Currently viewing the category: "Blog"
FREEBABAJANcropped3

An Interview with Baba Jan Hunzai

On By In Blog

 We endorsed the Open Letter Demanding the Release of Baba Jan Hunzai and have issued letters to Ministry of Human Rights, Pakistan. All petition signatures and requests will be forwarded to Mr. Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar,  Advisor to the Prime Minister on Human Rights. Below is an interview with Baba Jan Hunzai by Kiran Nazish

 

Last year, human rights activist Baba Jan Hunzai spoke out as an advocate for the former residents of Hunza Valley, whose homes were swept away by the lake formed after a 2010 land slide blocked the flow of the Hunza River. Named the Attabad Lake, it displaced over 1,000 people who lost their homes, livelihoods and access to the world. When these displacements did not get the government’s attention, and Pakistani authorities declined an offer of help from China, the hungry and homeless took to the streets to demand reimbursement. Read Full Article →

PageLines- Bolobhilogo.jpg

Pakistan’s Suspension of Mobile Services: Was it necessary?

On By In Access, Blog

 

On August 19, mobile phones services in various cities of Pakistan were suspended due to the potential threat of mobile-operated bombs planted in bazaars by terrorists. It was to avert this threat that the government said it had to suspend services in cities and areas on high alert.

On chaand raat, some were caught unaware and discovered themselves outside their homes and unable to get through to their families at home. The services of course were suspended first, and the confirmation by the government that they had been suspended followed after. Those who were still home when the suspension of services came into effect thought twice before stepping out. Read Full Article →

Screen shot 2012-06-15 at 6.30.55 AM

GNI Learning Forum 2012: Rights, practices and expression on the Internet

On By In Blog, Internet Freedom

The Global Network Initiative hosted its first Learning Forum in Washington DC on June 14, 2012. The discussion centred on safeguarding human rights, privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet. The other very interesting focus of discussion was on practices by businesses and Internet companies, and the engagement between them and governments where user data is concerned.

Learning Forum 2012 boasted a great line-up of speakers with considerable experience and expertise in their respective fields (see below or go here):

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society (via videoconference)

Dan Baer, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State

Bob Boorstin, Director, Public Policy, Google

Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative

Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute

Emily Butselaar, Online Editor, Index on Censorship (via videoconference)

Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments

Leslie Harris, President and CEO, Center for Democracy and Technology

Rebecca Mackinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation

Mike Newman, Chief Financial Officer, Websense

Sara Nordbrand, Sustainable Investment-Corporate Engagement, Church of Sweden

Ebele Okobi, Director, Business and Human Rights Program, Yahoo!

Meg Roggensack, Senior Advisor, Business & Human Rights, Human Rights First

Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Moderator
John Kampfner, GNI European Advisor and former Chief Executive, Index on Censorship

The Learning Forum started with an introductory note by Susan Morgan, (Executive Director, GNI). The proceedings of the day were broken down into three sessions with an interactive Q&A session at the end of every panel discussion . The first was titled Digital Freedoms in International Law: Practical Steps to Protect Human Rights Online. Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute presented a report co-authored by him and Douwe Korff from London Metropolitan University. This was followed by a discussion between Dan Baer (Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State), Bob Boorstin (Director, Public Policy, Google), Jillian York (Director for International Freedom of Expression, Electronic Frontier Foundation) and Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society [via videoconference]). The recording of this session can be viewed here: GNI Learning Forum 2012 – Session 1.

The second session focused on Policy Engagement on Business and Human Rights in the ICT Sector. Mike Newman (Chief Financial Officer at Websense) spoke about the stand they took against Pakistan’s Internet Filtration by making a public statement that Websense would not bid for the project. Other speakers, Emily Butselaar (Online Editor, Index on Censorship [via videoconference]), Sara Norband (Sustainable Investment-Corporate Engagement, Church of Sweden) and Meg Roggensack (Senior Advisor, Business & Human Rights, Human Rights First) discussed other country-specific issues and how they’ve been dealt with.

