Coming Your Way... Less Intrusive Facebook Data Policies?

ainandil writes "Facebook may have to alter its data use policy now that grassrooters have driven enough complaints about the company's proposed data usage policy to trigger a user vote on the matter. 'Facebook's proposed changes to its data use policy include new explanations of its data deletion practices as well as the controls that users have over the sharing of information with third-party applications. However, 47,824 users commented on the plans with many posting opposition to the planned new terms and instead calling for the chance to vote on the "demands" outlined by Europe-v-Facebook.' Does this mean the days of the man-in-the-middle attack as social media are numbered?"

Comments

Worldwide electronic democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This could well be history in the making, as citizens from around the world take part in the first electronic, democratic vote.

Re:Worldwide electronic democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a troll? China, is that you?

and whats the risk for facebook?

[allo]

Lets say, i publish something under these terms, then they change them again. of course they are not allowed to use the old material under the new terms without my consent, but i would assume they do it anyway. 99,99% of all people will not notice, the rest will not sue. And if i would like to sue them for doing so, i do not think there will be a good chance to win against a big corporation like facebook.
So, as long as they try to cover it for most of us with new terms and implied consent, there will be never enough users going to court to stop them from changing their mind every other time.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very insightful. Mod parent up. I would, but I spent my last mod points modding down the 2.6million UID trolls.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[dontmakemethink]

Works for any plutocracy - hold elections, people think they are represented.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[SuricouRaven]

Unless the old terms included a clause stating that they may change the terms in future and that your acceptance of the new terms is implied by your continued use of the service. It's a standard clause.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[LordLucless]

I imagine the old data would probably be grandfathered in by the new agreement, so that everything is consistent. Given how often Facebook changes its security policy, to do otherwise would be a maintenance nightmare.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[houghi]

I do not think there will be a good chance to win against a big corporation like [...]

So the problem lies not with Facebook. It lies with the legal system and thus with the politicians that uphold that system. And those are voted for.

So vote for a party that wants to change radically and have the country for the people, by the people. OK, you will be called a Communist or worse. But that is what it would take.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[allo]

the problem is, people accept looooooong contracts for websites, which they do not even read. And those who read them, do not fully understand all implications. And you have no option to make a counter-offer, like strike out some paragraphs, make handwritten amendments or something like this.

But just as i said, i suppose Facebook does much "no one will ever know we're doing it, and if somebody finds out we write it into the fineprint and have the retroactive approval".

The Problem with data hogs like facebook is not what you know, what they are doing, but what you do not know, until its too late. You do not get a bad feeling, while they are abusing your data, you will only know it, when they are done with it and you feel the consequences, but then there is no way back. Thats the whole problem with networks where most of the data processing happens in background. you have no idea what they are doing.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

not sure about elsewhere, but that standard clause could be unenforceable in the UK because it could be deemed "unfair" under the UK consumer protection laws.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[AmiMoJo]

This is why the EU should write a set of standard clauses web sites can use and not allow anything else. It would save a lot of legal arguing over agreements too.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[MogNuts]

Amen. FB will simply not stop. Every few weeks I see some absolutely egregious and utterly jaw-dropping privacy violation. They go out of their way to NOT care about your privacy. And it's not even it's their business model which won't let them. So I have no idea why. But not only do they just don't, but they never will, and will ALWAYS make a horrific new blunder.

People: stop. Using. Facebook!

And no (this rant isn't direct at you allo), you don't need facebook. And yes, people say but but but "it's so useful for keeping in touch with friends!" Dude, if you have a friend who the only way they talk to you is with facebook, then they aren't your friend. And yes, I do realize people suck nowawayds with returning calls. But I've learned the hard way EVERYONE responds and responds quickly to texts. So if you need to talk or get in touch with someone who is busy, text them. No facebook!

