#max schrems | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

The Tumblr app for Google Glass was released on May 16, 2013.

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year

Text

EU to Facebook: 'Drop Dead'

A leak from the European Data Protection Board reveals that the EU’s top privacy regulator is about to overrule the Irish Data Protection Commission and declare Facebook’s business model illegal, banning surveillance-based ads without explicit consent:

https://noyb.eu/en/noyb-win-personalized-ads-facebook-instagram-and-whatsapp-declared-illegal

In some ways, this is unsurprising. Since the GDPR’s beginning, it’s been crystal clear that the intention of the landmark privacy regulation was to extinguish commercial surveillance and ring down the curtain on “consent theater” — the fiction that you “agree” to be spied on by clicking “I agree” or just by landing on a web-page that has a link to some fine-print.

Under the GDPR, the default for data-collection is meaningful consent, meaning that a company that wants to spy on you and then sell or use the data it gathers has to ask you about each piece of data they plan to capture and each use they plan to make of it.

These uses have to be individually enumerated, and the user has to actively opt into giving up each piece of data and into each use of that data. That means that if you’re planning to steal 700 pieces of information from me and then use it in 700 ways, you need to ask me 1,400 questions and get a “Yes” to each of them.

What’s more, I have to be given a single tickbox at the start of this process that says, “No to all,” and then I have to be given access to all the features of the site or service.

The point of this exercise is to reveal consent theater for the sham it is. For all that apologists for commercial surveillance insist that “people like ads, so long as they’re well-targeted” and “the fact that people use high-surveillance services like Facebook shows a ‘revealed preference’ for being spied on,” we all know that no one likes surveillance.

There’s empirical proof of this! When Apple added one-click tracker opt-out on its Ios platform, 96% of users opted out, costing Facebook more than $10b in the first year (talk about a ‘revealed preference!’) (of course, Apple only opted those users out of tracking by its rivals, and secretly continued highly invasive, nonconsenual tracking of its customers):

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

Properly enforced, the GDPR would have upended the order of the digital world: any argument about surveillance between product managers at a digital firm would have been settled in favor of privacy, because the pro-privacy side could argue that no one would give consent, and the very act of asking would scare off lots of users.

But the GDPR wasn’t properly enforced, thanks to structural problems with European federalism itself. The first line of GDPR enforcement came from privacy regulators in whatever country a privacy-violator called home. That meant that when Big Tech companies violated the GDPR, they’d have to account for themselves to the privacy regulator in Ireland.

For multinational corporations, Ireland is what old-time con-artists used to call a “made town,” where the cop on the beat is in on the side of the criminals. Ireland’s decision to transform itself into a tax haven means that it can’t afford to upset the corporations that fly Irish flags of convenience and maintain the pretense that all their profits are floating in a state of untaxable grace in the Irish Sea.

That’s because there are plenty of other EU countries that compete with Ireland in the international race to the bottom on corporate governance: Malta, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Cyprus, etc (and of course, there’s post-Brexit UK, where the plan is to create an unregulated haven for the worst, wealthiest companies in the world).

All this means that seeking Irish justice from a corporation that wronged you is like asking a court in Moscow to punish an oligarch’s commercial empire on your behalf. Irish regulators are either “dingo babysitters” (guards in league with the guarded) or resource-starved into ineffectual torpor.

That’s how Facebook got away with violating the GDPR for so many years. The company hid behind the laughable fairy-tale that it didn’t need our consent to spy on us because it had a “legitimate purpose” for its surveillance, namely, that it was contractually obliged to spy on us thanks to the “agreement” we clicked on when we signed up for the service.

That is, you and Facebook had entered into a contract whereby Facebook promised you that it would spy on you, and if it didn’t spy on you, it would be violating that promise.

Har.