The third and final session began with a video message by Marietje Schaake, Dutch Member of European Parliament (D66/ALDE Group) after which GNI Board Members Ebele Okobi (Director, Business and Human Rights Program, Yahoo!), Bennett Freeman (Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments), Leslie Harris (President and CEO, Center for Democracy and Technology), Rebecca MacKinnon (Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation) gave their remarks on the day’s discussion and the way forward. The day came to an end with a concluding note by Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair, GNI.

See also #GNI2012 for tweets by attendees during the session and questions that were sent in.  You can also find a lot of the speakers on Twitter.

 

no-twitter

Twitter Banned in Pakistan

On By In Blog, Internet Freedom

no twitter 150x150 Twitter Banned in Pakistan

Once again, Internet users in Pakistan have been slapped with a ban.

Early in the day on May 20, 2012, Twitter users in Pakistan started encountering problems logging into their Twitter accounts. At first, Twitter was mostly inaccessible through browsers but accessible through applications on phones. It varied from one ISP to another as well as mobile networks, but by mid-afternoon Twitter was no longer accessible across Pakistan.

Speculation that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) had ordered ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to block the website proved true. Speaking to the Express Tribune, PTA Chairman Dr Mohammad Yaseen said the Authoirty had been instructed by the Ministry of Information and Technology (MoIT) to block Twitter after the administrators of the website refused to entertain their request “to stop a discussion on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which was considered derogatory.”

Speaking to Dunya TV, Minister for Information and Technology, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf said Facebook complied with the government’s request to remove blasphemous content, but Twitter refused. According to Yaseen, PTA simply passed on the orders to the ISPs and has no knowledge of how long the website is likely to remain blocked. Ironically, this ban comes hours after assurances by Interior Minister Rehman Malik that no such thing would happen.

Is this the first time a blanket ban has been imposed? No. Will it be the last time? Probably not.

Time and again, the government has blocked websites supposedly to protect ‘public sentiments and emotions’ and to prevent blasphemous material from circulating within Pakistan. This is being cited as a reason for the Twitter ban too. But this is akin to hitting your own foot with a hammer. Firstly, each time blanket bans are imposed, more attention is actually drawn towards such competitions and discussions. Secondly, what does banning the website in the country achieve?

As established at the time of the Facebook ban, banning such websites in Pakistan does not in any way hurt them monetarily. Trying to make an impact by taking away a minuscule percentage of users are delusions and nothing more. The increasing trend to engage with the administrators of these websites and ask them to remove certain content and subsequently blocking them when they don’t comply communicates one message: the government wants to make it clear that the website can operate in the country on their terms only and not otherwise. (See: E-regulations Timeline)

The more important question is, how long are Internet users in Pakistan going to put up with these bans? Why should the authority to make such decisions unilaterally reside with any state institution? Where do the end users figure? Where is the forum to engage and discuss to thresh out such issues and devise a plan of action? Where is the legislative framework to deal with such incidents? Calling shots unilaterally is dictatorial, not democratic, but that is all that is ever done. Then why harp on, “we are a democracy” … “we are committed to saving democracy in the country.”

Nobody intends any disrespect for religion or seeks to hurt the sentiments of the masses. There are ways to manage situations and banning certainly is not it. Visibly, the attitude of the authorities as evident through blanket bans is: “you do this or I do this.” And not only is this the tone adopted when dealing with the ‘aggressors’ so to speak, but also with one’s own people. Those who seek to oppose the ban are talked down to much in the same manner. The retorts are, “You want us to do nothing about blasphemous content” … “Are you supporting them?” Basically, if you are not with us, you are with them.

What is urgently required is the following:

Dialogue: A platform for all stakeholders to raise their concerns and be heard.

Framework: For a legal and policy framework to be constituted and put into place with the consensus of multi-stakeholders, in order to devise a proper system to respond to incidents of this nature and others.

Democracy: The power to unilaterally order blanket bans be diminished.

The ban on Twitter should be revoked and all plans of banning other websites in the coming days should be scrapped. It’s time enough that this issue is addressed properly once and for all instead of being up in arms every few months.

 

 

Journalist holds a placard during a protest against the killing of a journalist in Swat Valley

Seeking freedom: The Press in Pakistan

On By In Blog, empowerment, Uncategorized

 

Presentations were staged at Aiwan-i-Sadr, on the occasion of Press Freedom Day, raising questions, about the status of our freedom.

