather than wasting time trying to prevent application of this technology (which will ultimately be futile), we should be trying to ensure that everyone has access to it.
--
A Lot of Money? (Score:1)
Pffffth!! 100G is pocket change for these guys. They probably already made ten times that amount selling the databases to the highest bidder.
--
People don't care? (Score:1)
Since when does the fact that "people don't care" mean that something is suddenly OK? I'm sure that there were a lot of people who didn't care about slavery, or the Holocaust, but that didn't mean that people of conscience couldn't rise up and do something about it. I admit that what we call "privacy" is a complex and sticky issue, with lots of people willing to give up some level of privacy in return for security or financial gain, but that doesn't mean we should simply throw up our hands in disgust and cave in...
--
Re:Parental consent? (Score:2)
It's like Soupy Sales [amiannoyingornot.com] who said, on TV, "Okay, kids, now go through your parent's dresser and send me all the little green pieces of paper you find"...
--
Re:Privacy is free... (Score:3)
See how much extra time it takes at Radio Shack, for example, to purchase something without giving your name, address, and phone number. Even for a cash sale. Just last week I purchased a phone with cash. The clerks working the register couldn't make the sale without collecting information, so I had to improvise.
How about the extra trouble it takes to alter consent forms, for example, at the hospital? It takes time to make sure the hospital doesn't let every insurance company, drug company, federal organization, or private citizen know that you're having a test.
And a few nights ago when I used the pgp freespace wiper... five passes took 12+ uninterrupted hours.
In my experience, privacy has been expensive.
MS Media Player and my 4yr old (Score:1)
I'm used to getting a licensing agreement before installing software, but this time I got a "Privacy Agreement" which told me that they would watch everything played across the internet, and I think even on the local hard drive. I essentially had to consent first, then I was allowed to go back and (supposedly) turn it off.
As far as I could tell there was no way for my little girl to listen to NickJr radio without me consenting to allow Microsoft (and whoever they want to sell the data to) to monitor exactly what she listens to and when.
I'm sure Microsoft's point would be that they aren't forcing my little girl to listen to NickJr radio and that I have to make the choice. So I installed it and turned everything off. I guess if I ever get marketing directed at me for children's music I can sue Microsoft or something.
Like that would do a damned bit of good at all.
Re:Information wants to be free - for the children (Score:2)
What's that? Parents be responsible for their children? Shocking!!
That's exactly the problem, although you stated it somewhat incorrectly. People seem to want the GOVERNMENT to be responsible for raising their children, rather than they themselves be responsible.
Cases in point: the CDA, the V-Chip, government mandating that all cigarette lighters be childproof, the list goes on and on. While I think it's a good idea for parents to create a safe environment for their children, it is the PARENTS' responsibility to do so, not the government's. You can't expect to raise your kids in a bubble. It's a tough world out there, and you will at some point have to teach your kids that and you will have to teach them how to survive in that tough world. Otherwise, they will not be able to cope.
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:2)
sell your information without your consent
Read it again, and you will understand the issue.
I have started calling the practice of selling personal information without consent data piracy or information piracy. Effectively, the companies are stealing your private information and making a profit from it.
It's just like software piracy, except for one important difference. Software pirates are often individuals, and the victims are often large corporations. Data pirates are often corporations, and the victims are individuals. Only large corporations have the finances to lobby effectively for law changes. So it's no surprise that software piracy is illegal but data piracy is not.
Corporations consider the sale of "address lists" to be an "accepted practice". Of course, software pirates would also call the piracy of software an "accepted practice". Having the criminals define what is acceptable behaviour is not very reliable.
Let's not mince words here. The definition of "piracy" in the modern corporate world is usually taken to mean making a profit by selling something that doesn't belong to you. So isn't the sale of someone else's personal details without their knowledge or consent piracy in the strictest definition of the term?
The biggest irony is that the MPAA and the RIAA are pirates because they sell their customer information.
--
Privacy is a blunt ax ... (Score:2)
- Personal (I) - inner beliefs, personality, DNA
- Private (C) - habits, likes/dislikes,
- Profile (B) - perferences, purchases
- Public (P) - wider society, politics
So far the eCommerce hype has been focusing on B2C and B2B. However, I suspect that what people are (rightly or wrongly) concerned about is the invasion of the I space and the contamination of the P space. Psychologists note that we we form the major precepts of our identy by late teens/early 20s. As kids, most of us have that isolated playhouse, the hidden cave, or that secret garden where we imagine the world as it could be. As adults, we are rightly concerned about overbearing laws and corruption of the politcal process. As consumers we have learned to negotiate or establish natural boundaries. we don't expect religious institutions to be flogging indulgances (B2I) for sale (cough*Scientology*cough) or desire friendships (I-I) to be colored by pecuniary factors (cough*Amway*cough). With IT we can try to codify some of the interactions (think information waveguides), for example motor vehicle registration where you have to accept responsibility for personal care of a dangerous ton of metal and explosions in a public space. But for someone to use that and influence/divine your B2C behaviour is what we object to. Similarly doctor-patient reationship (P2I) is not something most want to leak into the B-space.
