Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Admits To Tracking Users, Non-Users Off-Site (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the every-breath-you-take dept.

Facebook said in a blog post yesterday that they tracked users and non-users across websites and apps for three main reasons: providing services directly, securing the company's own site, and "improving our products and services." The statement comes as the company faces a U.S. lawsuit over a controversial facial recognition feature launched in 2011. The Guardian reports: "When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if you're logged out or don't have a Facebook account. This is because other apps and sites don't know who is using Facebook," Facebook's product management director, David Baser, wrote. "Whether it's information from apps and websites, or information you share with other people on Facebook, we want to put you in control -- and be transparent about what information Facebook has and how it is used."

But the company's transparency has still not extended to telling non-users what it knows about them -- an issue Zuckerberg also faced questions over from Congress. Asked by Texas representative Gene Green whether all information Facebook holds about a user is in the file the company offers as part of its "download your data" feature, Zuckerberg had responded he believed that to be the case. Privacy campaigner Paul-Olivier Dehaye disagreed, noting that, even as a Facebook user, he had been unable to access personal data collected through the company's off-site tracking systems. Following an official subject access request under EU law, he told MPs last month, Facebook had responded that it was unable to provide the information.

66 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Facebook Tracks by john+of+sparta · · Score: 2

    whatever u got.

  2. No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    After this news spreads he'll have to spend way more than 7 mill to protect that pasty pudgy face.

    http://disinfo.com/2018/04/it-takes-over-7-million-dollars-a-year-to-keep-people-from-punching-mark-zuckerberg/

  3. Re:Duh by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    I don't care what other people do.

  4. I don't remember... by intermelt · · Score: 1

    I don't remember clicking that authorize cookies thing for Facebook. But I do just click yes to them all since the internet can function without cookies.

    1. Re:I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem pretty proud of the being a big part of the problem...

    2. Re: I don't remember... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What kind of person -wants- to be shown advertising at all, much less targeted?

    3. Re: I don't remember... by AceViper · · Score: 1

      If you know how and when to avoid it, as you clearly know how to do, you're probably right that being tracked isn't a big deal - and may actually be a plus. However, the issue is that most people don't know how or when to disable tracking.

    4. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      However, the issue is that most people don't know how or when to disable tracking.

      Nearly everyone I know understands what Incognito mode is, and they understand that they should use it when searching for porn, or communicating with their KGB case officers.

      Incognito mode doesn't guarantee that you won't be tracked, but I have never seen an ad that appears to be related to my Incognito browsing.

    5. Re: I don't remember... by scdeimos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facebook and friends are collecting far too much data on you, more than enough to impersonate your identity.

      Even if we assume that every single employee of Facebook, and all its data partners, are beyond reproach and would never stoop so low as to impersonate you to defraud government welfare, banks, or online shopping (given their CEO was alleged to have stolen Facebook in the first place, what do you think the chances of that are?)... eventually all that data is going to be involved in a breach and become available to all and sundry black hats.

    6. Re: I don't remember... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      There is no downside. Big Brother loves us all.

    7. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That's like saying that despite good locks and alarm, someone might still break in, so I'll leave the front door open with a sign saying "free stuff inside".

      Your analogy makes no sense. What do the "locks and alarm" represent? What is the "break in"? Is that supposed to be a metaphor for the tracking? If so, that is not a threat, but something they are already doing openly. What is the "free stuff"? Is that a metaphor for my browsing history? If so, then you are just making a circular argument: Giving away my browsing history is bad because it may result in disclosure of my browsing history. Huh?

    8. Re: I don't remember... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the danger of advertising delivered malware, the risk from being tracked is that it is used to screw you over.

      They know you are interested in a new widget. They know you have seen it advertised for âX. So now they know that you want it, and what you think the going rate is for it, and approximately where you live thanks to your geolocated IP address and closest CDN server, and can tailor their "offers" to you.

