14
May

Amtrak Derailment in Philadelphia surfaces important points likely to be on any technical product development roadmap

2 Color Design Hi-Res The chronicle of a tragedy that befell an AMTRAK commuter train on May 13, 2015 includes points worth consideration by any product marketer working on solutions for process control, and even the Internet of Things (IoT). These points should also be of interest to anyone with a role in an operational risk management (ORM) effort for mechanized mass transport.

Comments on the most prominent of these points, namely AMTRAK’s inability to implement the Positive Train Control service:

Just because a customer has either purchased a solution, or committed resources to a solution, does not mean the customer has taken the steps required to move forward on it. As Jad Mouwad wrote on May 13, 2015 in the New York Times in an article titled Technology That Could Have Prevented Amtrak Derailment Was Absent (http://www NULL.nytimes NULL.com/2015/05/14/us/technology-that-could-have-prevented-amtrak-derailment-was-absent NULL.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT NULL.nav=top-news), Positive Train Control (a complex solution leveraging real time data from sensors to manage the performance of locomotives on rails) ” . . . might have prevented the derailment of a Metro-North commuter train in the Bronx in December 2013 that killed four people and injured dozens . . . ” and the Philadelphia tragedy, as well.

But Mouwad writes ” . . . the absence of the technology has come up repeatedly.” Bottom line: Positive Train Control looked great on paper, but the task of applying it, Mouwad writes, ” . . . involves fitting 36,000 wayside units and equipping 26,000 locomotives according to industry figures.”

The takeaway for product marketers? Putting together a “complexity assessment”, complete with an estimate of likely impact on customer ROI, should be a mandatory feature of a product roadmap.

In turn, and from the customer side of a purchase decision, an internal operational risk management (ORM) effort should also discount the usefulness of a purchase like Positive Train Control based on likely internal obstacles to implementation. Of course the discount should be applied against the ROI expected from the investment. A governance plan should include the steps required to overcome these obstacles to ROI.

If your business is developing solutions like Positive Train Control, but you lack an internal product marketing management effort to craft a promising roadmap for your rollout, please do not hesitate to contact us. We bring to the table over 30 years experience promoting and selling technology solutions (hardware, software, services) to the kind of complex enterprise customer fitting the presentation of AMTRAK (unfortunately), in this example.

We can also help customer organizations looking to improve the performance of ORM functions in order to better prepare for tragedies like this one.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

8
Apr

Near term future consumer risks from successful malicious online activities look to grow

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthDespite what looks like a daily increase in the number of successful attempts to maliciously disrupt legitimate online activities, end consumers look more exposed, today, and for the near term future than ever before.

Two factors contribute to this assessment:

  1. Hacker tools now include a much richer supply of once legitimate access credentials. At the same time the set of organizations victimized by hacker successes are moving at too slow a pace towards safely pooling the kind of information critically important to an objective of better defending future victims from the next round of hacker activities
  2. Risk management programs–electronic data insurance policies–exist (and are available for businesses to purchase), but are not funded to an appropriate level, given the extent of business exposure to hacker activities. There is little indication of the underwriters of these programs adding much more financial power to them anytime soon.

Both of these factors are worth further description: proven methods exist to render information specific to organizations anonymous. As written earlier in this blog, I have personal direct experience promoting content sets (Key Risk Indicators, or KRIs) produced by one of these methods by an ISV targeting operational risk management teams for banking institutions subject to the Basel II accord.

There is no reason why similar technology cannot be used to strip critically important information about compromised login credentials of the specifics required to directly identify the source of the data. In case readers are unfamiliar with the imperative for keeping organization-specific information absolutely private, there are a number of good reasons for this requirement. The two most prominent of these amount to:

  1. Protecting an institution from full revelation of the extent of damages suffered to peers within its industry group and
  2. Protecting an institution from potentially damaging publicity

Certainly other reasons exist. Readers looking to explore these can contact me. I will be happy to discuss the topic further.