People forget that before our Western concept of civil laws (slowly replaced by commercial lures), we had social lores which were a tribe way of minimising social friction. The legal system is still a codification of social codes (along with economic incentives) which are proving to be increasingly imperfect as more splinter groups object to over-broad provisions. The concept of privacy which was evolved for P2I matters (freedom from trump charges corpus habeus?), torture, self-expression are not keeping up with technology as the I-C-B-P space fragments and wierd combinations undermine traditional assumptions. If you read Lessig books, you'd understand that the concept of privacy as interpreted by courts has morphed over the decades.
In short, the world is becoming a little bit more complex so you're probably seeing new intermeiatories forming (data aggregators, accumulators, agents) forming between B2C plus others (e.g. grass-roots lobby groups (astroturf campaigns notwithstanding) are just I2P intermeiatories. Once we think about it, you can probably be more precise in what you can define as privacy.
LL
Nope. Sorry. Reading doesn't work. (Score:2)
I'm just glad when we read the Hobbit they didn't want the Turbo Smaug with real flame. It was expensive enough buying the Laketown playset, and I waited in line for three hours for the last Bombur figure.
All those old classics are chock full of subtle marketing.
Care to explain why? (Score:2)
Of course, I don't even know why I'm responding since you don't actually site any examples in your gratuitous assertion... that -1 score is there for a reason.
Whoops! (Score:2)
I have also read Lewis and Tolkien to my children and they liked those, too, and while I recognize that their works are superior, I still think that Baum's books are worth reading, particularly to preschool-age kids. I read "The Hobbit" to my older kids when my three-year-old was a baby, I doubt, were I to read it now, she would have the patience or comprehension to sit through it. However, that's up to her. We also read plenty of shorter fare like Thomas the Tank Engine (the originals are also classics, IMO), and light stuff like Dr. Seuss and the Berenstain Bears. Given that my kids have over 100 books, I think there's room for "The Wizard of Oz" among them.
Rick
Re:Information wants to be free - for the children (Score:2)
The Victorian attitude is one of fetishizing the child and putting them in cute little costumes. Not something to strive for.
Re:ICQ Warnings... (Score:2)
It's certainly better spin / marketing than the truth - which is "We resell all our users' information, but under COPPA, the law would rake us over the coals for it if we didn't have this disclaimer. By continuing to use this service, you agree that you're over 13, and therefore, that we're legally entitled to resell the shit out of anything our spyware can find out about you."
cheap (Score:2)
Well they can even make more money selling that information to spammers.
Re:Privacy is quixotic (Score:2)
Re:Justifically Speaking (Score:2)
Re:Which would you rather have? (Score:3)
here is no equality when the other side has a gun and the law on its side to use it. Privacy is your only protection against those who would seek to control everything you do.
Your boss can control what you do at work, but has no business meddling in the affairs of your home. Why? Because it's you're privacy.
Why people so complacently give up their rights because "there's nothing that can be done" totally escapes me.
COPPA makes it illegal for 13 year olds... (Score:1)
See http://onlineconservatory.com/young.html
Guess it's back to joining a leather jacket wearing band making money on street in the corner where the local drug dealer is taking a coffee break.
I love government waste, but when parents get involved it's a party!
Now you might ask why would they not involve their parents?
Did you involve your parents when you went to the mall to play arcade games? (no.)
But in an environment (your home) where your kids are less likely to get mugged by a stranger (family violence doesn't count - no amount of legislation can prevent it but it can be countered) or kidnapped by a stranger they have to have parents involved?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Re:Hahaha (Score:1)
Re:Which would you rather have? (Score:1)
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
Re:herm... (Score:1)
> 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington D.C.
So you are the one I have seen hanging around my house.
As the cross indexing of data bases gets better, they will be able to pick out your real address. With little bits of information combined together a person can fiugre out you are at a funeral and rob your house.
With adults getting scammed, children are even easier. By limiting information given out and/or collected, this is a nice preventive measure. An adult with a child will let them talk to someone in a Mickey Mouse costume, but not let them walk off alone together.
I doubt the fine even covers the cost of the investigation.
