"Integracja Europejska. Holandia odgradza się od świata zasłoną elektroniczną

System elektronicznego monitoringu holenderskich granic działa od początku nowego roku na pełnych obrotach. Wyposażony jest na razie jedynie w 15 kamer rejestrujących ruch graniczny na najbardziej uczęszczanych przejściach z Niemcami i Belgią. Dodatkowo sześć policyjnych patroli rejestruje przy użyciu techniki elektronicznej wszystko, co znajduje się w polu widzenia lotnych kamer.

Rząd holenderski przedłużył właśnie do połowy tego roku okres testowania całego systemu. Jeżeli okaże się sprawny, zostanie rozbudowany tak, że na terytorium Holandii nie prześlizgnie się mysz bez wiedzy odpowiednich władz.

Budowę takiej zapory rząd uzasadnia koniecznością wzmożenia wysiłków w walce z zorganizowaną przestępczością, zwłaszcza handlem narkotykami oraz nielegalną imigracją. Tak więc każdy samochód przekraczający holenderską granicę jest fotografowany, a informacje z numerami tablic rejestracyjnych przekazywane do porównania w specjalnej bazie danych. Holenderski rząd wie więc dokładnie, kto, kiedy i jakim samochodem wjeżdża na obszar kraju i jak długo w Holandii pozostaje.
(...)
– Nie może dziwić, że właśnie Dania i Holandia wprowadziły systemy monitoringu swych granic – mówi Joachim-Fritz Vannahme, ekspert Fundacji Bertelsmanna, przypominając o silnych w tych krajach partiach skrajnej prawicy szermujących hasłami zagrożenia przez imigrantów tradycyjnych wartości tych społeczeństw. Holandia użyła nawet weta, protestując przeciwko przyjęciu Bułgarii i Rumunii do strefy Schengen. Wycofała je niedawno pod warunkiem, że kolejne dwa raporty na ten temat przygotowywane przez Brukselę będą pozytywne. Oznacza to, że oba kraje będą mogły wejść do Schengen na wiosnę.

Holandia pragnie się jednak zabezpieczyć. – Wprowadzenie każdego nowego reżimu odmiennego od stanu faktycznego musi być przedmiotem badań, czy nie na narusza porozumień z Schengen – przypomina „Rz" Axel Schäfer, rzecznik niemieckiej SPD ds. europejskich. Nie jest jednak w stanie ocenić, czy holenderski monitoring graniczny jest zgodny z Schengen.

System elektronicznej kontroli na granicach może się stać regułą w strefie Schengen

Zdaniem Vannahme nie można mówić o formalnym naruszeniu tego porozumienia, gdyż przewiduje ono wiele odstępstw od reguły w postaci otwartych granic. Tak było w czasie mistrzostw Europy w piłce nożnej w Belgii i Holandii, kiedy to wprowadzono specjalne systemy kontroli służące identyfikacji chuliganów. Praktyka ta stosowana jest też przy okazji innych wielkich wydarzeń sportowych czy politycznych. Kontrole na granicy są jednak możliwe jedynie w razie poważnego zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa kraju, i to w zasadzie jedynie na 30 dni. Skorzystała z tego nie tak dawno Francja, kontrolując granicę z Włochami.

Nie wiadomo jeszcze, jak długo Holandia zamierza otaczać się elektronicznym murem wywołującym wiele kontrowersji wewnątrz kraju. – Tego rodzaju kontrola jest mało efektywna, bo na podstawie obrazu z kamer nie da się ustalić, co przewozi się przez granicę – mówi Bas Filippini z holenderskiej organizacji Privacy First. Udowadnia, że cały system służy do szpiegowania obywateli, którzy nie mają żadnych gwarancji, w jaki sposób zostaną wykorzystane te dane.

– Uzyskane z kamer granicznych informacje nie zostaną wykorzystane do ścigania kierowców obciążonych mandatami ani do żadnych podobnych celów – zapewnia rzeczniczka holenderskiego MSW. – Można mieć jedynie nadzieję, że uruchomienie monitoringu granicznego przez Holandię wywoła szerszą dyskusję na temat praw obywateli i dopuszczalnych granic ich inwigilacji przez państwo – mówi Joachim-Fritz Vannahme. Na to się jednak nie zanosi."