But the lack of interest on the part of risk underwriters to “bulk up” on the financial resources they offer does not look to be as sanguine and easily correctable. On April 7, 2015, the Wall Street Journal published an article written by Rachel King titled Cyber Insurance Capacity is ‘Very Small’: AIG CEO (http://blogs NULL.wsj NULL.com/cio/2015/04/02/cyber-insurance-capacity-is-very-small-aig-ceo/). In my opinion Ms. King is on track to publish this piece, which includes excerpts from an interview Ms. King had with Mr. Peter D. Hancock, the CEO of AIG.

One of the quotes Ms. King includes from her conversation with Mr. Hancock should provide the data security ISV community with a very valuable insight: “‘I suspect, over time, the willingness of insurers and by others in the industry to provide greater capacity will increase with greater comfort in the maturity of the countermeasures'” Apparently Mr. Hancock, AIG, and, perhaps, a good chunk of the rest of the risk underwriting business community are not yet convinced about our ability to defeat the hackers. Makes sense to me and ought to provide ISVs with a reason to work harder at the hacker problem.

In the meantime, businesses, and the members of the general public affiliated with them, should plan on more pain.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

2
Apr

Frequency and intensity of successful malicious exploits of online data call for a pooling of information between impacted parties

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthWhen hackers obtain otherwise legitimate credentials to online sites and the data repositories they contain, the likelihood of success for their efforts to depart with data they do not own is much greater — perhaps unstoppable. Therefore it makes sense for parties impacted by these attacks to pool their information so a new level of defense can be promptly implemented against further successful exploits with the same credentials.

Unfortunately this is the condition apparently in place in March 2015. On Sunday, March 29, 2015 the online edition of the Wall Street Journal ran a story written by the Associated Press titled Some British Airways Frequent-Flier Accounts Hacked (http://www NULL.wsj NULL.com/articles/some-british-airways-frequent-flier-accounts-hacked-1427598805?KEYWORDS=british+airways). Notable in the article is mention of what appears to be the method the hackers used to access the data: “The breach apparently was the result of a third party using information obtained elsewhere on the Internet”.

Then, through what looks like a brute force method of simply trying credential set after credential set against the access control method at the perimeter of the British Airways web site, the hackers eventually succeeded in their effort. Tellingly, the writers from the Associated Press note this attack is, apparently, the fourth such recent attempt. The other attempts compromised data owned by the “Hilton and Starwood” hotel brands and “United and American airlines”.

It is very hard to defend a data repository against requests for access based on legitimate credentials. Sure processes can be implemented to detect brute force access methods and to deny access — even to holders of legitimate credentials — when they are presented within the context of a brute force attack. But what if the “automated process” mentioned by the Associated Press amounted to a substantially more sophisticated tactic than a rapid, repeated completion of an online site access form? It would be much harder to detect a brute force attack should it transpire over days, or even weeks.

Regardless of how one argues data owners should defend themselves against these types of attacks, the substantial value of implementing data consortiums — literally groups pooling data about attacks — as a defense method should pass muster. One can argue law enforcement agencies already provide this type of knowledge “beyond the wall” and should be able to play this role. But there is another aspect to the potential of a data consortium for online data security, a similar opportunity to the concept of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) as it has been applied to efforts to implement Operational Risk Management (ORM) solutions for global financial businesses. This application of a data consortium will not fall within the purview of a decision to look to law enforcement for “environmentally relevant” data about similar data security breaches. I have some experience with ORM solutions including KRIs and would be interested to speak with readers with an interest in hearing further about this notion. Please contact me to discuss.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

31
Mar

On the brighter prospects of a world with more tasks handled by machines

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthSince the advent of the world wide web in the early 1990s it has been possible to craft viable business models from highly specific — and limited — market niches. Now, in 2015, with the promise of an expansion in the capabilities of computing machines to handle more tasks of, perhaps, a mundane nature, this opportunity horizon has widened even further. (If you would like more information about why I have specifically connected the enormous popularity of web pages exposed over Ethernet networks for the general public as an important milestone leading to an enormous expansion in the range of viable tech business notions, please contact me as I offer consulting services in this area).

I think it makes sense for readers to keep this factor in mind as they witness public debate about the notion of just whether or not the proliferation of robots, hardware computing machines powered by algorithms, and even what are colloquially referred to as “smart” applications (and apps) will, in sum, result in a net positive, or negative, result for the sheer number of people employed.