According to CPJ Pakistan has been the most dangerous place for journalists in the world, for two consecutive years. This year the UNSECO published a report saying Pakistan is the second most dangerous place.

42 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 1992, and 7 killed in 2011 alone. This according to CPJ makes Pakistan the most dangerous place for journalists in the world for that year. While many journalists are killed in the midst of a difficult situation during coverage, riots and militant attacks, most journalists are brutally murdered by the perpetrators of the crime they are covering. There have been overwhelming speculations against the state organs involvement in the killings of many significant names, which has worsened the condition on impunity in Pakistan.

Amar Guriro who reports from Karachi says, “These sacrifices are significant, and many of us are willing to take the risks, because that is our job. To get the story out, whether the perpetrators of crime like it or not”

The question also rises, whether these sacrifices of journalist are making the situation better or worse?

Looking at the results the Saleem Shahzad’s commission and what brought about this remarkable failure of the commission to present the culprits to the table, it is clear that the perpetrators of the crime were more powerful than the members of the commission. According to what Ayesha Siddiqa informed me ,  that she felt that the commission was not serious enough.Ms Siddiqa who herself was part of the commission believes that the commission could have done a better job.

Similarly, a political group in Karachi allegedly killed Wali Khan Babar but the media did not seem to highlight the issue with the  right focus and in the right direction, so as to materialize the identification of those involved in his killing.

We have many cases of journalists who had to flee the country to save their lives. Among  many, Malik Siraj Akbar, sought asylum from the US, due to threats because of his reporting from Balochistan. His website called The Baloch Hal, has been blocked by the PTA. Baloch Hal extensively reports on issues from Balochistan that are not widely discussed in the mainstream media. Baloch Hal is also the face of baloch issues, as it reports on many things that seem non-issue to other media or are at times under reported due to the threats of local reporters. Many local and international media picked up the issue of the brutal killing of Professor Saba Dashtiyari for his stance against the state, when Baloch Hal highlighted it.

Most direct and intense threats however, come from war reporting. Issues like militancy and insurgency have been found to be most difficult beat for journalists to cover. The Taliban have picked up many journalists from the FATA area while editors have been warned via phone calls. The government seems to take no interest in such cases and disengages from any complaints that are highlighted by the journalist community.

Protests and rallies after Saleem Shahzad brutal murder, did not make any difference in the lack of freedom that journalists have in this country, especially if they report on war and its perpetrators. One year later more protests and rallies were seen when Mukkaram Khan Atif was brutally murdered by the Taliban.

According to the website of Tribal Union of Journalists, “Political administration in FATA tried its best to stop tribal journalists from showing the real suffering and on ground realities of the tribal people to the outside world. In the process, they went to the extent of putting some journalists behind bars under the notorious collective Territorial Responsibility clause of the Frontier crimes Regulation [FCR, 1901.] like dictatorial governments, the administration did not even tolerate constructive criticism of the tribal system and went to the extent of expelling dissenting journalists from their areas.”

There is a special neglect towards the tribal journalists in the country that I have been a witness to. In terms of security, training and resources, the tribal journalists suffer the most. It is in-fact very ironic, as these reporters, stringers and photographers are in the front line of the war Pakistan is fighting. The media organization that these journalists work for also put them through unnecessary difficulties by not proving proper equipment and salaries. Most tribal journalists are not even paid for their work. In some cases a few local publications, ask to arrange advertisements, every time they want their byline published. Quite clearly, this is deliberately becoming a repugnant trade.

It is quite obvious that in such a situation, the financial challenges faced by these reporters make them indulge into irresponsible journalism and at times, outright misreporting.

What matters, is that ultimately journalism suffers and the stories that resultantly get out are either biased, favored or downright misleading. In order to make relevant space for truth to be told, a lot has to be done by the Government and the journalism industry itself. To say we celebrate the Press Freedom Day would be in-apt, as we are still besieged by our interpretation of Press Freedom in this country.