Read the entire article in Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita HERE, or click HERE for an 'English version' in Google Translate.

"Holandija je instalirala kamere na svoje granične prelaze. Te kamere snimaju sva vozila koja u tu državu ulaze iz Belgije i Nemačke. Ovaj postupak je sporan – kritičari u njemu vide čak i kršenje Šengenskog sporazuma.

Kamere o kojima je reč vise na metalnim konstrukcijama pored velikih saobraćajnih znakova. Pored njih, u upotrebi je i šest mobilnih kamera koje se nalaze u vozilima. Sistem ima naziv „Amigo boras" a cilj mu je da – prema zvaničnom tumačenju holandskih vlasti – doprinese suzbijanju šverca ljudi. Zbog toga kamere snimaju prednji deo vozila, dakle, na snimcima se vide registarska tablica, vozač i suvozač. Snimci se porede sa određenim podacima. Tako će na primer, posebna pažnja biti obrađena na furgone sa Balkana: iskustvo je pokazalo da su takvim furgonima u Holandiju prevožene ilegalne prostitutke – samo u takvim slučajevima, policija će smeti i da zaustavi neki automobil radi kontrole.

Mnoge stvari nisu jasne

Mišljenja o novom sistemu kamera su – oprečna. Mnogi stanovnici pograničnog područja kao i putnici koji ulaze u Holandiju zastupaju mišljenje da onaj ko nema šta da krije – nema čega ni da se plaši. Ali, mnogi ovo vide kao još jedan od poteza kojim država zadire u privatnu sferu građana.Posebno važno je pitanje: koliko dugo se čuvaju snimci koje načini „Amigo boras"? Kritičari ukazuju na to da Šengenski sporazum uopšte ne predviđa opšte granične kontrole. Holandska vlada odgovara da će ove kamere raditi samo povremeno, kako bi u konkretnim slučajevima pomogle graničnoj policiji. Holandska organizacija za zaštitu podataka o ličnosti „Privacy first" smatra da „Amigo boras" stvara generalne profile putnika koji dolaze u Holandiju.

„Izgleda kao vojni projekat"

Predsednik pomenute organizacije, Bas Filipini, smatra da novi sistem kamera ne može biti delotvoran: „Oni žele da uđu u trag švercerima ljudi, ali ako u automobilima te osobe sede na zadnjim sedištima, onda ih ionako ne možete videti... Tako ćemo doći do dana kada će snimati sva vozila. Mi želimo da se krećemo bez nadzora" – kaže Filipini, i dodaje da mu čitava akcija izgleda kao neki vojni projekat. Ima i posmatrača koji smatraju da je cilj akcije nešto sasvim drugo, naime, da se ustanovi koliko vozila sa stranim tablicama uopšte ulazi u Holandiju, kako bi moglo da se proceni kakva bi bila korist od uvođenja putarine na tamošnjim auto-putevima.

(...)

Povreda ljudskih prava?

Prema članu 23 Šengenskog sporazuma, jedna država-članica sme ponovo da uvede kontrolu samo u izuzetnim slučajevima i na ograničeno vreme i to „u slučaju velike pretnje javnom redu ili unutrašnjoj bezbednosti". Ta mera sme da traje najduže 30 dana ili onoliko dugo koliko traje „velika pretnja". Šengenske države su se, na primer, pozivale na tu klauzulu uoči određenih velikih sportskih priredbi ili političkih samita. Kritičari novog holandskog sistema nadgledanja granica tvrde da je Holandija oko sebe sagradila „virtuelni zid". I Komisija Evropske unije trenutno vrlo ozbiljno razmatra takve primedbe i pitanje radi li se o povredi prava na privatnost ili, još opštije gledano, o povredi ljudskih prava."

Read the entire article in Deutsche Welle HERE, or click HERE for an 'English version' in Google Translate.

On Januari 1st, 2012, German WDR Radio reported about the new Dutch border surveillance system @MIGO-BORAS: click HERE.

"George Orwells Vision von Big Brother wird an niederländischen Grenzübergängen Realität. Dort filmen Kameras den Einreiseverkehr aus Belgien und Deutschland. Das Vorhaben ist umstritten. Kritiker sehen sogar einen Verstoß gegen das Schengen-Abkommen.