And the only other reason that Facebook is good for, which is never touted for some reason, is using it for hooking up. But here is the thing. Go on some online dating site. They are run a hell of a lot better, care more about your privacy. But most importantly, they are *looking to date*. Facebook is for everyone. Online dating sites specifically go on to meet the member of the opposite sex! When you need to screw something in, you don't use a hammer.

So the only two *excuses* left for using FB are out. So stop it already.

Oh, and photo sites. Have no one every heard of those photo sharing sites that only people u want to give the URL to can view photos? and u can set password protection for privacy?

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[allo]

you can rant to me, i am not using facebook and never did. I hope i can resist until facebook is going where myspace went.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[MogNuts]

Hah I did like your post. Gave me a chuckle. I think we've both been on /. far too long.

I am biased to a degree. I think it's worthless. But frankly, I'm more apathetic to FB than biased. I could care less if other people want to use it. The information about it blatantly and consistently violating major privacy issues is common knowledge. It's like smoking. Everyone knows it's bad. But if people want to kill themselves, that's fine. I don't pay attention either way.

But-

You can't deny what ultimately all these things add up to:

- Basically screwing any chances of meaningful employment because hirers will see all your photos of drinking, falling on your face, etc. pictures and your asinine comments that you make on a daily basis. Not to mention the fact that many are harmless among friends or a casual setting, but a HR person will throw your resume right out. And no, even though you may block it, as all the news stories mention, there are so many easy ways to get it (view the profile a friend who is linked to u). Nevermind the fact that removing pics or an account, it stays around--*forever*. And you can't make the argument that this is a problem with posting anywhere online. If FB made proper online privacy controls and it's hidden profile actually worked, this whole thing would be moot. But again, they offend time and time again.

- People seeing your publicly displayed photos and comments and thinking less of u or offended or getting caught in the act. Forever.

- General creepiness. The fact that logged in or not, FB tracks everything you do and where you go. AND has the balls to broadcast that to other people (the lube drum incident, remember?).

And what do you gain from FB?

- Writing messages to people who can't be bothered to hang out with you in real life or speak to you on the phone.

- The potential of getting access to a person you think is good looking to date (see my thoughts about online dating site instead). Nevermind the fact that you can just ask a friend in real life to hook it up or get her #.

- Making comments or writing messages to people, instead of just *actually seeing in them in real life or talking to on the phone.* Even text message if it's tough to get them.

I mean, that's the reality of it. Still like your precious FB?

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[MogNuts]

Not that I have a use for FB anyway, but if I needed social networking for some silly reason, I'd *rather* use myspace hah. At least a private profile is private! And people can't link your pictures, with or without permission. Myspace is a privacy heaven compared to FB.

Tho regardless, not that I care. I simply have no need for FB. When I'm at work, I'm working or I give a friend a few texts or a short call to talk a bit. Then I'm at the gym or go out and meet with friends. Weekend it's running errands and going out with friends on sat/fri night, all orchestrated via text. Never understood why I needed to broadcast my every fart on a "wall", or send a barrage of messages to someone I would go out for happy hour with that night and see, send messages to people who can't be bothered to hang out with me save for facebook messages, or use it to meet a girl when I had no problem getting a girl's number at a bar/club/coffee shop/social function. Granted if you didn't have access or didn't want to meet a woman that way, there are always online dating sites.

I know, call me crazy right? ;-)

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally don't use facebook as a primary way of keeping in touch with people, i have phones/skype for that. But facebook is a convenient way to have a topical discussion with anyone interested without having to be at a computer at the same time. And yes, i use facebook to keep in touch with acquaintances who i wouldn't talk to otherwise. And i've had times where it's come in handy, especially in getting recommendations or looking for resources i know they can provide. And my group of friends uses it to schedule events, it's a very easy convenient way of letting large amounts of people who may be all over the place know there is an event coming and managing rsvp's. I follow feeds for celebrities and the like. There are other services that do the same things, but none are as widely used, and none do it all at once. That said, I am fully aware that even with settings at maximum privacy I should treat everything as a public post.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Johann Lau]

Well, if you feed shit like facebook, it can do stuff like buying (and destroying) Opera. I don't think the "but I like it" stuff makes up for that. We have actual damage, compare to gimmicky feel good bullshit. Like your post, for example. Oh noes, he's telling others what to do. Unlike you, who's not telling them not to tell others what to do, right? "I just voted for Hitler, I didn't vote he should kill people, so get out of my hair". No wait, fuck that brainless bullshit.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Johann Lau]

But facebook is a convenient way to have a topical discussion with anyone interested without having to be at a computer at the same time.

