Schneier on Security

Dean • May 14, 2015 3:27 PM

Eh, he looks like a nice guy. Rogers doesn’t come up on my “ack” radar much, though. Scanning his resume on wikipedia, I also don’t see the sort of disturbing defense contracting links some of these guys have.

No ‘dead eyes’ sort of look about him, lol. “Is it a human, or a shark”, lol, thing.

Like Cheney or Clapper. 😛

Dean • May 14, 2015 10:36 PM

@Beepeepeep

I am not a “spook”. I just read a lot and have a good memory, and probably have a few decades on you. And I do stuff “like” what some of them do, so I can relate to some of that stuff. I mean literally. That, supernatural horror, and some other topics, makes me feel normal. 🙂

I have worked around some, so I feel confident in my statements. Also run into a few ex-ones, like a neighbor who was ex military intelligence, something he would glibly say is an oxymoron.

*Cultural – The spooks I have spoken with in the past have not been amicable to things I view as part and parcel of hacker culture, like file sharing or looking up taboo topics out of sheer curiosity.

I am aware there have been many efforts made within the NSA to change the culture in order to attract more hackers, but I can’t imagine the post-Snowden changes would be appealing for potential employees.

One guy I knew put the difference between NSA types and CIA types thusly: ‘NSA types are shoegazers, CIA types are outgoing and personable”.

The guy who said that is one of the top 20 hackers in the past twenty years. He also has worked deep at a defense contractor.

I have not read most of the books out there on the NSA. I have read a lot on KGB, CIA, Mossad, FBI, and others. Army counterintelligence. Only people I have known from the NSA left early. My understanding is they were not typical for NSA, at all.

Typical for NSA seems like pretty much people that went high school, then college, then into the NSA. I mean that its’ self says a lot. There’s linguists, but they kind of break that mold. Defense contractors of that sort. More comfortable in buttoned up long sleeve shirts, shirt tucked in, belt kind of people. Probably they wear loafers at home.

But comparing that sort to the other sort is absurd. Totally different animals.

There are a lot of different people.

Someone getting antsy about you file sharing or whatever else you are talking about reminds me of defense contractors. They are not really “in”. But they have to take rigorous lie detector tests, drug tests. Not being really “in” makes them very paranoid. Like they might be watched at any minute and second guessed on trivial stuff no one cares about. You can tell them from a mile away. Real shoe gazers. They reek spy, and that kind of spy.

*Ideological – I have personal ideologies against the Federal government’s perspective on copyright. Obviously spooks aren’t trying to catch file sharers, but historical events like spooks focusing on Kim DotCom or The Pirate Bay does not endear me to the profession.

Weird, not much comment there… I use netflix and hulu and such. Did file sharing many years ago. Don’t have strong beliefs about it.

Do not really think about it at all.

I take it you probably don’t have much of a career yet, so not much salary. Can’t really judge. When I didn’t make much money, like the FBI, relied on all sorts of hacked stuff.

(Yeah, the FBI used to use pirated copies of software because their it was so underfunded.)

*Parallel Construction – I am aware this problem is far larger than just the NSA, but I am morally against the practice.

Law enforcement.

Mostly DEA cases is what I have seen. A lot of them I think are despicable. But you admit breaking rules to get stuff done, too. :/

That is not spying though, not intelligence. Spies don’t arrest people, even counterintelligence spies rarely – very, very rarely – do that. That isn’t intelligence at all. Yeah, cops were given intelligence data, so guess that was confusing…?

But, yeah? Very big thing. Spies are very different from cops. Sometimes I have read of special agents in fbi moving to counterintelligence. And they can fuck it up really bad if not very well trained out of that mindset. Cops arrest people. Spies do other shit.

…

You have to do your homework if you want to get into that stuff, or even entertain the thought. Otherwise, forget about it.

Don’t be lazy and just go by rumors and what people on the internet say who also never met anyone, don’t do anything remotely similar (except maybe something like using drugs illegally and that, poorly), stuff like that.

Spies actually break the law and get away with it, foreign spies anyway. Part of the job.

It is about mind fucks and diversions, getting information, chasing the big stories, manipulation. Mind games. Mental chess and go.

If you mean by “spy” FBI cop hacker, very different. I do not have much advice there. I don’t think you would want to be a cop is why.