- James - [IMAGE]
Re:Privacy is free... (Score:1)
I don't know about you... (Score:1)
They got off easy... (Score:2)
Paying 100,000 dollars wasn't that big of a punishment for these companies.
After all, say you go to a school yard, ask passing children about their personal lives, and then hand the information over to someone else.
You think a fine is the worst you will get?
Liability Suit? (Score:1)
herm... (Score:2)
Privacy is free... (Score:4)
Consider this:
It takes no money to encrypt an email.
It takes no money to use ssh/openssh.
It takes no money to disable cookies.
It takes no money NOT to buy something online.
It takes no money NOT to fill in forms.
Privacy is free... violating someone else's privacy is what gets expensive.
Re:Privacy is quixotic (Score:1)
True. You're right. I agree with you.
I would go even further, however.
I mean every word of the following statement:
In an ideal world, police would be unnecessary. And courts. And armies. We should focus on implementing that ideal world.
I really do mean that. We should try to prevent the social conditions that encourage criminal behavior. We should do what we can to prevent large groups of people from systematically killing each other. Or even wanting to.
Does this mean that I'd feel safe right now if all all law enforcement with any sort of jurisdiction over my home town were to just quit their jobs and leave? Does this mean that I'd feel even vaguely safe if I were in a country with some sort of useful resource (anything from land to wealth to money to strategic location. In other words, just about any country in the world.) and no military (not even that of an ally) to call upon?
No it doesn't.
This is not an ideal world. There are Bad People (and by extension Bad Governments and Bad Companies and Bad Religions and all other sorts of Bad Groups) out there that want to do things that may be good for them but bad for us. We need some sort of protection from them. Of course, police and armies can become the Bad Guys that we need protection from, sometimes. Still, having them is usually better than not having them.
Just because something is not needed in an ideal world, just because we should be focusing on creating that ideal world, does not mean that it's not needed here and now.
Meanwhile (Score:1)
Tobbaco company spokesman "Boy 1" (I dunno the names) from N'Sync denied that the tobbaco companies were "trying to target children", as he took a puff from his ciggarette.
Fine, they were fined, but I don't think the government was hurt in this instance - the "consumer", and he/she should be
As for the fine, 100 G, its alot, but probalby won't put them under, although you never know with some of these internet companies. If the govt is to enforce this,
i.e. you fuck with us - go out of business, we take that new house you bought too. Though I don't feel that the govt is too interested in protecting privacy, if you get my drift.
Also, don't forget that the little bastards often have the most purchasing power in the home ("I want frosted flakes!! not that stuff in a bag, I want tony .
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
Re:A Lot of Money? (Score:1)
Though 100 G should of have been a lot more. It's nice to see these fuckers bleed.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
Re:Privacy is dead - live with it (Score:2)
Eugene Zamiatin's We was the first of the dystopian novels, before 1984 and Brave New World, and depicted a world in which all the walls were made of glass so everyone could see everyone else and what they were doing ALL the time. Obviously it is more of an illustrative metaphor than any reality to be afraid of, but what you advocate not fighting against IS a reality to be afraid of, and would bring about the same effect. Think about it really, and then wonder wheather you'd rather be dead or alive in such a world.
Re:Privacy is free... (Score:1)
Re:Information wants to be free - for the children (Score:1)
I am wondering when people are finally going to catch on to the practise of forcing your product on to people by forcing it at kids through TV and/or schools. In our house, the presence of children tangentially affects certain purchases, but widely we avoid a lot of it by not having TV and sticking to either educational materials, music, or -reading- to them.
It's amazing how much more civilized and human my children became when we got rid of broddcast TV and cable. I recommend the practise to anyone, since there is virtually nothing on TV worth watching anyway.
Don't miss TV. Nope Nope.
Parental consent? (Score:2)
Exactly how do you verify this on the 'net? Is it enough with a checkbox that says "Yes, mommy says it's OK"? What about "Please enter dads credit card # and expiry date"? Come on! I can debate the morality/legality of requesting this kind of information from kids, but parental consent? That's just ridiculous.
Privacy makes a hard business model (Score:2)
Re:Who Monarch Services is/was (Score:1)
Girl's Life was a later project, but I think the inspriration was in fact Boy's Life (probably minus the bad jokes page).
What I'd like to see... (Score:1)
I think a company (or anyone, for that matter) absolutely should NOT be able to sell your information without your consent and that consent cannot be tied to a service.
For instance, you get a phone line. Unless you specifically state that you will allow the phone company to sell your information to others, they are forbidden from doing so. In addition, they cannot make your acceptance of their selling your information a portion of their service agreement.