But while the GDPR has a structural weakness — allowing corporations to choose to be regulated in countries that can’t afford to piss them off — it also has a key strength: the private right of action, that is, the right of individuals to sue companies that violate the law, rather than having to convince a public prosecutor to take up their case.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/you-should-have-right-sue-companies-violate-your-privacy

The private right of action is vital to any privacy regulation, which is why companies fight it so hard. Whenever a privacy bill with a private right of action comes up, they tell scare-stories about “ambulance chasers” who’ll “clog up the system,” trotting out urban legends like the McDonald’s Hot Coffee story:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/12/hot-coffee/#mcgeico

But here we are, in the last days of 2022, and the private right of action is about to do what the Irish regulators wouldn’t do: force Facebook to obey the law. For that, we can thank Max Schrems and the nonprofit he founded, noyb.

Schrems, you may recall, is the Austrian activist, who, as a Stanford law student, realized that EU law barred American tech companies from sending their surveillance data on Europeans to US data-centers, which the NSA and other spy agencies treated as an arm of their own surveillance projects:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/16/text-adventures-resurgent/#nein

Schrems brought a case against the Irish regulator to the EU’s top privacy authority, arguing that it had failed its duty by ruling that Facebook’s “contractual obligation” excuse held water. According to the leaked report, Schrems has succeeded, which means, once again, Facebook’s business model is illegal.

Facebook will doubtless appeal, but the writing is on the wall here: it’s the end of the line for surveillance advertising in Europe, an affluent territory with 500m+ residents. This decision will doubtless give a tailwind to other important privacy cases in the EU, like Johnny Ryan’s case against the ad-tech consortium IAB over its “audience taxonomy” codes:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/16/inside-the-clock-tower/#inference

It’s also likely good news for Schrems’ other ongoing cases, like the one he’s brought against Google:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/05/15/out-here-everything-hurts/#noyb

Facebook has repeatedly threatened to leave the EU if it is required to stop breaking the law:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/22/uncivvl/#fb-v-eu

This is a pretty implausible threat, growing less plausible by the day. The company keeps delivering bad news to investors, who are not mollified by Mark Zuckerberg’s promise to rescue the company by convincing all of humanity to spend the rest of their lives as highly surveilled, legless, sexless, low-polygon cartoon characters:

https://www.fool.com/investing/2022/12/06/why-meta-platforms-stock-dove-today/

Zuckerberg and his entire senior team have seen their net worth plummet with Meta’s share price, and that means the company needs to pay engineers with actual dollars, rather than promises of shares, which kills the massive wage-bill discount the company has enjoyed. This is not a company that can afford to walk away from Europe!

Between Apple’s mobile (third-party) tracker-blocking and the EU calling time on surveillance ads, things are looking grim for Facebook. You love to see it! But things could get even worse, and soon, thanks to the double-edged sword of “network effects.”

Facebook is a network effects business: people join the service to socialize with the people who are already there — then more people join to socialize with them. But what network effects give, they can also take away: a service that gets more valuable when a new user signs up loses value when that user leaves.

This is beautifully explained in danah boyd’s “What if failure is the plan?” which recounts boyd’s experiences watching MySpace unravel as key nodes in its social graph disappeared when users quit: “Failure of social media sites tends to be slow then fast”:

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2022/12/05/what-if-failure-is-the-plan.html

Facebook long understood this, which is why it spent years creating artificial “switching costs” — penalties it could impose on users who quit, such as the loss of their family photos:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

This is why Facebook and other tech giants are so scared of interoperability, and why they are so furious about the new EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), which will force them to allow new services to connect to their platforms, so that users who quit Big Tech won’t have to lose their friends or data:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/eu-digital-markets-acts-interoperability-rule-addresses-important-need-raises

An interoperable Facebook would make it easy to leave social media by removing the penalties Facebook imposes on its disloyal users, and the EU’s privacy framework means that when they flee to a smaller safe haven, they won’t have to worry about commercial surveillance:

https://www.eff.org/interoperablefacebook

But what about advertising-supported media? Sure, being spied on sucks, but a subscription-first media landscape is a world where “the truth is paywalled, but the lies are free”:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/08/the-truth-is-paywalled-but-the-lies-are-free/

Ironically, killing surveillance ads is good news for ad-driven media. Surveillance-based ad-targeting is nowhere near as effective as Google, Facebook and the other ad-tech companies claim (these companies are compulsive liars, it would be amazing if the only time they told the truth is when they were boasting about their products!):

https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59

And consent-theater or no, targeted ads reach fewer users every day, thanks to ad- blockers, AKA, “the biggest boycott in world history”:

https://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2015/09/28/beyond-ad-blocking-the-biggest-boycott-in-human-history/