      If you come along with no tracking info, they have much less information to screw you with. I've seen it happen - I had an airline site that only worked in IE, and they kept jacking the price up over a few hours and days. I scrubbed all data from IE, switched VPN endpoints and the price went back down again.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: I don't remember... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The downside of being tracked is that laws change. What's legal today needn't be legal tomorrow. Did you stop that activity that used to be legal but is illegal now?

      Then there's that pesky data breach thing. You know, when companies that collect every minute of your day "lose" data which shows up in inconvenient places. Does your boss know you're reading those newspapers that don't agree with his political views? Probably not, but here's the guy that you pissed off because you didn't drink the coolaid and dared to speak out against his harebrained views on $topic just once, who now makes it his mission to dox you and destroy your life.

      And I'm sure if I get to ponder for a minute or two I could come up with more ideas how to abuse information about you against you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: I don't remember... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Do I have to take over your life or is it proof enough if I just destroy the one you have now?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Do I have to take over your life or is it proof enough if I just destroy the one you have now?

      My tracking data gives you the ability to do neither.

      If you have a list of websites that I have visited, how are you going to use it to "destroy my life"?

    12. Re: I don't remember... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the danger of advertising delivered malware

      What does that have to do with tracking? I see WAY more misbehaving ads when I am in Incognito mode, so tracking appears to reduce malware.

      They know you are interested in a new widget. They know you have seen it advertised for âX. So now they know that you want it, and what you think the going rate is for it

      They also know that I didn't buy at that price, so they have an incentive to offer me a better deal.

    13. Re: I don't remember... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What does your tracking data give me? Your hobbies, your interests, maybe your position on certain topics or even your political view, along with your possible religious faith (if any).

      First of all, find out more about the webpages you visit. Any boards among them? Then it's time to find out who you are. Read your posts. Get an idea where you stand on various things.

      After that's done, or while doing this, send the raw information to your wife/husband/lover/whatever, boss, your coworkers, your friends and so on. Which, again, I may be able to get from your browsing history and the things you leave on Facebook. No need for any content you created just yet, this might already be enough to cause trouble, domestic and work related.

      Next level would be to check that information for stuff that might ruffle the feathers of some people with way too much time on their hand and an agenda to push. Religious nuts, SJWs, Trump-haters and Hillary-haters, any group that's easy to get worked up over nothing and doesn't do any fact checking is good. I'll let them have some fun with you. Here look what this slimeball said on (board). Think they'll go out of their way to create an account there just to berate you? You bet.

      Then the usual suspects from /b to the rest of the internet troll army. Anything "funny", odd, weird or otherwise unusual about you is good enough to become a target.

      And so on.

      The point is that I won't do anything with the webpages you visit. There's plenty of people with no life who just need a target and an excuse to shoot.

      And no, I don't do that. I try to get people to understand that there are assholes like this out there that DO do that. All it takes is to disagree with them on something trivial that they themselves base their life on and then the ride's on.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re: I don't remember... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to speak for ShanghaiBill, but anybody who searches through my Slashdot history will know most of my hobbies, a lot of my interests, my politics and positions on specific issues, and my vagueness on religion (I think I've mentioned that I'm "None of the above" for most lists). I've mentioned the city I live in, and if you assume that "david_thornley" means "David Thornley", I'll tell you up front that you will find one person of that name in that city, whose address and phone number is readily available.

      So, go ahead and send that information to anybody. I can ruffle the feathers of lots of people, and often find it an entertaining side effect. My favorite programming languages are C++, Lisp, and Perl, which means I can get into a language flamewar with almost anyone who pays attention to such things. I've been insulted by stupider people than you, Opportunist, although nobody's displaced "black propagandist" as my favorite of the things I've been called, and that's fifteen years old.

      You should be able to find my Facebook account, and you're welcome to anything you find there. I don't mark anything as private or restricted deliberately, since I have precisely zero faith in keeping anything on Facebook out of my permanent public record. There are things I don't mention on the net, and I'll leave imagining what they might be as an exercise for the reader.