 

lums

Roundtable Discussion on Internet Policy & Law At LUMS

On By In Blog

REPORT

Lahore University of Management Sciences recently launched Research Initiative on Internet and Society. As a part of the Internet and Society, Bolo Bhi was invited to participate at the roundtable discussion on Internet Policy and Law.

The Roundtable was moderated by Dr. Ali Qazilbash, Chair of the Department of Law and Policy, and Dr. Adil Najam, Vice Chancellor LUMS.  Around 35 experts  took part in the conversation including High Court judges, lawyers, business representatives, academics, scholars, activists and students.

The key focus of the conversation was to highlight and discuss key priorities and issues that should matter when it comes to internet laws and policy in Pakistan. The roundtable is one of the series that LUMS intends to host on Internet Law and Policy in order to further the conversation and facilitate policymaking.  The areas that were discussed were Internet Policy and Law in Pakistan categorizing in to four main  focus areas of (a) rights, (b) legislation, (c) delivery mechanisms and (d) capacity building.

The presence of High Court judges in attendance paved room for a discussion on needs for lawmakers to be up to date with technology and internet policy and governance issues to be able to comprehend the issues better. It was agreed upon that more engagement with civil society and businesses will help make lawmakers understand the impacts of poorly worded or wrongly applied legislation. It was also noted that the absence of legislation was allowing authorities to covertly censor content.

One of the crucial points in the discussion was the opinion of a few that legislation and laws that apply to our social spaces should be replicated for the cyberspace. While this help in cases such as copyright laws, it can have drastic impact on human rights and fundamental rights online. We are thankful to Lahore University of Management Sciences, Dr. Ali Qizilbash and Dr.Adil Najam for initiating the series of discussion and for inviting us to be a part of the pertinent discussion.

 

Master.Ayub_.Khan_

Adopt A School: Help Master Ayub

On By In Blog, empowerment

Master Ayub has been teaching unprivileged children for over a decade.  In an open air classroom in a park in Sector F-6, he teaches over 200 children free of cost. Most of the students are street-children working at nearby restaurants. As part of our empowerment project, we want to make Master Ayub’s school sustainable, by providing books,stationary and other useful items.

Maham Ali is our contact person and project lead for this school. Maham has been working as a volunteer at Master Ayub’s school along with providing financial support. If you’re in islamabad we suggest you get in touch with @mahamalio5 and get involved in donating items rather than cash. In case, you are unable to donate or prefer cash donations email us at empowerment@bolobhi.org with ‘Pledges for Master Ayub’ as subject. We believe in transparency. All information regarding the utilization of funds will be available on our website.

Bolobhi logo final

Timeline: Campaign against Internet Censorship in Pakistan

On By In Blog, Internet Freedom
As we continue the campaign against internet censorship, we feel it is crucial to inform  supporters in order to maintain momentum. Civil society groups both within and outside Pakistan have been working collectively against the impending internet censorship in Pakistan.
We still have not heard back from the Government, Ministry of IT or ICT Rnd Fund
The timeline below enlists statement and media coverage the issue has received thus far.
Day one press release:
Day two press release:
Media Coverage:
eff_no_censorship

The debate: What is free internet? Who decides what can be filtered?

On By In Blog, Cyber security, Internet Freedom

Efforts have been made by governments around the world, both authoritarian and democratic, to shut down Web sites, silence bloggers, filter out certain words or censor negative information.In order to highlight the diverse opinions on internet regulations and the concept of ‘Free Internet’ we will be publishing a wide range of opinions to get the debate going. The idea that ‘morality’ and ‘objectionable content’ is subjective, can be seen through these opinion pieces. Here’s one by Dr. Muddassar Farooq,
Professor & Head (Department of Electrical Engineering) FAST-NUCES Islamabad 

Pieces published here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Bolo Bhi Team, unless otherwise stated. 

 

I– in principle — do not agree with the so-called fancy term “Free Internet” because that does not exist. The word “Freedom” has at least two dimensions: (1) the freedom to access any informaton on the Internet; and (2) the gurantee that my privacy is not breached (while I a surfing) due to evaesdropping. No country (to the best of my knowledge) in the world gurantees both freedoms to its citizens (especially in post 9/11 arena). For example, in Germany nobody can say anything about “Holocast” because it is protected under a Law as an exception.