Sure... one of a thousand billion ways, most of them existing since the 90s or even 80s. And what do you think you're doing right now? Or rather, what you would be doing, if you didn't post AC? It's kinda like facebook, only with much bigger textareas :P

There are other services that do the same things, but none are as widely used, and none do it all at once.

Lazyness is the worst argument, and the outcome often fits to it. If "celebrities" can't hire someone to make them a blog with an RSS feed, maybe you should take the hint and adore someone else ^^

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[MogNuts]

There always is email. Everyone has email. In fact it's better for that because it's designed and has a multitude of features for message communication (read: accessable through native clients like outlook/thunderbird, can send attachments, good smartphone clients for mobile use--FB apps are atrocious). And you don't have to deal with the privacy nightmare of FB.

Also, I would argue it's better to video chat/skype/etc your friends. If you know people internationally then you should know that EVERYONE uses skype. It's MORE ubiqutious than FB. And that's way better to talk to your friends on occasion than a BS message on FB. And again, if they don't have time to video chat you once every few months and instead will only send u a message, then again it goes back to my original premise being true--that they aren't really your friends and aren't worth keeping in touch with.

As to your second point, did you miss my point about that even though there is a "share with" thing that it's trivial to get around and when employers do background checks they frequently do? So no, your solution is moot and no privacy is available even though you make things private. That's my point.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Ol Olsoc]

And yes, I do realize people suck nowawayds with returning calls. But I've learned the hard way EVERYONE responds and responds quickly to texts.

I have never and will never respond to a text. And if anyone in a meeting with me does, I will very patiently wait until he or she is done, then start up again after asking if they are finished.

Do not ever fall into the ego trap that every time you want something, you must be served immediately. Nothing is as cute as a room full of 6, sometimes 7 figure people where some one has to get a very critical wazzup? text. Now that's a burn rate.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Ol Olsoc]

All your points against Facebook have nothing to do with Facebook and everything to do with personal opinion.

As is your "rebuttal". If you like using Facebook, then have at it.

My opinion is that FB is the domain of tools.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[MogNuts]

I'm in my early thirties and so are my friends. Ever attempt to get a call back within a *week* with ANYONE? Not me, and my closest friends are awesome in returning calls. And forget casual acquaintances. At least with a text, it'll at least be within 3 hours. I just gave up. I may be reliable and call back within the day, but nobody else is. Sometimes you pick your battles.

I'm not talking about meetings. That's just plain rude. I'd do the same gosh darn thing.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm in my early thirties and so are my friends. Ever attempt to get a call back within a *week* with ANYONE?

Perhaps I don't use the phone like other people. I make calls when I need to. If the other person doesn't call me back, they are going to get a personal visit if they are in the same building. I'm not being a jerk, just reinforcing that when I make a call, it needs to be answered. If they have a problem with talking on the phone, we'll take care of that. I've seen way too many people who seem to think that texting is all that. One guy I knew just said he didn't talk on the phone with other people, even texting back to phone messages. If you can't or won't talk to other people, it shows a severe lack of interfacing ability. Those people need to get jobs where they don't have to interface with other people.

Re:and whats the risk for facebook?

[MogNuts]

Oh I'm talking about in personal lives. Not the workplace. Never had a problem at work. And besides, everyone uses email and replies are quick. I call people because I just like to talk to people. Makes the day more enjoyable.