Trust – General Alexander’s post-Snowden-revelations response did convince me that he has the best of intentions, but only that. I do not like it that General Alexander implicitly threatened the InfoSec community with combing through all of their personal info if they did not help the National Security community prevent terrorist attacks. The constant word games do not help when I can’t trust that we share definitional understanding of colloquial terms.

General Alexander and Clapper are dickheads. General Alexander is a soldier, was, though. The “General” in the title gives that way. I don’t think that should be confused with spying.

Clapper has the intrigue mindset. But I do not like him. This direction to push domestic surveillance is just stupid. Pushing encryption backdoors is a lose.

Snowden was definitely a spy in what he did, by my book. That was exceptional work. I don’t think he had much humanint work before that, though.

I respect him. I don’t respect Ames or Hanssen, though. I respect most of the old KGB and related who turned though. They did it for ideological reasons and were right to do so.

I respect their skills, though I respect Philby’s skills far moreso. Think he was a naive dipshit ideologically, though. He did not do his homework on the soviet union. Or was a triple agent.

For me being scared of the unknown, it’s more complicated than that. The Federal government is its own worst enemy when it comes to attracting talent. On the one hand they beg for hackers to work for them to improve national security. On the other hand there have been Federal prosecutors that have remorselessly driven hackers to suicide over relatively benign infractions. Aaron Swartz hasn’t been the only casualty.

What they did to Aaron Swartz was shit. But again you are confusing very disparate agencies, organizations, and individuals. It is all just a big monolith to you, it sounds like. That is not how things work.

That prosecutor was a genuine shit.

But that was that prosecutor and those who went that way. Not everyone. That gets into the same sort of bigotry that racists, sexists, and other bigots get into. Not to be too harsh, but getting worst case examples from any group and saying they represent Everyone Of That Group is a strawman argument. It is unfair to everyone else.

If you want to see good and bad cops, watch stuff like Cold Cases Files and Death Row Stories.

The Federal government is its own worst enemy when it comes to attracting talent. On the one hand they beg for hackers to work for them to improve national security.

Again, very very small subset.

A ton of hackers work for defense contractors these days, and there are all sorts. Pot smoking, jeans, shorts, tshirt. No clearance, just NDAs.

Not my scene, but just saying.

When “wget” has been called a hacker tool by prosecutors, I am terrified of the thought of doing anything that’d have any info on me, no matter how benign I may perceive it, of being passed to one of those sociopaths.

No idea what dipshit made that kind of argument, but again, that is cop stuff, and that is some far flung example.

Far from spy stuff.

The only way to be safe is not to generate the information in the first place. And if that means intellectually neutering myself by avoiding many topics of research and no longer following my curiosity, so be it.

Sounds like a safe course of action, though not very exciting. You intimate on here you are commiting some kind of crimes. You were vague about what kinds… except of filesharing. But that stands out.

And your opinions seem very one sided, on a lot of these issues. Very, very stereotypical and the worst sorts of views on government. Which you post about online. You seem to have beliefs about. And to engage in. So you will continue to post on.

I am just suggesting to do your homework.

You talked about the subject like it held something for you, some kind of fire. So, I gave some suggestions. I can’t make you watch that stuff or read those books, though.

Can’t get any easier then watching what really are very entertaining shows as a start, though. Heh. So, not sure what to say about that.

I get upset about government abuses to. Don’t work in government. Tons and tons of computer security jobs, though. Huge field. Niche, very strong demand. They offshore a lot of tech jobs, but security jobs tend to stay onshore. It is a very stable field. If you do your homework.

My own self, you present yourself like your early 20s? I focused on finding “the meaning of life” and such in my 20s. Spent a lot of time hanging out with pot smoking friends. Music. Art.

I was motivated. I read, I studied. Not career wise, though.

I do suggest you mix up your sources, though. Getting all your information from what you know is one particular bent is not going to be healthy for you or anyone. People end up red neck conservatives or daft far left loopy. Or they get mature, get both angles.

Anyway, just some advice. Not to be an old fart lecturing you. I do work in comp sec and have for quite some time. It is not spy work. It is hacking. I secure shit. I find weaknesses and figure out ways to plug them up. One part of the job. The job market is deeply lacking qualified candidates.

If someone is telling you something else, do not believe them. Check out job postings. Terms like computer security, even hacking will bring out a lot. CISSP. Vulnerability. Nexpose.