The constiution of a country defines (at least in the civilized world) everthing — dos and do nots — and our constiution says that “Pakistan is an Islamic Republic”. In other word, our Parliment decided with the needed majority that we are not going to be a Secular country. Those of us who want to make Pakistan a Secular country should keep on following their struggle but until the Constiution is ammended, merely voicing concerns on Secular paradimgs is of little legal value.

Once we want to filter the contents three types of things — based on our religion and culture — come to ones mind: (1) contents related to Blasphemy; (2) pornogrpahic adulat content; and (3) Anti-state content. I belive our constiution allows us to block the first two types because of its foundation in religion; however, the anticiapted misuse (or fear of misuse) is blocking “anti-state content” (recall arena of dictators in Pakistan).

I suggest the following roadmap, if we were to have this system

1. RFP has given approximately 1 month to respond to the call. I have been writing ICTRDF proposal; therfore, rest assured that most of the proposals would be third party vendor solutions or adapting already developed solutions. Writing a knowledge-driven idea cannot happen within a month. This undue haste is creating the impression that the Board wants to favor some company that has already a solution (may be inappropriate for this purpose). If we have lived for 15 years without such a system, we could live for couple of more years as well but let us first develop consensus on the need and requirements of the system by consulting all stakeholders.

2. If we were to have that sytem ultimately deployed, then first bring all stakeholders on a table — Politicians, Religioius Scholars, IT experts, Policy Analysts etc. Since PM is the chairman of the Board, an act of Parilment is the best option to back this solution. The same act could clearly identify a commitee — consisting of 5 judges of Suprement Court nominated by the Judicial Commission — that is authorized to issue an order to block the websites. No body in the establishment (Civil or Military) can be assigned this duty. This would ensure that if some agencies are pissed off with a site, they could not block it. Similary, the people in the government could not arbitrarly delcare a site as “anti-state” if it is criticizing the government.

To conclude, let us not put the “cart infront of the horse”. Once the parliment has an act, I can say with pride that if the Parliment of Germany says “No comments on Holocast” as a Law and everyone respects that then everyone must respect the decision of the “Pakistani Parliment” as well. The technology can be developed later (or in parallel) once we have a consensus-driven legal framework. Last but not least, blocking the websites would not merely solve the problem because of mirror sites. The requirement to detect and classify banned content (an accurate content filtering system) is also needed. Just to highlight the challenge, we were unable to develop an accurate “skin filter” that has high detection accuracy and low false alarms. Such an intelligent system is a true challenge and falls with regular ICTRDF R & D proposals category as well.

I wish you and ICTRDF best of luck. I hope my suggestions would provide a comprehensive review to the problem and might help in developing and refining a better Website Blocking and Filtering law (or policy) and implementaton stratiges.

PageLines- Home-Security-and-Digital-Home-Security.jpg

The Dangers of a Content Filtration System

On By In Blog, Cyber security, Internet Freedom, Privacy

Home Security and Digital Home Security The Dangers of a Content Filtration System

What would happen if a content filtration system such as the one The National ICT R&D Fund has advertised seeking proposals for were put in place? How would it affect the privacy of Internet users in Pakistan and what kinds of abuses would it invite? A discussion by a member on a social networking site sheds light on some of these questions and more….

(published as posted)

“So for all of those asking what is wrong with implementing such a system, let me put a few points out.”

Technical Background:

1. The Government already has a tap on the International Fibers from the two peering points (TWA and PTCL), i.e. the two submarine cable operators in Pakistan.

2. All the traffic to/from Pakistan flows through these peering points and the two taps. The two taps go to “Government” where exactly (PTA? Military? Etc.) No one knows and no one wants to talk about it.

3. What happens with these existing taps? You can very well imagine, they can do DPI (Deep Packet Inspection) of all the traffic. What they cannot open right now are encrypted packets, such as packets by Skype, HTTPS sessions and VPN or other encrypted sessions.