Wow, Slashdot is officially useless/

[outsider007]

Until ./ develop a fire army to defend against the chinese water army, this shit will be completely unusable.

Re:Wow, Slashdot is officially useless/

[Anonymous Coward]

MyCleanPC is not Chinese, but American. Also, we should use electricity against water, not fire or we will continue losing to the spammers!

Re:Wow, Slashdot is officially useless/

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with you. Why do the Slashdot staff allow this FB propaganda?

Like buttons

[game kid]

Expect absolutely nothing more than We The People-style "binding" action if things even get that far. This is Facebook--they're not the judge or the jury, they are the criminal.

That said, I'd love for the third-to-last point in the proposal to be approved, for this to get Like buttons to finally be neutered (i.e. wiped off the net, or turned into non-tracking thingers, or something like that). Then I'd only block Facebook with (e.g.) avast or AdBlock instead of at the h...is that guy that rambles on and on about that file around...no?--what? Oh, you said "Don't know"? Ah. Anyway...the file with the names and number thingies! Yeah, at that level.

Re:Like buttons

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The thing is that the proposal is just user-proposed alternatives -- however nowhere in FB's terms does it obligate itself to accept suggestions/proposals from its users. Instead (emphasis added):

If more than 7,000 users comment on the proposed change, we will also give you the opportunity to participate in a vote in which you will be provided alternatives. The vote shall be binding on us if more than 30% of all active registered users as of the date of the notice vote.

So - first, the only alternatives we'll see are those given by FB. Second - they've pretty well protected themselves with the "30% of all active registered users" clause, since there's no practical way 30% of all active users will vote at all, never mind in the same way.

Does not compute

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook's stock is nosediving. And since it is now a public company the stockholders will be demanding to see profits.

Why would they shoot themselves in the foot with these data policies? It isn't as if their current policies have caused a mass exodus. And there really isn't any major competition on the horizon.

I'm guessing this is just smoke and mirrors.

Re:Does not compute

[Kalriath]

Demand all they like - Zuckerberg's shares outvote them by orders of magnitude. And all those shareholders agreed to the company's constitution which sets out those rules.

Re:Does not compute

[ThatsMyNick]

Even though he has majority of voting rights, as part the IPO, he has agreed to uphold the "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities". If this statement specifically mentions a specific right or makes a certain promise, he cannot overrule it, despite holding majority of the rights.
 
  In this case, they have specifically mentioned that if "More than 30 per cent of all active registered users as of the date of the notice" vote in favour of something, it is binding and Zukerberg cannot overrule (he can try to work around, stall it etc, but not directly overrule it).

Re:Does not compute

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

In practice that means getting ~250 million people to vote. Good luck with that.

In addition, the vote is not on user-provided alternatives. Instead, "you will be provided alternatives". So the folks at "our-policy.org" are basically participating in a nice exercise in mental masturbation.

Re:Does not compute

[bsane]

Of course he runs the systems that tally the votes...

Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

No way 30% of all "active" users are going to vote, unless they are made to by Facebook (the party that has most to lose)

Re:Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mod this up. End of thread.

Unfortunately, no

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOk4Y4inVY

Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

After the IPO fiasco I expect Facebook to eventually go the way of Myspace. Can't wait for Google+ to suffer the same fate if only so that Vic Gundotra gets sacked for being a useless clown.

--
Sundar Pichai is the utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta office.

comparison

[StripedCow]

When I send a text-message to a bunch of friends using my mobile phone via my telco, the telco is certainly not allowed to inspect the contents of the message, let alone to share it directly or indirectly with 3rd parties, such as advertisers.

Now in many ways, facebook is similar to a telco. On facebook I'm also sending messages to other people, only usually these messages are sent to more than one person, but the group of people is still restricted (to my friends).I think we may rightfully ask why facebook and other social media companies are able to give themselves the right to share and sell contentual data that is targeted at a restricted group of people.

In fact, I think there should be a law that states that any data send through a communications facilitator (telco or social media company or otherwise) that is directed to a RESTRICTED group of people, should be treated as confidential.