And when a publisher does manage to display a targeted ad, they get screwed. The Googbook dupololy is a crooked affair, with the two tech companies illegally colluding (via the Jedi Blue conspiracy) to divert money from publishers to their own pockets:

https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/11/google-meta-jedi-blue-eu-uk-antitrust-probes/

Targeted ads are a cesspit of ad-fraud. 15% of all ad revenues are just unaccounted for:

https://twitter.com/swodinsky/status/1511172472762163202

The remaining funds aren’t any more trustworthy. Ad-tech is a bezzle (“the magic interval when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost it”):

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/04/how-to-truth/

As Tim Hwang foretold in his essential Subprime Attention Crisis, the pretense that targeted ads are wildly effective has been slowly but surely losing ground to the wider awareness of the fraud behind the system, and a reckoning is at hand:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/10/05/florida-man/#wannamakers-ghost

Experiments with contextual ads (ads based on the content of the page you’re looking at, not on your behavior and demographics) have found them to about as effective in generated clicks and sales as surveillance ads.

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/29/taken-in-context/#creep-me-not

But this is misleading. Contextual ads don’t require consent opt-in (because they’re not based on your data) and they don’t drive users to install blockers the way creepy surveillance ads do, so lots more people will see a contextual ad than a surveillance one. Thus, even if contextual ads generate slightly less money per reader or viewer, they generate far more money overall, because they are aren’t blocked.

Even better for publishers: contextual ads don’t erode their own rate cards. Today, when you visit a high-quality publisher like the Washington Post, many ad brokers bid to show you an ad, but only one wins the auction. However, all the others have tagged you as a “Washington Post reader,” and they can sell that to bottom-feeder junk sites. That is, they can collude with Tabooleh or its rivals to offer advertisers a chance to advertise to Post readers at a fraction of what the Post charges. Lather, rinse, repeat, and the Post’s own ad revenues are drained.

This doesn’t apply with contextual ads. Indeed, none of the tech giants’ much-vaunted “data advantage” — the largely overstated value of knowing what you did online 10 or 20 years ago, the belief in which keeps new companies out of the market — applies to context ads:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/11/halflife/#minatory-legend

The transformative power of banning surveillance advertising goes beyond merely protecting our privacy. It also largely answers the case for “link taxes” (pseudo-copyright systems that let giant media companies decide who can link to them and charge for the privilege).

The underlying case for link taxes, snippet taxes, etc, is that Big Tech is stealing the news media’s content (by letting their users talk about and quote the news), when the reality is that Big Tech is stealing their money (through ad-fraud):

https://doctorow.medium.com/big-tech-isnt-stealing-news-publishers-content-a97306884a6b

Unrigging the ad-tech market is a much better policy than establishing a link-tax, like the Democrats are poised to do with their Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA):

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2022/12/06/jcpa-opponents-spring-into-action-to-block-ndaa-inclusion-00072602

It’s easy to understand why the monopoly/private-equity-dominated news industry wants JCPA, rather than a clean ad market. The JCPA just imposes a tax on the crooked ad-tech giants that is paid to the largest media companies, while a fair ad market would reward the media outlets that invested most in news (and thus in expensive, unionized news-gathering reporters).

Indeed, the JCPA only works if the ad-tech market remains corrupt: the excess Big Tech rents that Big News wants to claim here are the product of a rigged system. Unrig the system and there won’t be any money to pay the link tax with.

Image: Anthony Quintano (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Zuckerberg_F8_2018_Keynote_%2841118883004%29.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[Image ID: A theater proscenium. Over the proscenium, in script, are the words 'Consent Theatre.' On the screen is an image of Mark Zuckerberg standing in front of the words 'Data Privacy.' He is gesturing expansively. A targeting reticle is centered on his face. The reticle is made of the stars from the EU flag.]