An OPED piece published on the CNN web site on March 18, 2015 communicates the seriousness of this debate and adds a raw edge to it: Silicon Valley to millennials: Drop dead (http://www NULL.cnn NULL.com/2015/03/18/opinions/wheeler-silicon-valley-jobs/index NULL.html). The piece is written by David R. Wheeler. I could not find any information about him, beyond his picture on the CNN web site. So I can provide no background on why CNN decided to post his article.

The raw and right-to-the-point flavor of Wheeler’s chosen title for his piece certainly captures one’s attention. When this factor is combined with CNN’s decision to go to press, and prominently, with this piece, I would hope my readers will agree the topic has a lot of interest behind it, as it should given what I take to be Wheeler’s core point: “The commonly held belief is that with hard work and a good education, a young person in America can get a good job”.

Given the statistics Wheeler provides in his piece, he is probably correct in his conclusion the employment horizon has darkened. But if I replace “can get a good job” in the above quote with “can achieve financial security and even wealth”, then the horizon opens up for another phenomenon we are all witnessing today: an explosion in the number of small businesses and, particular, technology startups.

As recently as Sunday, March 29, 2015, an article appeared on the Financial Times web site about an entrepreneur by the name of Bart Van der Roost. Mr. Van der Roost has started a business by the name of neoScores (http://www NULL.neoscores NULL.com). I hope readers can share my appreciation for Van der Roost to craft what may become a very promising business from an especially narrow niche market — musicians requiring scores on digital devices. Perhaps we can extrapolate from his notion an opportunity for literally millions of these niches just waiting for entrepreneurs to expose.

Sure code is required. But isn’t code one of the skills people can go to college to learn? I hope we can all take a more sunny view of a new world of computing with hardware devices (powered by algorithms) capable of executing a widened vista of tasks.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

28
Mar

What is prompting interest in Altera from Intel?

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-width This last week the Wall Street Journal published an article written by Dana Mattioli, Dana Cimilluca, and Don Clark about Intel® and Altera® (http://www NULL.wsj NULL.com/articles/intel-in-talks-to-buy-altera-1427485172).

The topic was Intel’s public expression of more than a passing interest in Altera from the perspective of an acquisition. Despite the fact no name could be publicly associated (the following claim is merely attributed to “people familiar with the matter” in the article) with the most important clause in the piece, “Intel Corp. is in advanced talks to buy chip partner Altera Corp”, a lot of editorial content appeared almost instantaneously after the publication of this article in the online WSJ, in what might easily be construed as merely a knee-jerk reaction as the 800 lb gorilla in the PC CPU business starts moving around and sniffing the air.

Is this interest the result of Intel’s obsession with opening other substantial revenue streams? Or is it being prompted by Intel’s inept handling of Altera as its biggest tenant for its foundry business? Or, finally, is it even being prompted by recent market acknowledgement of favorable features of Field Programmable Gateway Architecture (FPGA) semi-conductors (Altera’s main product line) for the development of what amounts to today’s hottest trend in computing — machine learning, algorithms and computer cognition systems. Incidentally, anyone skeptical on this last point should read this call for proposals from the ACM (http://www NULL.sigarch NULL.org/2015/01/17/call-for-proposals-intel-altera-heterogeneous-architecture-research-platform-program/).

I will not take the time here to provide more detail on each of the above points, namely, the need to augment the PC CPU business with something equally compelling for major markets, the foundry business model, or FPGAs as a superior platform for machine learning applications. If you would like further detail on any of these, or all, please contact me and we can talk about it.

If impatient readers with a keen interest in either player in this drama still think it is very important to put together a strategy now to plan for this acquisition taking place, it might save them a lot of effort to simply mention “this notion has come up before” as a quick look at Analyst: Intel may acquire FPGA vendor (http://www NULL.eetimes NULL.com/document NULL.asp?doc_id=1172756), which was published back in 2010 will corroborate.