      Now, among what you've got from Slashdot, Facebook, and a log of my HTTP requests, you're not going to find my SSAN, so it will be easier to do identify theft with information from other sources. That, and a few other things, I'm careful about.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re: I don't remember... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Used to be I could rely on NoScript to protect me on the web. I'd look at the list of sites trying to serve me Javascript, and allow the few that were relevant to what I actually want to do on the site. Nowadays, that JS relies on stuff they pull in from other sites with names that tell me nothing, so NoScript isn't that useful anymore. Whitelisting just isn't as useful as it used to be.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. Combat it.. but yes FB is Big Data as a carrot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-container/

  6. Re:What Bonzai Buddy and Facebook Has in Common by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Facebook is labeled as a life-essential service.

    By whom??

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. There is a word for this ... by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The word is STALKING. It is illegal in the real world and should be illegal in the online world as well. I leave your site (or never use it) and you shouldn't be allowed to STALK me.

    1. Re:There is a word for this ... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      How about we start taking some personal responsibility for our own data, eh?

      Right now, this entire situation exists because browsers give away tonnes of information to everyone and anyone who requests it as part of the web page. This isn't done on the server side, this is done right there in your browser, on your computer - so why aren't you putting basic stuff in place to stop it?

      You close your curtains when you get undressed, right? You don't do that because peeping at you naked without your permission is legal, because it isn't. You do it because its a basic step in protecting your privacy.

      Right now, you are doing the equivalent of voluntarily telling your medical history to anyone you interact with, directly or indirectly, and expecting there to be a law to prevent them from listening.

      Learn to say no.

    2. Re: There is a word for this ... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      How about we start telling personal responsibility for being physically stalked, too. Forget demanding that building security keep the stalkers out, or calling the cops. What you need to do is *wear a disguise* and put on a *silly walk*. Now THAT is the way to deal with a stalker!

    3. Re:There is a word for this ... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The way these people weasel out of it is that if they're not targeting a specific individual, it's not considered stalking.

      e.g. I ran into the same weird distinction in Everquest. Sometimes griefer players would deliberately drag mobs onto people camping a popular spawn spot to get them killed. Because they were non-discriminatory in their griefing (i.e. they targeted everyone and anyone), Sony deemed their behavior fair play and refused to stop it. But if the players trying to camp the spawn fought back and tried to do things to slow the griefer down or get him killed (non-PvP servers), that was considered targeting a specific individual and thus a violation of the game's anti-griefing rules. And Sony in their infinite wisdom promptly banned the people trying to stop the griefer for targeting a specific individual for their "harassment."

    4. Re: There is a word for this ... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Good. I hate them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:There is a word for this ... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      More and more people are saying no by taking the simplest path of not using it. But if you want mass adoption, it will need to be simpler. Explaining how cookies and referers work to my mom isn't going to help. One of my favorite security analogies is the car security system. It's a single red button on the key fob. Press it, the system beeps, and I am good to go. So simple, it gets used extensively. Online security is light years away from a red button. Instead there is a morass of advice involving hovering, double checking, "special characters", installing multiple tools which may or may not work reliably, plus a huge runbook of things to do when site X doesn't let you submit your mortgage payment. It is amazing that personal tools like ad blockers get used as much as they are.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    6. Re:There is a word for this ... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "our own data"
      Friends who take an image and tag every face?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. Websites with a Facebook share icon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are watching you. Hmmm... What's that at the top of /.?

    1. Re: Websites with a Facebook share icon... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Big Brother Facebook is always watching.

    2. Re:Websites with a Facebook share icon... by munch117 · · Score: 1

      A plain link, using the image https://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/f... - fsdn.com seems to be a sourceforge domain. On this one thing /. comes out clean. No facebook tracking.

    3. Re:Websites with a Facebook share icon... by munch117 · · Score: 1

      Wait, just realised I forgot to turn off tracking protection extensions before inspecting the HTML source. I've gotta run, so no time to redo the check with tracking protections turned off.