Sie hängen unauffällig neben den großformatigen Verkehrsschildern oberhalb der Fahrbahn: Dutzende dieser fest installierten Kameras überwachen nun den Einreiseverkehr in die Niederlande an insgesamt 15 Grenzübergängen. 

Daneben haben die Grenzschützer der Königlichen Marechaussee sechs Fahrzeuge mit mobilen Kameras im Einsatz. Die schon seit 2004 erprobte Überwachungstechnik hat den kuriosen Doppelnamen "@migo-Boras".

Nicht nur diese Bezeichnung sorgt bei deutschen Grenzbewohnern am Niederrhein für Irritationen: "Kenne ich nicht, nein!", sagt einer. Und ein anderer hat immerhin davon in der Zeitung gelesen, aber er finde "@migo-Boras" nicht so toll. Die Überwachung gehe "in die Privatsphäre - das find ich nicht gut".

Menschenschmuggler aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen

Martijn Peelen, Sprecher der Königlichen Marechaussee, teilte nur schriftlich mit, "@migo-Boras" solle vor allem helfen, Menschenschmuggler aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen. Dazu würden die Kameras die Fahrzeuge von vorne erfassen, so dass Nummernschild, Fahrer und Beifahrer abgefilmt werden. Die Aufnahmen würden dann mit bestimmten Daten abgeglichen. So würde das System beispielsweise bei Kleintransportern aus dem Balkanraum Alarm schlagen. Erfahrungsgemäß würden damit auch schon mal illegale Prostituierte ins Land gebracht. Nur in solchen Fällen würden Beamte dann auch ein Fahrzeug stoppen und kontrollieren.

Eine Grenzbewohnerin, die häufig zum Einkauf nach Holland fährt, stören die Kameras daher überhaupt nicht. Wenn man ein reines Gewissen hat, sei das kein Problem, meint sie. Eher skeptisch dagegen ist Jörg Langenmeyer, Bürgermeister der niederrheinischen Grenzstadt Straelen - nahe Venlo. Er finde es "einfach schade", aber man könne noch gespannt sein, ob das Projekt denn wirklich so eingeführt werde. Er meint, die Europäische Kommission wolle noch einige Informationen von der niederländischen Regierung haben, wie die Überwachung in der Praxis überhaupt stattfinden solle.

Verstoß gegen Schengen-Abkommen?

In der Tat sind noch viele Fragen offen: Insbesondere ob und wie lange die Kameraaufnahmen gespeichert werden. Kritiker verweisen auch auf das Schengen-Abkommen, das allgemeine Grenzkontrollen nicht vorsieht. Die niederländische Regierung sagt dazu, die Kameras sollen nicht ständig laufen und nur stundenweise eingeschaltet werden, um die Sichtkontrollen der Grenzschützer zu unterstützen.

Dennoch kommt Protest auch aus den Niederlanden, etwa von der Organisation Privacy First, die sich gegen einen Überwachungsstaat wendet. Der Vorsitzende von Privacy First, Bas Filippini, spricht von einem generellen Profiling, das zunächst jeden Einreisenden erfassen müsse. Außerdem bezweifelt er die Wirksamkeit von "@migo-Boras". Man wolle nur Menschenschmuggler aufspüren, sagt er, aber "da sitzen zwei Leute vorne, hinter ihnen vielleicht die illegalen Personen. Aber die kann man sowieso nicht sehen." Irgendwann, so befürchtet es Filippini, kontrolliere das System dann alle Fahrzeuge. "Es mündet in behördliche Willkür. Wir von Privacy First wollen uns unbeobachtet bewegen. Wir brauchen keinen '@migo'. Freunde suche ich mir selbst." Filippini meint, das Ganze erscheine wie ein militärisches Projekt. Es sei schon merkwürdig, dass die Regierung dies einfach mal so einführe.

Wohl auch deswegen, will die niederländische Regierung erst einmal die Testphase bis Februar oder März verlängern.

Wohl auch deswegen, will die niederländische Regierung erst einmal die Testphase bis Februar oder März verlängern. (...)"

Read the entire article at ARD Tagesschau.de HERE, or click HERE for an 'English version' in Google Translate.