THAT would be a useful law to me. Go fine flippin' Real $100,000 for sending me crap-mail about stuff I don't want.
--
ICQ Warnings... (Score:2)
Maybe that "this service is unavailable to kids under 13" warning when the Windows ICQ client pops up aren't so stupid after all...
Links in a Chain (Score:3)
--
Re:Privacy is quixotic (Score:1)
So...you wont mind if I just walk into your home at any time, go through your drawers, watch you have sex, etc.
Privacy is necessary - psychologically. People seek out time for themselves if they do not have it. They seek privacy if it is not available to them on a normal basis. So do you. You NEED privacy every bit as much as you need socialization.
marketers and kids (Score:1)
Don't misunderstand. I object to all of the aggressive marketing efforts that are targeted at kids. I don't think that it's right to flood them with this commercial crap, much of which has little immediate or staying value. I think it confuses them and contributes to an increase in our already excessively materialistic society. I'm also very firm on my personal privacy - I loathe junk mail and unsolicited phone marketing.
We all know that 13 year-olds are 18 as far as the (Score:2)
Maybe there ought to be a law protecting web site owners from children.
Re:Which would you rather have? (Score:1)
the value of privacy??? (Score:1)
Maybe they were jealous... (Score:2)
Re:Which would you rather have? (Score:1)
Which would you rather have? (Score:4)
-
A world in which goverment and corporations have all the cameras, and give privacy "guarantees" to the private citizens they monitor, or
-
A world in which everyone has a camera, including private citizens, to watch anyone or anything they wish, at any time, including someone watching them.
Of course, option (2) is the death of privacy as we know it, but option (1) is the death of privacy, period.The core problem with privacy protection as people conceive it today is that it has to grapple with a fundamental inequality between the observer and the observed. It tries to correct for this inequality by extracting flimsy promises to maintain equality, usually backed with only the carrot of being labeled Good, and the stick of being labeled Bad. The problem is that the ones with the information are inherently amoral; they have no sense of right and wrong.
The primary thing that seems to have kept amoral entities from perform immoral acts in the past is that there has been at least some barrier, some extra work, involved in doing so. With ever accelerating technology, these barriers are now crumbling with exponential speed, making it easier and easier to not only intentionally, but unintentionally, perform immoral acts involving the breach of privacy. When it becomes as easy to correllate people with their detailed demographic information by doing a simple table join, what coropration or government will realistically be able to resist?
Instead, why not base the idea of privacy protection on equality between parties, a fundamental check and balance system which is self-correcting? Sure, this may make you feel like you're living in the Big Brother house, except that now, you get to do the same to Big Brother. Why should we settle for any less?
Privacy is dead (Score:1)
Hahaha (Score:5)
You are too young to fill out this form, please try again
Heh (Score:1)
I dunno about you guys, but I'm tired of being discriminated against. Kids get everything, free meals, free toys, free shelter. Now they get free constitutional rights? I have to shell out thousands to my state Senator if I want a luxury like that. Enough is enough!
Re:Heh (Score:1)
Re:Oy gevalt (Score:1)
In the case of online profiling, websites use things like cookie files to profit from internet users who, assuming they even know about it, never gave their permission. You can stop it by disabling cookies, which will also keep you from visiting a large number of websites. And it won't get rid of the information gathered on you before they were disabled; for that, you'll have to find out which sites were using them to gather info; then you'll need to find out what that site's ad-server is. Sometimes you only need to notice the url in the bottom left when you hold the mouse pointer over an ad. Other times it'll only show an IP address [207.199.1.174], leaving you to find out who it is. Sooner or later or by an act of god, you might find the adserver. At that point you can find out whether or not they give people the choice to opt-out of the theft of their persona information. If they don't give you a choice, you're done. If they do, you can take them up on the offer and trust that a company who's business is deception will keep their word and erase you from their database.
So I don't really see a comparison.
Oy gevalt (Score:2)
faceless victims (Score:2)
One would hope some of these laws could be a little less brutal for the companies. Don't get me wrong I'm all for privacy by all means [slashdot.org], however lawmakers also have to understand, there is no definite way to ensure that whomever is visiting a particular site is overage.
Somehow I can see this falling into a deep damning fight between privacy groups like the ACLU, EPIC, etc., and companies who could be held liable without true reasons. Negligence? I think not, what are some of these companies going to do, create a webcam, fingerprint, biometric system to check ages?
Lets get real about this, sure you could say, well they could use a credit card which would show they're over 13, but then a 13 year old can run into their parents belongings and enter a valid CC number. So where is the move to protect against those companies from being charged with crimes, from being victims themselves?