317 notes · View notes

channeledhistory · 11 months

Text

Max Schrems

#max schrems

0 notes

tomorrowusa · 1 year

Video

youtube

Our only defense against surveillance capitalism in the short run is to avoid being surveilled. Quitting platforms which suck personal information out of you is essential to protect privacy. Avoiding cookies and trackers is another way to protect yourself.

I’m a compulsive history clearer. My history is cleared automatically when the browser (either Firefox or Safari) is closed. Sometimes I’ll clear much of it selectively in mid session. I NEVER use Chrome which is just a vacuum cleaner of personal info for Google. And speaking of Google, it’s rare for me ever to be signed in there.

To control your personal information it’s necessary to be proactive and to endure a little inconvenience. I see this inconvenience as minor and beneficial – in the same way that conscientious recycling is in the long run.

But ultimately, legislation is needed to protect internet users. There are plenty of precedents. We already have laws to protect safety, to ensure pure food and pharmaceuticals, and to regulate financial transactions. It’s long overdue for online privacy to get the same treatment.

There need to be limits on personal information which online commercial entities can collect, store, and share.

#privacy #surveillance capitalism #threat to democracy #google #social media #facebook #meta #mark zuckerberg #arthur sullivan #shoshana zuboff #benedict evans #johnny ryan #john battelle #max schrems #gdpr #guillaume couneson #quit facebook #delete facebook #leave facebook

1 note · View note

robpegoraro · 2 years

Text

Weekly output: Verizon admin-fee increase, mmWave 5G smart repeaters, White House AI policy, Pixel 7 calling features, alternative social platforms, U.S.-EU privacy framework, Mark Vena podcast

In addition to the work you see below, I also spent most of Tuesday afternoon volunteering at a vaccination clinic–about a week and a half after getting my bivalent booster at the same clinic. 10/3/2022: Did Verizon just raise prices? Administrative fee increase is another price hike, USA Today Corporate executives apparently continue to believe they can cram a price hike into a fine-print fee…

View On WordPress

0 notes

beardedmrbean · 11 months

Text

The European Commission has announced a pact with the US to allow easier legal transfer of personal data across the Atlantic.

Data privacy activists vowed to challenge the agreement in court.

President Joe Biden and EU officials welcomed the deal, which overcame objections about US intelligence agencies' access to European data.

The deal ensures Meta, Google and other tech giants can continue sharing information with the US.

Two previous attempts to create a legal framework on US-EU data sharing had been shot down in European courts over privacy concerns.

Monday's pact aims to ease European concerns over any personal information that ends up shared with US intelligence agencies.

Americans are mostly shielded legally from electronic snooping by US spy agencies, but foreigners are not.

The EU-US agreement allows Europeans to object if they suspect their data has been collected by American intelligence.

A Data Protection Review Court, made up of US judges, will be created to hear the claims.

The EU-US Data Privacy Framework, which goes into effect on Tuesday, also pledges only "necessary and proportionate" data will be collected.

EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders said the "robust" agreement meant "personal data can now flow freely and safely" from Europe to the US.

But non-profit group NOYB (None of Your Business), led by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems, vowed to challenge the decision.

Mr Schrems said in a statement: "Just announcing that something is 'new,' 'robust' or 'effective' does not cut it before the [European] Court of Justice.

"We would need changes in US surveillance law to make this work and we simply don't have it."

Mr Schrems previously challenged Facebook's storage of data, saying it violated his European privacy rights, and the European Union's top court agreed.

President Biden paved the way for the final deal by issuing an executive order in October 2022 requiring US intelligence officials to add more data collection protections while balancing them with national security concerns.

Compared with the EU, the US has lenient privacy laws.

In May, the EU hit Facebook owner Meta with a $1.3bn (£1bn) fine, ordering the company to stop sharing European users data across to the US.

Meta has said without a legal outline for data transfers, it would be forced to stop providing its products and services in Europe.