If that is what you want to get into, then start studying that route. I would suggest forgetting about all the spy stuff, though, if that is the case.

The stuff you are talking about sounds like cop stuff, though.

Dean • May 15, 2015 2:34 AM

@Beepeepeep

I am not going to leave you high and dry. Just didn’t think there was anything else to say. But sounds like you have a lot of passion on these topics. What I can’t figure out is the mixed emotion about the subject.

I think I am missing some key elements of the puzzle that is you.

Thinking about it, two questions.

Question One:

The spooks I have spoken with in the past have not been amicable to things I view as part and parcel of hacker culture, like file sharing or looking up taboo topics out of sheer curiosity.

Tell me about that. You are in your 20s. In college, you said? What spooks did you speak with? Why did you mention filesharing to them? What, on earth, taboo topics? Lol. I mean, maybe something you don’t want to say, eh? “Taboo”, and all? But… like donkey fucking or something? Summoning revenants? Is this where you got the idea the NSA wants to hire hackers but have a stick up their ass?

Something happened there, and I need clarity on that to understand your perspective.

Question Two:

Why, after all that you are saying, would you ever, ever even begin to entertain the idea of being a hacker for the government?

Dad in military? Brother? Someone in there you, somehow, you got a positive idea about government.

I think you just want to see that someone can understand your concerns and answer them, see you for you who are. Beyond any trifially bullshit appearance. Appreciate your potential capacity.

That is my read on you.

Talk to me, help me figure this out. You sound like you have the confidence you can be someone, do something. But you have some concerns. Totally understandable. Everyone does.

Not sure how much time I will have tomorrow. Stayed up late getting everything ready for this weekend. Exhausted. But I won’t leave you high and dry. I get your passion, it is there, and I am listening.

Just don’t tell me you have a secret hidden irresistable penchant for women over 70. Okay? Heard that one just a feeeew too many times. GAWK

Fuck. SRSLY.

• Dean

Dean • May 15, 2015 1:00 PM

@Beepeepeep

If I look at Admiral Rogers rhetoric, he has made statements condemning use of proxies.

Are you thinking he meant http proxies in that statement? Or are you concerned that Intelligence might believe you are operating as a “proxy” for a foreign nation?

Dean • May 15, 2015 2:10 PM

@Beepeepeep

“NSA chief wary of proxies”

http://fcw.com/articles/2015/05/11/nsa-wary-of-proxies.aspx

“One of the trends I look for increasingly in the future … [is] do you see nation-states start to look for surrogates as a way to overcome our capabilities in attribution?” Rogers said May 11 in remarks at a cybersecurity event at George Washington University.

That is about using third parties. Using a third party as a proxy for your attacks would be like China using the Triads or the FBI using the Cosa Nostra.

Like Russia hacks out of Ukraine using organized crime as a cover.

They could hack out of England.

China claims all the time they are used as a launching attack against the US. Not plausible. But what if they were.

What if Russia took the Equation Group code and used it to bring down the economy of Saudi Arabia? Would look like the US did it.

That is what he is talking about.

I thought you got that confused, but was not sure if you were thinking maybe your fear was you being used as a “proxy”. Because you were talking about being scared of being misunderstood.

It was difficult for me to understand how you could have thought the head of the NSA was concerned about using web proxies.

Dean • May 15, 2015 3:26 PM

@Beepeepeep

Well that’s a small relief. Goes to show me that I need to keep vigilant against clickbait headlines.

And I even believed that as I have absolutely zero idea what is considered a threat. I’ve had my expectations shattered so many times that I try not to make assumptions on the floor of what constitutes a threat.

In security, you always have to think about threats in terms of being as accurate as possible. A security professional is not a layperson who is worried about threats that are unlikely to happen. You try and be as realistic as possible. That is exactly a problem with some of the US approaches to dealing with the post-911 environment.

That is a vast subject. But to the point: you are overblowing threats against your own self, and extrapolating extraordinary events into common events. I am not sure if that is entirely the source of your anxiety, because I see another problem here.

Another problem is that you picked a thread that deals with a primary security voice meeting with the head of the NSA, and use that thread to talk about your interests in downloading information on explosions, murder, poisons, getting rid of bodies, and downloading ISIS recruitment videos.

Likewise, you have stated that you have stated your interest in such things to federal officers in the past, and have been puzzled at why they were bothered by your statements.