On 31 May 2012 the Netherlands will once again be examined in Geneva by the highest human rights body in the world: the United Nations Human Rights Council. The UN Human Rights Council was founded in 2006 and consists of 47 of the 192 UN Member States. Since 2008 the human rights situation in each country is periodically reviewed. This procedure takes place every four years for each UN Member State and is called ‘Universal Periodic Review’ (UPR). During the first UPR session in 2008 it was straight away the Netherlands’ turn to be examined and our country was in fact heavily criticized. In 2011 the privacy situation in the Netherlands is even worse compared to 2008: enough ground for Privacy First to raise a number of issues with the UN. Privacy First did so last night through a so-called shadow report: a report in which NGOs can voice their concerns on a particular issue. (For such reports strict requirements with the Human Rights Council apply, among which a limit of 2815 words.) Without shadow reports, diplomats in the Council are not able to do their work properly. Otherwise they would of course be dependent on the State report of the Netherlands itself. So Privacy First presented its own report with the following recommendations:  

•  No national biometric database, not even in the long run;

•  No introduction of mobile fingerprint scanners;

•  Introduction of a truly anonymous OV-chipkaart (Public Transport chip card);

•  No introduction of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) as currently envisaged;

•  Transparency and suspension of the new border control system @MIGO;

•  A voluntary, regional instead of national Electronic Health Record System with 'privacy by design';

•  Proper legislation concerning the profiling of citizens.

You can download our entire report HERE. We hope that our recommendations will be accepted in the Human Rights Council and will lead to an international exchange of best practices. Privacy First is happy to keep you informed on these developments.

Update 23 March 2012: this week the long-awaited Dutch UPR State report for the Human Rights Council appeared. Moreover, the shadow report by the Dutch section of the International Commission of Jurists (Dutch abbreviation: NJCM) that was presented earlier (also on behalf of 24 other NGOs) became public. The NJCM report contains a very critical section on privacy in which – parallel to the recommendations of Privacy First – among other things, a call for the abrogation of the current plans concerning ANPR and mobile fingerprint scanners is made; see pp. 6-7 of the NJCM report. Relevant reports by other organisations can be found HERE.

Official preparatory work for the Dutch State report has seen two consultation meetings with Dutch civil society (NGOs) at the Dutch Ministry of the Interior (Dutch abbreviation: BZK) in recent months. During the first meeting on 1 December 2011, Privacy First insisted on incorporating a separate section about privacy in the State report. During the second meeting on 16 January 2012, Privacy First requested an explicit mention of ‘privacy by design’ in that very section. BZK responded positively to both requests. However, the privacy section in the State report appears to be relatively short, superficial and elusive. It is telling that this section is part of the chapter ‘Challenges and constraints’. This gives the impression of a defensive attitude. What’s even more telling is the following sentence: ‘‘The challenge will now be to ensure that all these [privacy infringing] measures are implemented.’’ Apparently the Dutch State is not sure where it stands... And rightly so. The mere positive points are the mention of ‘privacy by design’, the report by the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy called iOverheid (iGovernment) and the following passage:

"In addition, partly in response to concerns expressed in Parliament, certain policy measures that impact on privacy are currently being modified, as for example the discontinuation of the storage of fingerprint data on national ID-cards and within the passport database."

Privacy First interprets this passage as an international declaration (unilateral statement) from the Netherlands to stop the storage of fingerprints on ID-cards and in its travel document administration once and for all. Privacy First is keen to continue reminding the government of this.

Update 5 April 2012: the international lobbying surrounding the UPR session of the Netherlands on 31 May 2012 is in full swing, both at foreign embassies in The Hague as well as within the permanent representations of UN Member States in Geneva. In this context an important 'UPR pre-session' took place yesterday morning in Geneva where various international human rights organisations had the opportunity to voice their concerns about the Netherlands in front of a broad audience of foreign diplomats. Click HERE for an impression of the meeting about the Netherlands. The statement by Privacy First during this meeting can be found HERE and can also be downloaded on the website of the Dutch Human Rights Institute under incorporation.