Re:comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

When I send a text-message to a bunch of friends using my mobile phone via my telco, the telco is certainly not allowed to inspect the contents of the message, let alone to share it directly or indirectly with 3rd parties, such as advertisers.

Well, that's why clever people invented Whatsapp. It conveniently supports a global data tap on user SMS - and they all are happy to do it because it does so much more (read: the user also provides all those nice images). And because Apple didn't wanted to be left out, it created iMessage. Oh, and Siri, which conveniently supplies voiceprints of every user on the planet - especially with HD voice now making its way into mobiles it's really good intelligence, so I reckon they must be glad with all that effort to get a Siri-alike going on Android. Ah, yes, Android - have a look at point 47..

This is done by companies subject to the practically uncontrolled Patriot Act..

Paranoid, me? No - realistic. Privacy really needs some shoring up..

Re:comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

why facebook and other social media companies are able to give themselves the right to share and sell contentual data that is targeted at a restricted group of people

Because you agreed that it was alright for them to do that. Therefore, they do.

Personally, I don't think it's alright for them to do that, so I did not agree, and thus, do not use their service in any way, including loading their "like" buttons from other sites. And you know what? I still seem perfectly able to communicate with friends and family online, because facebook is not the internet, and as shocking as this is, there are many other ways to communicate online, ranging from private 1:1 communication to broadcasting information to the whole world.

If you're going to support a company doing X, don't turn around and complain that they do X. They do it exactly because of people like YOU. You are the problem. You chose to support a service whose entire *business model* is to violate your privacy and sell your personal data. You asked for it, and you got it.

Re:comparison

[Sepodati]

Is FB selling your data or is this assumed? The last time I read through the policies, they clearly showed that advertisers could choose "trigger" words or topics and pay to run ads based on the triggers. Your content was never sent anywhere, though.

Re:comparison

[StripedCow]

Because you agreed that it was alright for them to do that. Therefore, they do.

Sure. But people need to be protected against themselves, not just for themselves but for society as a whole. To understand this, consider the following.

If there was a supermarket that sold bread at $0.01, but you only could get one if you punched yourself in the face and put the video on youtube, then you can bet that there would be people that would do that.

Then consider that these supermarkets gain so many clients that "regular" supermarkets become a niche, increasing the price of "normal" bread.

The analogy stops here, but in the case of social media we could take it a step further: imagine that people who punch themselves for a loaf of bread are not allowed to talk to people who don't, or communication is obstructed in some way. Now certainly we can say that something is wrong, perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the level of society.

The point is that communication is so important that we don't want it to be taken hostage by companies that effectively turn people into "information-prostitutes".

Re:comparison

[Tastecicles]

You tell that to those who were arrested following a series of BBM messages - BBM is supposed to be encrypted! Those messages were intercepted straight off the RIM servers!

See, when there's something like that set up (BBM, Skype, PGP), heavy encryption that the public can use, you'll notice that it's nowhere near military grade encryption which is practically unbreakable. Those seed algorithms that make it into the "wild", so to speak, are those algorithms which the security services have been supplied with a skeleton key. It won't take them long to break the encryption because they don't even have to try, unlike the civilian services (eg police) who have to use bruteforce techniques and burn thousands of P90-years to break one 256-bit AES key. Triple trouble if the drive is encrypted on a triple cascade.

By the way, in the UK at least, GCHQ run realtime monitoring of BBM and other SMS networks, and log realtime tracking data of each and every cellphone in use - with data freely supplied to MI5 by the carriers under the authority of the Home Office.

Re:comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

FB doesn't need to directly sell your data for advertisers to learn it. For example, advertisers pay for gay-porn or whatever related triggers and advertise a contest or other event that requires sign-up. There, the advertisers have discovered private data about individuals in an indirect way. From there the data can be reused, repackaged, and resold.

Friends don't let friends use facebook.