My point is that is risky behavior. You know that, so it is understandable that you have anxiety about it. Maybe you are being misunderstood.

People get that way about social exchanges like making a statement at a party. Of course you can get that way over such exchanges. And your mind likely extrapolates it from there. This is, also, just what you are saying.

This is different from your question about “who is a threat”. I am talking about your anxiety problem and probably why you are way over extrapolating security data — because you are operating in fear when you do it, and not in calm reasoning. Anxiety is normal, but you have to practice and learn how to maintain your reasoning faculties when you have it. That does not come naturally. It requires tremendous effort, practice.

This is just stuff you have said here, in this ultimately short conversation. You probably do this sort of stuff quite a bit. So who knows what might be a source of anxiety in the back of your mind.

I will post again momentarily on a separate problem here: “is it likely anyone considers you a threat.”

Dean • May 15, 2015 5:15 PM

@Beepeepeep

Context-less, those actions are damning. With context, they are benign. And no system of automated investigation that I’m aware of is able to discern context to such a degree.

I was about to start with that.

However, I am not stating you are definitely benign. You have indicators that would raise suspicion in anyone who is experienced. I am thinking these indicators are intentionally fraudulent on your part, but I can not be entirely sure.

This is probably why some have reacted towards you with hostility. Because they detect you are sending some kind of challenging message.

Does that mean you probably would make a good terrorist suspect, simply from these statements you have made? No, not yet. But if you are being as straight up as possible, you likely have engaged in significant criminal activity which has hurt others. You likely will continue to engage in that in the future. And as you are particularly focused on authority figures, that may even be substantially harmful behavior.

Terrorist, however? That is a different story. I have spoken to terrorists online before. As well as foreign spies, cops, criminals, all sorts. But, no, you have not given any likely terrorist indicators, besides that your statements on these dangerous interests may be flaunting. Which terrorists most certainly do engage in exactly that sort of speech.

The main terrorist I remember who really struck out in my mind, I talked with him for a very long time. This was before 911. He indicated foreknowledge of a terrorist attack which was impossible for anyone else to know. That is how he eventually signed out of the conversation.

I myself engage in activity that would interest some people. So I know how that is to think in that way. To know you have secrets the other person very much would like to know. And to engage them. To see how smart they are. And to see how smart you are.

This is probably why rapport like this is easy for me with such people.

Because neither of us are who people think we are. At all. And both are confident that we can say very much and never say anything at all. But something always leaks. People want their secrets to be known, especially when they are proud of them.

Like I said, however. I am not a cop. I am not a spook who works for the US Government. I also am not a criminal. Still, I work in some kind of security capacity, and do not present myself otherwise, so I do not get real open admittance and boasts from people.

I do not envy those who have to do that.

Dean • May 15, 2015 7:56 PM

@Beepeepeep

Anyway, a few points on some of the topics you raised. Probably better to be in squid thread, but too often people don’t like moving threads. It is related to NSA, I guess.

Do They Perform Context Analysis in Linguistic Analysis

I think we can assume that that kind of analysis is being performed, but it is going to be very poor. You can break up language in meaningful ways to derive context, and there can be some success at profiling people by language. Can it detect people pretending to be something they are not? Yes, but only that.

Getting into these details, however, right away misses the gorilla in the room, however. People actually have a tendency to do what they say. Like the great Hitler scenario. Hitler said what he was going to do. Problem was a lot of people did not pay attention to that.

With belief motivated actors, this is especially true. Their actions and their speech align, like with anyone. They also, more importantly, congregate around others with similar viewpoints. This is a major reason why some consider advocacy of violence by speech highly dangerous, and it is controversial where it is not made illegal.

Merely going by keywords is never going to be very strong. But it probably can help find areas previously unknown. I have to admit this, though I am opposed to widespread surveillance of secret speech. However, I am not opposed to widespread surveillance of speech which has no expectation of privacy. I do not see that conversation come up much directly.

Even that method, however, is very weak. Because, again, the gorilla in the room: terrorists and others that are likely to act out in severe violence based on their belief system will tend to recruit. They have a problem, because their system is a social system. It needs and feeds on advertisement.

Contrast this, for instance, with thieves. Thieves don’t need to tell hardly anyone else they are thieves.