  9. Interpretation by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and "improving our products and services."

    Of course this primarily refers to the products and services they offer to advertisers.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Interpretation by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Since revenue can be viewed as an improvement, this is a glorious catchall. Much like the job description equivalent "other duties as assigned."

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  10. smart people solve problems, when they want to by epine · · Score: 2

    Facebook could have distributed a free "please track me everywhere" browser add-on that added some flag to the http session so that their users were identified as such.

    With a bit of crypto, you could even make this so it didn't leak Facebook membership to third-party sites (for example, by providing an encryption key which Facebook can/cannot actually decrypt). Then everything gets sent to Facebook, but for the people who opt out, it's encrypted with a key associated with no known decryption key, and basically useless.

    Also, I think Facebook has the resources to support more than one major browser.

    This discrimination problem is a problem manufactured out of their own indolence, to their own convenience.

    1. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Opt out is part of the problem. Most of the shit show going on with the Internet right now should be OPT IN.

    2. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Wrong. EVERYTHING needs to be opt-in. Hey, we're doing it for sex now, it's way less ridiculous on the internet...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I know your trolling, but sex is literally the most intimate and private thing most people do.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    4. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      True, but the demand for the double and triple opt-in that you're supposed to go through now is not only ridiculous, it also kinda kills the mood. And I mean for everyone involved.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      To me, trust is a big part of sex. I don't see it killing the mood.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    6. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Trust is the opposite of demanding multiple questions of "may I?". When I trust someone, I trust them to know where to stop and to notice and act on the clues he gets.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      If you trust your partner, you have no problems.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    8. Re:smart people solve problems, when they want to by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe people should stop screwing people they don't trust, I dare say that would solve this problem, and many others.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Right up there in the "biggest lie" category... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...along with: "The check is in the mail"; "of course I'll respect you in the morning"; and "I promise I won't cum in your mouth" is..."(our only goal is) improving our products and services."
    Unless that is Yiddish for: "I just want more money!", in which case - yeah.

  12. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you mean Emperor Trump. "Comrades" are lefties, David Brock.

  13. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Reverend+Green · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, prefer "His Imperial and Royal Majesty Donald I, By the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Empire, Emperor of the Americans, King of Canada, Mediator of the Mexican Confederation, Protector of the Confederation of Panama, Co-Prince of Cuba."

  14. this is good news ... by houghi · · Score: 1

    ... for the EU as we can start using them as a cashcow driving them bankrup. It's a win-win situation.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  15. Complicit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This has been known for years. FB was convicted multiple times for these practices in Europe.

    What hardly ever comes up in the news or comments is that every website that puts FB-hosted 'like' buttons on their pages is complicit in all of this.

    Note: all other social media buttons on webpages perform the same 'service'.

    1. Re:Complicit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A lot of (more reputable) pages around here have started something like a "double opt in" for Facebook, where you have to click on an icon of their page first to load the "like" button, so no data is sent to FB unless you explicitly want to.

      Of course, that icon is as obnoxiously begging for "pleeeeeeeeeeease like us!!!" as it can... but it's a start.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re: and they say we wear tin hats by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    If it makes you feel better, you're typically called "inventory," not a product. You know, hope that helps.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Tracking of non-users violates GDPR by jools33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would say that tracking of non-users violates GDPR in several ways, hope Facebook has 4% of revenue at the ready to donate to the EU.

  18. Time to boycott all sites allied with facebook by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    It is very logical, all the allied sites provide all the data about all the visitors because they don't know who is a facebook user and who is not. True. Agreed.

    So we should just stop visiting all sites that support facebook login, (like slashdot) all companies that have a facebook page. That is the only way we can make sure facebook does not build a shadow profile of non users/

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  19. Call this lie by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

    This is a lie Zuck chirped on Capital Hill, that users (now we know non users as well) are tracked when their Not on FB for `secutity`.... WTF does FB security have to do with non users not on the FB platform.... Nothing. When youre caught in a lie, all testimony becomes suspect.