Re:comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

PGP is actually secure. As is BBM for businesses (where the business runs their own server). If you are trusting an outside organization to handle your crypto... then you are trusting an outside organization: don't be surprised when you are not secure.

I recommend using OTR if you want secure text communications. That page lists phone apps with support for OTR or OTR-like text communication.

For audio, ZRTP is probably the right way to go (make sure you have a constant bit rate audio codec if you are encrypting audio, otherwise the encryption doesn't do much... part of why Skype's security is worthless). I haven't actually setup ZRTP, so I don't know how hard it is / how well it works in practice.

Re:comparison

[thereitis]

From your link to priv.gc.ca:

43. On May 15, 2010, the system administrator consolidated the payload data onto an encrypted hard drive, segregated by country. A second copy of the encrypted hard drive was made for security and backup preservation. The four original disks were then destroyed in a disk deformer.

44. A Google employee personally delivered one encrypted hard drive to another Google location for safekeeping, while the system administrator kept the other one in a secure location. Once the Google employee arrived at the destination, the system administrator permanently destroyed the backup, encrypted hard drive. The US data was then segregated onto a separate encrypted drive, while the data from the rest of the world remained on the initial encrypted drive.

Any idea why they even kept a copy of the data at all since they recognized that it wasn't supposed to have been harvested in the first place?

Re:comparison

[Sepodati]

>> There, the advertisers have discovered private data about individuals in an indirect way

How did the advertiser discover that Joe's FB page triggered an ad showing? As I read the terms, the Advertiser just knows the ad was shown XX times. FB can clearly make the connection, but how does the advertiser?

Re:I don't see any hole!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this joke a bit old already?

Here's the difference...

[epp_b]

You pay your phone service provider $X per month for the use of their network. Your telco has little reason to inspect your data, they're already making money from everyone's monthly bills (that being said, don't give them any ideas).

You pay Facebook with your privacy and, at this point, no one would be willing to pay for it with actual money. Such a law would surely be Facebook's doom, and that's all anyone would take away from it. Would you want to be the congressman who killed Facebook?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I detest the way Facebook operates; it's underhanded, dishonest and creepy.

There needs to be a new model, but you're not paying with money or privacy, what else is there?

Is something forgotten here?

[Tastecicles]

We have one freedom left to us: the freedom to choose.

We can choose to accept the terms that come with using a service such as Facebook, with the understanding that they operate for profit and they can use our data to achieve that end. Or, we can choose not to use Facebook and deprive them and their shareholders of that revenue - which in all fairness, is a pittance when counted individually; there are idiots who will click on every ad and buy everything that's shoved in front of them, and that collective revenue potential is what makes Facebook worth more than the global wheat industry.

CHOICE. It is our last remaining personal freedom. USE IT OR LOSE IT.

social media is* a man in the middle attack

[Anonymous Coward]

i have no idea what the last sentence in the summary is supposed to mean..but it seem internally contradictory

Replacements

[yahwotqa]

Wasn't there a slew of projects to replace Facebook with a distributed privacy model few years ago? Most people were hyped up about Diaspora, but that thing can't even provide a properly working UI yet.

Re:Replacements

[Johann Lau]

Hmm? To me, the only thing "wrong" with diaspora is that nobody is using it... including me :/ If everybody I'm (actual) friends with on facebook used diaspora, I'd be content. For an alpha, and for what it does, the UI seems fine to me? I'll give you that it's even more bland than Facebook and G+, but hey.. show them some love (and give them feedback!), that stuff isn't easy to do. I mean the backend when I say that, but the UI depends on the backend, so yeah, cut them some slack -- or do it better. Seriously.

stone crusher

[Anonymous Coward]

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk
http://www.c-crusher.net
http://www.sandmakingplant.net
http://www.vibrating-screen.biz
http://www.mcrushingstation.com
http://www.cnstonecrusher.com
http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com
http://www.Vibrating-screen.cn
http://www.stoneproductionline.com
http://www.hydraulicconecrusher.net