Terrorists, be they religious or political by motivation, however are essentially social. Like legitimate political and religious beliefs.

Which means there will always be ‘tips of the iceberg’ which are not secret, and which are advertised.

Surveillance of open mediums can help find those areas, but largely people work does the best, or targeted searching. If you want to find where conservatives congregate, for instance, you don’t need to pick up all of Facebook or all radio channels to do that. It would be tremendously resource killing and diversionary to do that.

But besides these points, how can we know this is being done? Because it is very well advertised its’ self. There is a tremendous amount of study published on linguistic analysis. It can not be more obvious but to do that, and this can be pointed out because anywhere language is being processed contextual analysis is being performed and constantly improved on.

That can help legal systems, I definitely think. Kind of a moot point, however, as they will do it anyway. The demand is too great. Just like Google will do it anyway, or Facebook. This is not in and of its’ self bad. It is just the natural evolution of technology according to the needs of human beings.

I do not think anyone assumes that contextual analysis is not performed.

Can it be well performed? Of course, not. But like with systems we know of which do this, contextual analysis can definitely help narrow massive gaps.

Dean • May 15, 2015 11:07 PM

@Geoffrey

You brought up some very interesting philosophical insights.If you don’t mind me asking, what’s your take on Sony Pictures hack?

Why thank you. Hard earned insights. When you deal with weird shit, you either make sense out of it or go crazy. At times, both.

I suppose this is at least partially in reference to this:
http://fcw.com/articles/2015/05/11/nsa-wary-of-proxies.aspx

Which is the link which came up on the “proxies” comment. I do have a lot of comments on “surrogates” and “proxies”. 🙂 So will stick to that context.

Frankly, the case has not interested me much. I just reviewed the wikipedia view of it. So there is mystery sorrounding attribution because: 1) a hacker seeming gang was seemingly involved even claiming some kind of Christian religious and maybe GOP tie? and 2) because there was some evidence found of an insider penetration dating back to around a year before?

I just do not see the mystery. Their language was bad. GOP probably was literally trying to pretend to be more American. Anything but NK. They probably did not really understand the term. Reminds me of when Hanssen used the name “Garcia” hoping the Soviets might read into the “cia” at the end of the Garcia… mixed with typical “lost in translation” crap you can expect from such an isolated regime. Who, btw, has never kidnapped Americans to really understand them. 😛

As for an insider, my goodness. You mean NK could actually get someone inside the company? What a shock.

NK should be expected to have that capacity of sophistication on every front. And even to understand the US would be “that pissed” about it, they better distance themselves.

Can anyone prove that kind of thing? Probably not. Not unless you get a mole, which would be a bitch in that regime. One who specifically knew the details of that operation.

But there are plenty of defectors, and I would be surprised if SK, at least, did not have some kind of very distantly operated agents. How dependable they would be, well, the regime is so isolated, and NK isn’t so dumb as to be incapable of running double agents…..

As for the mind boggling action of the hax0r group calling themselves “Gd’s Apostles” (probably sic, not checking their spelling)… distancing, again – “Distancing” – is as basic of an action as you can get.

I can probably think for a moment and come up with a ton of historical precedents on any of this….

I will tell you that China very often has relied on hax0r tools for their hacks. It is deniable, that is why. I have seen that in the wild, seeing cases from hacks against free tibet sorts of organizations. Could it have just been overly patriotic Chinese operating independently of their government? Yes. But, obviously, you don’t want to throw your gold to pigs and dogs… you want to use plausible deniable code a lot.

Why not?

I have also seen a security bug sold to China that ended up hacking a financial firm. Way back when. That shocked me. Did it get attributed to China? No. I could have. I knew the guy who sold it. I knew the guy who discovered the bug. (Two different people, two very different countries.) And I was the American expert who was quoted in talking about the bug. 🙂

How can I say that? Cause it is old news. Because no one is going to quote me on that, and it is a highly improbable story.

I was going to add to this thread some slice and dice of the history of “intelligence by proxy”. I decicded not to, but will add some here:

Way back when, during the Cold War, you know the KGB used to give arms to both the palestinians and the ira. They did it a lot and were caught in rare instances. They made concern in all of the equipment, to remove all trace of where it came from in case it was caught. But that its’ self was signal flares. The efforts involved in such operations must have been huge: you have to ensure the contacts in each respective group kept “the conspiracy” – “maintained the conspiracy” – you had to ensure the delivery was anonymous, at the least. Financing. Everyone involved either could not know, or who did know (for instance, on the delivery ships) had to be kept extremely controlled.