4. Under the guise of blocking grey VOIP (voice over IP) traffic, etc. the various agencies (MI, ISI, IB, etc.) have already managed to get the taps and be able to look at the payload traffic (essentially peer into your traffic) be able to “assemble” your packet-stream and reconstruct your Web or Email or FTP session. This is very easy to do with the right tools, provided you have the ability to tap into the link. Currently Government uses Narus to do this. Remember the official story is that it is to curb Grey VOIP traffic that is supposedly causing loss to the national exchequer in the Million (Billions, etc.).

5. The government has been trying for a long time to tap into the VPN and encrypted
circuits. This they did with a legislation / circular by PTA to register ALL VPN circuits in the country. You can look at the current URL for more information (Virtual watchdog: Internet users banned from browsing privately for ‘security reasons’).

6. Now what remains to reign in the control is – blocking of URLs (porn? anti-state propaganda material, anti-Islam material?) All of these clauses are part and parcel of the various Data Communication Licenses that have been given to the various operators. So the way PTA sees it – this is something long overdue.

7. Under the guise of the URL filtering, HTTPS sessions would also be tapped. In order to do this, all HTTPS sessions would be subjected to something called Man In The Middle Attacks (MITM). This basically says, you proxy the original HTTPS certificate/session (say as given by Gmail) and provides the user a locally owned Certificate (lets call this Pakistan URL Filtering Certificate) and with this, you have essentially been able to now looking into HTTPS (Secure) traffic:

8. This is a huge issue. With all the dissidents, anti-state activists, persons of interests, political figures, etc. The government will be able to see the HTTPS traffic and be able to identify the sources.

9. With Gmail, it currently establishes an HTTPS session and obfuscates the Source IP of the sender of the email. This is a stone in the government’s shoe, they cannot “identify” where these people are, and with this HTTPS peering ability, they will be able to do this just so easily as they can do with HTTP sessions.

How this can be abused and misused:

11. Any blanket privacy you had with respect to HTTPS is gone. So Internet banking secures communication, email, etc. all out of the door.

12. They will be able to capture all your User IDs and Password and specific answers to secret questions that you are suppose to provide in order to recover access to your email accounts.

13. Anyone who is a whistle blower can be identified. Anyone who does not agree with the government can be identified. Anyone can be pressured. Think the McCarthyism – this is where we are heading. Big Brother is always watching and collecting information (personal dossiers) on its citizens. Now they can comfortably collect the “digital” information of its citizens.

14. The state should define and elaborate what it considers as anti-sate content. Is human rights violation in Baluchistan anti-state? Is illegal abduction and torture by intelligence agencies?

15. How does one challenge a wrong decision?

16. What are the repercussions of bypassing and viewing such content? Can it land you behind bars?

17. What / Where is the accountability factor in this?

 

18. How do we ensure privacy rights are not invaded when your conversations are accessible?

19. What about the MISUSE of the information collected? Pressure tactics, blackmail, etc

20. How does one challenge the government’s writ in such an implementation, which is a clear and gross violation of your basic fundamental rights?

21. Who / Where are the definitions of what is anti-state, anti-religious, anti-moral etc? How do you agree on a consensus of what a decision is? How do you challenge it? How do you modify it?

Currently the constitution states that ‘distribution’ of blasphemous and obscene content is illegal. However, such content available on the Internet is not ‘distributed’. The access is voluntary not imposing.

22. What about data-retention and data mining being done on this data collected?

23. What about Court-approved taps (such powers are supposed to be limited and only with a court-approved order are you able to insert taps). Most software vendors who provide such tapping software and reconstructions software for hand-off (technical term used in industry), have appropriate sections for implementing such Court-orders into the software for proper logging.

24. This LI (Lawful Intercept) is no longer lawful nor being monitored by any member of the legislative or court bodies. In fact it is hushed.
25. Such a system will give the government extra muscle to go after “activists” – “liberals” – “troublemakers” – You and I. Anyone who is a hindrance, becomes a target.

26. The proper way is to bring this out to the National Assembly, have it challenged and formulated with limited power, oversight committees, a quasi civilian (rotating) watchdog and with very restricted perimeters.

cleardot The Dangers of a Content Filtration System
Page 3 of 712345...Last »