#nunyas news

7 notes · View notes

gqresearch24 · 1 month

Text

EU Regulators Dismiss Meta’s Privacy Fee For Facebook And Instagram, Declaring The Company Has Exhausted Its Alternatives

(Source-theregreview.org)

Meta’s attempt to charge European users of Facebook and Instagram for opting out of ad tracking seems to have hit a roadblock. Introduced late last year in response to a significant ruling by the EU’s highest court, Meta’s subscription model aimed to address concerns raised by privacy advocates. However, critics quickly pointed out that this approach failed to offer genuine consent, as users were essentially forced to pay a monthly fee to protect their privacy.

Originally priced at €12.99 ($13.82) for accounts used on both mobile and web, Meta recently proposed reducing the fee to €5.99 to appease critics. Nonetheless, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), representing the EU’s privacy regulators, has sided with privacy advocates who derisively dubbed Meta’s approach as “pay or okay.”

The EDPB’s opinion, published following Politico’s report, emphasized that offering users only a binary choice between consenting to data processing for behavioral advertising or paying a fee does not constitute valid consent. According to EDPB Chair Anu Talus, such models fail to provide users with a genuine choice, leading many to unknowingly consent to data processing without understanding the implications.

Charging pages for reach and engaging in contextual ads

Austrian activist lawyer Max Schrems, known for his legal battles against Meta spanning over a decade, stated that Meta now has no choice but to offer users a clear option to opt in or out of personalized advertising. While Meta still has other revenue avenues, such as charging pages for reach and engaging in contextual ads, Schrems emphasized the importance of obtaining explicit consent from users before tracking them for advertising purposes.

In essence, Meta’s options in the EU appear limited. The company must now rethink its approach to user consent and privacy, ensuring that users are provided with transparent choices regarding their data. As regulatory scrutiny intensifies and privacy concerns continue to mount, Meta faces increasing pressure to align its practices with evolving standards of data protection and user rights.

Moreover, Meta’s woes in the EU underscore broader challenges faced by tech giants regarding data privacy and regulatory compliance. The company’s struggles reflect growing calls for stronger data protection measures and greater transparency in the digital ecosystem.

Clearer information about data collection practices

The EDPB’s stance signals a potential shift towards stricter enforcement of data protection laws, with implications not only for Meta but for the entire tech industry. As regulators crack down on practices deemed invasive or non-compliant, companies will need to reassess their data handling procedures and prioritize user privacy.

Furthermore, Meta’s difficulties highlight the complexities of balancing business interests with ethical considerations and legal obligations. While personalized advertising remains a lucrative revenue stream for tech companies, the pushback from regulators and privacy advocates underscores the need for a more user-centric approach to data management. In response to mounting scrutiny, Meta may face pressure to implement more robust privacy controls and transparency mechanisms. This could involve providing users with clearer information about data collection practices, enhancing consent mechanisms, and empowering users with greater control over their personal information.

#PrivacyRights #DataProtection #UserChoice #TechEthics #RegulatoryCompliance #DigitalPrivacy

0 notes

tradermeximas · 2 months

Text

A controversa assinatura sem anúncios da Meta está enfrentando o escrutínio dos ativistas de privacidade da UE. O preço da assinatura de 9,99 euros por mês seria desproporcional ao valor dos dados de rastreamento do Facebook. Problemas de assinatura do Facebook Na tentativa de cumprir as regras de privacidade atualizadas na Europa, Meta recentemente deu um ultimato aos usuários do Facebook e Instagram na região. Eles tiveram que concordar em receber anúncios direcionados ou assinar uma assinatura de dez euros por mês para cada aplicativo (ou parar de usá-los completamente). Isso daria aos usuários a opção de cancelar o rastreamento de anúncios, mas teriam que pagar uma quantia considerável para fazer isso. Agora, um grupo austríaco de privacidade chamado noyb apresentou uma queixa contra as ações da Meta em nome de um cliente em dificuldades financeiras. O grupo disse que o preço da assinatura é desproporcional ao valor que o Facebook recebe, por isso é efetivamente uma escolha falsa para usuários sem meios de pagar por uma assinatura. “Mais de 20% da população da UE já corre o risco de pobreza”, escreveu o fundador do noyb, segundo o advogado de privacidade da UE, Max Schrems. “Para o demandante do nosso caso, como para muitos outros, tal sistema significaria pagar o aluguel ou ter privacidade”. Você paga se quiser privacidade Citando os próprios dados da Meta, noyb disse que a receita média da empresa por usuário na Europa foi de US$ 16,79 entre o terceiro trimestre de 2022 e o terceiro trimestre de 2023, ou cerca de € 62,88 por usuário. No entanto, eles planejam definir um mínimo de 120 euros por ano (mais se você se inscrever em um smartphone) ou até 251,88 euros (275,88 dólares) para ter Instagram e Facebook. "A legislação da UE exige que o consentimento seja o livre arbítrio real do usuário. Contrariamente a esta lei, a Meta cobra uma ‘taxa de privacidade’ de até 250 euros por ano se alguém se atrever a exercer o seu direito fundamental à proteção de dados”, disse noyb. As ações da Meta também provavelmente desencadearão um “efeito dominó”, de acordo com noyb: “Já agora, o TikTok está testando uma assinatura sem anúncios fora dos EUA. Outros provedores de aplicativos poderão seguir o exemplo em um futuro próximo, tornando a privacidade online inacessível." ,