But… Iran, Contra?

There are countless examples of these sorts of things in 20th century espionage, anyway.

When you are running cover, the most Not You things you can do, that is important to know. Critical to know. You are a Christian? Be a Satanist. You absolutely hate drugs? Smoke some crack. You love your wife and hate adultery? Fuck a whore.

Stuff like, yelling the company line does not work. “Oh guys, come on, I swear I am a Marxist, totally, like I wish I could snort coke off Karl Marx’s pristine ass”.

Analysts and sigops and such – no offense – do not think in these backward ways. They do not have to deal with that kind of thing. Even planners do not, though they may get you may have to “do indecent things while remaining decent”. Way different when you can’t miss a single skip in rapport.

Two of my favorite examples? From the Holy Motherfucking Bible.

Because you know a hard core Christian is going to use the word “Motherfucking” in between saying “Holy” and “Bible”. 🙂 Totally unnecessary, right??

1) David, when going to get Goliath’s sword was almost caught by King Saul, who was chasing him. He pretended to be insane. They left him alone. Evil, right? What a faker. The man who wrote most of Psalms and has a ‘heart like God’s’ lying? To the authorities! WTF.

2) This is one of my favorites. People miss this, though it is ‘right there’: so evil King Ahab, the nemesis of Elijah was suspicious of attacking an invading force. Maybe he thought, unconsciously, God was trying to ‘off him’. So, he went and consulted the prophets. Six hundred prophets. All of them were saying, “Go and attack and you will be successful”. Ahab was angry, and said to one, “Why are you lying to me, you always lie to me?” That one then explained, he was brought up into heaven and saw God on his throne sorrounded by a throng of spirits. “How will I convince King Ahab to go to battle so he may end in his death”. ‘One spirit said one thing, another suggested something else…’ ‘Finally, one said, I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets’. God said, “Good, that will succeed, go and do it”.”

And King Ahab went and took the advice he knew was a lie, but so badly wanted to believe and went to battle. And was killed.

Moral of the story? A line I was given by my group: “There is no truth, because people believe what they want to believe, based on their preferences”.

🙂 🙂

Challenging? I hope. Some deep truths hidden in there?

You betcha.

😉

Dean • May 16, 2015 1:09 AM

@Buck

@DeanIs any of this real? Hard to gauge… does it matter? Perhaps… The exchange is real enough to me! ;-)Though, just who are “we” or “they” or “us” — and why does everybody have to be so different..?

Dude…

Okay, so let us call into account my coworkers. They are not, by nature, with form. So they can appear as anyone. As the “King Ahab” situation explained, one can be at the very least six hundred…

They – not me – they… can be organizations, or anyone.

If they need to create legends, and they do, for comprehension to humans… they can create, at will, any manner of ‘paper trail’ they wish.

Me? I fucking have to deal with being completely and totally powerless. Just like you. And any other human being.

I can! However. 🙂 Nowadays. Change my hair color. By dye.

One “angel” can be, however, not just like a thousand “avatars” but entire organizations.

They actually work for us. Because all which was said of “him”, was said for all of us. Because we are him. As you know…

‘Not I, but Christ lives in me’…

Anyway, srlsy, what else do you want to know?

“Buck” is an older name, do you wish to appear younger?

Our flesh is not how we ultimately are… but I can do that and much else.

Dean • May 16, 2015 1:42 AM

@Buck

Anyway, the far bigger mindfuck… is how can so much evidence be presented to people which is so fucking false.

IDK. Cause they are assholes?

🙂

Apologies for the mindfucks! Sorry for letting your super experts believe themselves to be smarter then they are!

Seriously. Crucify me or something.

Look. Do you want to live forever or die?

Sorry for outsmarting everyone else?

:/

My bad. Really. I am a horrible person. How bad of me to deceive them.

Sorry guys! You can not live forever. Gosh gollee gee whiz. You totally were not complete assholes.

🙂

But, hey, Buck. You want to see me stick around??

Or… wut…? 🙂

I can always talk about my Jim Morrison fetish, if you wish. Lol. John Densmore remains alive, anyway. Lol. He can verify me…..

😉