Update 21 April 2012: Based on all shadow reports (among which that of Privacy First) that the UN received at the end of 2011, an official UN summary has in the meantime been drawn up in Geneva. This ‘summary of stakeholders’ information’ can be found HERE. Apart from Privacy First, the NJCM (also on behalf of the Dutch Platform for the Protection of Civil Rights / Platform Bescherming Burgerrechten), Bits of Freedom, the Dutch Data Protection Authority, Vrijbit and the Dutch Contact Point on Abuse of Mandatory Identification (Meldpunt Misbruik Identificatieplicht) all sent their privacy worries to Geneva in writing; all these reports will soon appear on this UN page. As far as Privacy First is aware, this has not occurred on this scale before. Therefore, for the first time in history the privacy theme figures prominently in a UN report about the Netherlands, as a matter of fact more prominent than is the case in other summaries, for example the one on the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it’s striking that the UN cites a passage about profiling from the Privacy First report: ‘‘digital profiles can be extremely detailed and profiling can easily lead to discrimination and 'steering' of persons in pre-determined directions, depending on the 'categories' their profiles 'fit into' and without the persons in question being aware of this.’’ (UN summary, para. 65). All of this can rightly be called a breakthrough that will hopefully bear fruit during the upcoming session on 31 May 2012.

Update 23 May 2012: In recent months Privacy First has had a series of useful conversations with foreign diplomats in Geneva and The Hague. Meanwhile a number of so-called ‘advance questions’ by UN Member States have appeared on the UPR website of the UN. Among them is the following question by the United Kingdom to the Netherlands: ‘‘Given recent concerns about data collection and security, including the unintended consequences of cases of identity theft, does the Netherlands have plans for measures to ensure more comprehensive oversight of the collection, use and retention of personal data?’’ (Source) Privacy First looks forward with confidence to further questions by UN Member States about Dutch privacy perils.

Published in Law & Politics

"Ein Foto von jedem Auto, das über die Grenze fährt: Ab Januar 2012 möchten die Niederlande entsprechende Überwachungs-Technik installieren. Eine Software pickt dann Autos für weiterführende Kontrollen heraus.

Datenschützer in den Niederlanden machen sich Sorgen. "Bald ist unser Grenzschutz technisch im Stande, jedes einzelne Auto zu scannen - auch Deutsche", sagt Vincent Böhre von der Stiftung Privacy First in Amsterdam. Alle 15 großen Grenzübergänge nach Deutschland und Belgien sollen Kameras bekommen, sechs mobile Einheiten auf Geländewagen observieren zusätzlich die kleineren Übergänge. (...) "Dies ist ein Instrument gegen schwere Kriminalität wie Menschenhandel. Es eignet sich überhaupt nicht, um ausstehende Geldbußen zu kassieren", betont Frank Wassenaar, Sprecher des zuständigen Ministeriums für Inneres und Immigration. Datenschützer sind dennoch skeptisch. Denn wer garantiert, dass nicht später doch die Kennzeichen gelesen werden? Dann könnte auch das Knöllchen vom vergangenen Holland-Urlaub noch kassiert werden. Auch herrschen Zweifel, ob auf den Fotos Menschen wirklich nicht erkannt werden können. Das System ist seit 2004 in Polizeikreisen im Gespräch, am belgischen Grenzübergang Hazeldonk machten die Niederländer ab 2005 verschiedene Tests. Dennoch rücken die Behörden nur zögerlich mit Detailinformationen über dieses neue System heraus, bemängelt Datenschützer Böhre. Knapp sechs Wochen vor der Einführung ist noch nicht genau bekannt, welche Daten wie genutzt werden. Klar ist: Die Autos werden von vorne und von der Seite fotografiert. Das Instrument mit dem nebulösen Namen @MIGO-BORAS wurde speziell für die Grenzüberwachung entwickelt. "Das sind doch verkappte Grenzkontrollen, damit unterlaufen die Niederlande die Abmachungen von Schengen", sagt Datenschützer Böhre. Auch die EU-Kommission untersuche die niederländischen Pläne inzwischen."

Read the entire article at WDR HERE, or click HERE for an 'English version' in Google Translate.