Privacy Links [antioffline.com]
Re:Oy gevalt (Score:1)
Snap out of it. I pay 35% tax, my employer pays about 2%. I work in a cubicle "farm" (my employer even calls it that), and am treated like a disposable commodity. Occasionally a new regime goes through an "empowerment is neat" phase, but it never lasts long enough to allow me to actually get any training or career development. However, if I work really, really, hard, I'll get a carrot. My owner, on the other hand, will get to buy Hawaii.
Re:Privacy is free... (Score:2)
They (Radio Shack) really wouldn't let you buy it at all without giving them something? I've bought things there before with my boyfriend, and they gave us hassle but eventually caved in after a few minutes of arguing. I bought a phone cord from one a couple of months ago, and all I had to do was tell him no and he easily finished the sale without it. (Maybe he could tell I was going to be a pain and just didn't bother...) Although it is certainly irritating that they ask in the first place. Best Buy asks for your ZIP code, I'm pretty sure Circuit City asks for personal information too. (Is this an electronics store thing?) I worked at an Eckerd Drugs for awhile, and also Michael's Arts & Crafts, and they both tried the asking for ZIP codes bit. About one in every ten people will give you a hassle, in which case we'd just enter the ZIP code where the store was located. This skewed whatever information they were trying to collect, I'm sure...needless to say the policies didn't last very long. I questioned the usefulness of it to begin with.
Odd that you had to make up info before they'd let you buy it. I'd say the salesmen are probably instructed to TELL you the computer won't complete the sale w/out filling it in, but in reality it's totally capable of completing it blank. Whenever a sales drone tells you something that sounds illogical like that, it's usually script. I've worked alot of retail jobs, and that's usually the case. Like when you ask if there are extra of something in the back, and someone says, "Sorry, everything we have is out on the shelves," what that really means is "Our stockroom is such a disorganized mess that we'd never find it in a million years if we DID have it, and I'm definately not going back there and digging around half an hour for you."
Children registering for events (Score:1)
I work with a site CM Planners [cmplanners.com],, and we have done a few events for children recently. Since there is not yet a mechanism for authenticating users, be they children or parents, we have relied upon the teachers or sponsors of these children to register them for specific events, and also require a paper (snail mail) registration (authenticated by the parent or sponsor) to register children for events.
dennis
Re:society today (Score:1)
--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"
whoa! (Score:1)
Does this mean I have to stop collecting information about the models on my website, www.preteenbuttcumsluts.com?
--
Re:Parental consent? (Score:1)
In the old days of a BBS, you'd have to fax a copy of your ID proving you were over a certain age, or the sysop (hah, remember those?) would call back and want to speak to the parent in charge.
Not a very foolproof system, but certainly better than "Check here if you're under 13"
Re:Privacy is dead - live with it (Score:1)
Re:What I'd like to see... (Score:1)
You can't have your cake and ... (Score:2)
I've spoken with my kids, of course, about NOT giving out phone numbers, addresses, etc... I only let them use the web browser when I'm in the room with them. But one really can't stand over teenagers and preteens every minute they are online. It's not enjoyable for either party, and you have to be able to teach your kids proper behavior and let them practice a bit on their own at some point before they turn 18.
But, I like seeing that someone is looking out for the kids. It is far more serious for a pre-teen to have someone get their real name, address, and so on, than it is for an adult. We try to train our children how to be safe and smart, but they aren't adults yet. And they aren't saavy.
Then again, how does one inform parents and get their permission? It's true, some kids could just sign up for some free e-mail throw-away account, enter it as their parents address, and then respond to the emails sent there, as though they were the parent. When my children have gone to online sites, such as Disney, or Mamamedia (?), I have cringed when they asked for my email address. I didn't want to give out my email and be getting spam. If the kids want to give out their email, and deal with spam, fine. But I don't want it in my mailbox!
In a perfect world, I'd like to see online companies held to such a restriction, that they can't collect or sell personal data on children. (Heck, I'd like to see that enforced for ALL Internet users, regardless of age, but for children especially.) But this isn't a perfect world. I don't see any easy solution.
Parent vigilance is the only way to deal with this at this point.
Heh. (Score:2)
Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You stole my data. Prepare to die.
Privacy? Is that a new word in the vocabulary? (Score:1)
Your Attempt at Humour Failed Miserably.. (Score:1)
Justifically Speaking (Score:1)
Yours truly
Resident George Bush
Who Monarch Services is/was (Score:1)
find some AH games still sold at Multi-Man enterprises somewhere on the net.
Just thought 10% would be interested.