0 notes

bilaldemirkr · 4 months

Text

Meta yeni bir soruşturma riskiyle karşı karşıya

New Post has been published on https://bilaldemirkr.com.tr/meta-yeni-bir-sorusturma-riskiyle-karsi-karsiya/

Meta yeni bir soruşturma riskiyle karşı karşıya

Şimdi, noyb isimli Avusturyalı bir kapalılık kümesi, Meta’nın mali badire içindeki bir müşteri ismine yaptığı hareketlere karşı şikayette bulundu. Küme, abonelik fiyatının Facebook’un elde ettiği kıymetle orantısız olduğunu, hasebiyle abonelik için ödeme imkanı olmayan kullanıcılar için bunun aslında yanlış bir seçim olduğunu belirtti.

Noyb’un kurucusu AB’nin saklılık savunucusu Max Schrems, “AB nüfusunun %20’sinden fazlası halihazırda yoksulluk riski altında” diye yazdı. “Diğerleri üzere bizim davamızdaki şikayetçi için de ‘Öde ya da Tamam’ sistemi kirayı ödemek ya da mahremiyete sahip olmak manasına gelecektir.”

Meta yeni bir soruşturma riskiyle karşı karşıya

Meta’nın kendi verilerine atıfta bulunan noyb, şirketin Avrupa’da kullanıcı başına ortalama gelirinin 2022’nin 3. çeyreği ile 2023’ün 3. çeyreği ortasında 16,79 dolar yahut kullanıcı başına yaklaşık 62,88 avro olduğunu söyledi. Lakin, hem Instagram hem de Facebook’a sahip olmak için yılda en az 120 euro (akıllı telefondan kaydolursanız daha fazla) yahut 251,88 euroya kadar fiyat almayı planlıyor.

Noyb’a nazaran Meta’nın aksiyonlarının bir “domino etkisi” yaratması da beklenen. “TikTok’un halihazırda ABD dışında reklamsız bir aboneliği test ettiği bildiriliyor. Öbür uygulama sağlayıcıları da yakın gelecekte bunu takip edebilir ve çevrimiçi kapalılığı karşılanamaz hale getirebilir.” Birden fazla uygulamanın tıpkı yaklaşımı benimsemesi durumunda bilgi saklılığının “yalnızca zenginler için” geçerli olacağı da eklendi.

0 notes

wsdatab59 · 7 months

Text

文章内容[显示] 隐私管理局的规定发生了什么？ 2022 年 6 月 9 该裁决是 Noyb（其名誉主席是 Max Schrems，现在众所周知的 Schrems I 和 II 案件的主要原告）向欧洲各当局提出的 101 项投诉的一部分，这些投诉针对仍在传输数据的欧洲公司

#WhatsApp手机号码数据库 #Whatsapp联系电话列表 #罗马尼亚Whatsapp号码列表

0 notes

wsdatab49 · 7 months

Text

#WhatsApp手机号码数据库 #Whatsapp联系电话列表 #罗马尼亚Whatsapp号码列表

0 notes

wsdatab69 · 7 months

Text