Privacy-wise these are turbulent times. Partly because of the pressure by Privacy First, a positive change is ongoing since last year. Privacy is higher up on the Dutch political agenda. Dutch media more often and more extensively report on privacy matters. This enhances privacy awareness among the Dutch population. It also reinforces our democratic constitutional State. Examples of positive developments are the abandonment of the electronic toll system (no ‘espionage units’ in cars), voluntary instead of compulsory ‘smart energy meters’, voluntary instead of compulsory body-scans at airports, abandonment of the storage of fingerprints under the Dutch Passport Act and the introduction of Privacy Impact Assessments for new legislation that invades the privacy of citizens. All of these developments go hand in hand with Privacy First’s motto: ‘‘your choice in a free society’’. Meanwhile, privacy restricting forces from the old days still have their say. Bad habits die hard. In recent months this became particularly obvious through developments towards a private restart of the Dutch Electronic Health Record (Elektronisch Patiëntendossier, EPD). Earlier this year the Senate had rightly binned the EPD. Apparently some policy makers and commercial parties are having none of this. With similar stubbornness others are currently trying to press through their old plans for Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) and camera surveillance along the Dutch border. These plans were already on the drawing board years ago, in a time in which privacy increasingly seemed to become a taboo. A time in which the American Bush administration was able to burden the entire European Union with biometric passports and associated databases. That time is over, but the heritage of that era still exerts its influence to this day...

In the meantime privacy is back where it once was. Privacy is the ‘‘new green.’’ In that respect advocates of the national EPD and ANPR are behaving like a bunch of old environmental polluters. They’re like rusty old factories from the 70s being teletransported to the year 2011, without them realizing it. The Dutch House of Representatives seemed to have a good sense for this when last week it unanimously accepted a motion about something that Privacy First has been emphasizing since its foundation: ‘‘Privacy by Design’’. In other words, incorporating privacy from scratch in a technical sense, at the micro level, through Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET). In the view of Privacy First, however, the principle of ‘‘Privacy by Design’’ also applies to the meso- and macro-levels. That is to say, in an organizational and legislative sense. After all, this is the way you get to a privacy-friendly design as well as a privacy-friendly reality of a sustainable information society as a whole. Well, you can pursue your own line of thoughts here. As a source of inspiration Privacy First is pleased to provide the entire text of the parliamentary motion:

The House of Representatives,

on the advice of the deliberation,

considering that in ICT projects of the government there is too little attention for the protection of privacy and too little attention for the prevention of abuse of these systems;

considering that the privacy of citizens is not to be invaded any more than is strictly necessary and that insecure systems can put privacy in danger;

considering that systems that can easily be hacked seriously affect the reputation of government;

considering that modifying systems to safeguard privacy and enhancing security afterward, is usually more expensive and more often leads to a lower level of protection compared to when privacy and security are prerequisites from the outset of the project;  

requests the government to apply privacy by design and security by design in the development of all new ICT projects in order for new ICT systems to be more secure and better prepared against abuse and only to contain privacy-sensitive information when strictly necessary,

and proceeds to the order of the day.

Published in Law & Politics

Soon every car driver in Holland will be a potential suspect 

Under a new, far-reaching legislative proposal, the Dutch Minister for Security and Justice Ivo Opstelten aims to enhance criminal investigation by introducing a four week storage period of the number plates of all cars through camera surveillance. Current rules dictate that these data have to be deleted within 24 hours. Last year the previous Minister of Justice (Hirsch Ballin) planned to make a similar proposal with a storage period of 10 days. However, the Dutch House of Representatives then declared this topic to be controversial. In his current proposal, Opstelten takes things a few steps further. Already in 2008 the Dutch Data Protection Authority (College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, CBP) ruled that police forces were not adhering to Dutch privacy rules by storing number plates for a greater period than was legally permitted. According to the CBP, all number plates that are not suspect (so-called ‘no-hits’) are to be removed from relevant databases immediately. Opstelten’s plan to also store the number plates of unsuspected citizens for four weeks directly flies in the face of this.  

Listen to what Privacy First had to say (in Dutch) about this on Radio 2 (NCRV, Knooppunt Kranenbarg, 11 January 2011):



Read more about Opstelten's plans in Computerworld , Tweakers  and on the weblog of SOLV.
Published in CCTV
Page 3 of 3

Our Partners

logo Voys Privacyfirst
logo greenhost
logo platfrm
logo AKBA
logo boekx
logo brandeis
 
 
 
banner ned 1024px1
logo demomedia
 
 
 
 
 
Pro Bono Connect logo
Procis

Follow us on Twitter

twitter icon

Follow our RSS-feed

rss icon

Follow us on LinkedIn

linked in icon

Follow us on Facebook

facebook icon