  20. Re:Facebook Cookie Killer by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Facebook Cookie Tumbler is more what I'm after. You toss your cookie into a pool every couple of seconds and get another one that someone else used for a couple clicks.

    Poison their data pool while you're at it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re:Aw hell... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That's disgusting. Can't we just shoot him with an artillery piece like they do in North Korea?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re:They failed to mention by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Nothing substantial and just fluff and filler?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Wow such bullshit by HermMunster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are saying that we non Facebook users are being tracked so they can provide us services that we don't use? They are saying that they are tracking non Facebook users to protect their security? All of us need to be tracked so they can be secure? Improving services by collecting data on users that don't use their site? They violate our privacy so that they can provide stuff to other users in order to make a profit?

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  24. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    This is a logical fallacy. The key to the fallacy is the word Americans. It indicates that all Americans that disagree view themselves as non-leftists.

    Obviously this is identity politics calling itself out. There are some americans that disagree with some people and they call those that they disagree with right wing and white supremacist and racist.

    There are racists and supremacist people on both sides. There are women that think they are the superior gender. There are blacks that think they are a superior race. The same goes for whites and males.

    You proved you participate in identity politics while condemning identity politics.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  25. Re:Enough by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Careful what you wish for, it might come true. The last thing I'd want is more nanny state hand holding with government-approved content allowed only. If I wanted that I could've kept my TV.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:Aw hell... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    What kind of artillery piece and shell are we talking about here? I'm thinking a W48 shell out of a 155mm Howitzer would do. You know, just to be sure.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  27. Re:Aw hell... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Are you the same guy that berated me for there not being assault rifles available in the US?

    What matters is that you DO it, not what you do it with. Jeesh, people, focus!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. LOCK ZUCKERBERG UP by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    ..and throw away the key.

    Facebook == CANCER

  29. Re:Aw hell... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    Are you the same guy that berated me for there not being assault rifles available in the US?

    No that wouln't be me.
    While I am fairly pro gun, I'm not one of those crazies that thinks that everyone should own a full auto M14. That said I do disagree with a lot of the hysteria about intermediate powered semi-automatic rifles (think semi-auto AKs, ARs, SKSes or other guns that shoot .223 or 7.62x39 rounds). Especially the complaints that they are only good for killing people or that they are weapons of war. For years I used a SKS for deer hunting (AK predecessor shoots the same round) and it is very effective for putting a deer in the freezer. I have a buddy who goes out prairie dog hunting in SD on his parent's property with an AR platform gun a couple of times a year, I have other buddies who go out coyote hunting with ARs. These aren't the type of people you hear about making the news as they, like myself, are responsible owners. We don't sit there and fantasize that we will be the lone survivors of some civilization ending event or defending our selves from our own government. Hell with firearms like those we even realize that they would be ineffective for defending our home from a random intruder. We have all had quite a bit of training on the proper care, use, handling, and storage of them as well, which far too many people seem to lack. However the things those guns mostly shoot are empty cans at our various properties up in the north woods. However I do have one friend who is someone who should not own a gun yet owns a Frankenstein AR he built from parts and an 80% receiver because he thinks he needs it to protect himself from the government or that society will collapse in about 3 months.

    Also it is still possible to get a real fully auto weapon legally in the US, they are just gong to be expensive, old, a bitch to find, and an overall pain in the ass to own given what you have to agree to.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  30. Re:Aw hell... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Don't you think that limiting access by requiring afew extra hoops to jump through would better protect your right to own those weapons in the future?
    Would you be averse to a law making it illegal to carry a loaded weapon in a ready to fire state, outside of a narrow set of circumstances?

    --
    Cheap storage VM.
  31. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Actually, I thought Reagan would make a fine king, although I was dubious about "Ronald I". You left out "Defender of the Seas" or some such phrase, BTW. Any king of the US past, say, 1890, needs something like that in his title.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  32. Re: No wonder it costs so much to save the Zuck's by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...