Bottom line, we need further word from Intel and Altera before any one of us should write much more about this. The setting simply is not clear enough, now, to warrant all of this chatter.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

11
Mar

A consumerized enterprise IT realm is de rigueur in early 2015

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthFew consumer tech commentators, if any, would argue there is much of a market for laptop PCs within their target audience. If these devices are in demand anywhere, the likely market segment is enterprise computing.

So the new 12 inch Macbook with Retina display, which was presented to a global audience during Apple’s “Spring Forward”, March 9, 2015 event is targeted to the enterprise computing market, right? Perhaps. But where, then, is the usual CAT5 port for wired Ethernet data communications? The answer is it does not exist.

Almost every commentator writing about the debut of this device emphasized the strategic forward thinking of the design of this laptop based on a USB Type C port as its sole interface for networks, charging, etc. To simply quote from one of these reviews, readers might want to consider the following comment, which appears in a post to The Verge blog titled Hands-on with the new 12-inch MacBook with Retina Display (http://www NULL.theverge NULL.com/2015/3/9/8173685/macbook-retina-display-usb-type-c-hands-on-video). Dieter Bohn, who wrote the post, remarks “the screen actually isn’t the most important part of this new MacBook. No, instead it’s the small port on the side, a USB Type-C port that serves as the power jack, a do-anything USB port, a display port, and essentially anything else you could imagine using a cable for.”

The strategic impact of this decision to dispense with a hard wired Ethernet option for a device intended to compete with Windows PCs (or, is the target Microsoft’s Surface 3 two-in-ones?) within the enclaves of businesses, only makes sense in a brave new world of enterprise computing, one ruled over by an autocratic obsession with consumerized IT. It just is not safe to look to wireless data communications for everything.

Readers need not fear Microsoft has been left out of this criticism. The Surface Pro 3 two-in-one also lacks a native Ethernet interface. But there is a docking station option for the Microsoft entry in this category. Per the March 9, 2015 presentation, there does not appear to be one for the 12 inch Macbook.

No industry expert argues for entirely wireless data communications for mission-critical information. It is just too dangerous from a data security perspective. The 12 inch Macbook should have a docking station. One would hope Apple will announce one very soon.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

9
Mar

Android remains a difficult opportunity for Google to successfully manage

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthGoogle recently announced its intention to proceed with a wireless data service. The latest spin on this decision, exemplified by an article published on the Wall Street Journal web site on March 8, 2015, takes this step as an indicator of a new, more frugal Google. But seen from a different angle it looks like an aggressive shot at Google’s partners in the Android alliance.

The title of the Journal article is Google: The Value of Thrift. The piece was written by Dan Gallagher and points to some recent steps taken by Google, which Gallagher presents as evidence of real follow through on points made during their most recent Quarterly earning report. Gallagher writes about the report: “Google hinted that it might curb its spending after a year in which capital expenditure surged 49% to nearly $11 billion.”

Gallagher finds an important example of this new campaign, at work, in some public announcements from Google about their decision to go forward as a wireless data provider. Gallagher notes “The Wall Street Journal also reported that the [wireless service to be offered by Google] will be limited to customers using Google’s own Nexus phones, which make up only a small portion of the overall Android market.”

But if I were the President of Samsung, or LG, or any other of Google’s partners in the Android mobile O/S effort, I don’t think I would be too pleased to learn the team managing the overall Android stack has just now decided to debut a promising wireless data effort (to deliver high quality/very high speed wireless data services from pipes supplied by T-Mobile, Sprint and more) for only its own phones. Why not mine too? I venture this phrase bounced around a few conference rooms when the news of this plan broke during Mobile World Congress 2015.

In my opinion this move is simply the latest in a series of steps likely to cause more headache for Google than anything else. The real sore spot, of course, is the damage a self-serving deal like this one can wreak on a very important recent effort on Google’s part to improve its penetration of the enterprise computing market. Certainly Android partners like Samsung are critically important to the success of this effort. Research has demonstrated enterprise IT organizations look at the Samsung Android device platform as one of, if not the only, line of Android devices worth serious consideration for an enterprise rollout. So why leave them out in the cold on this one?

It’s hard for me to get behind Google’s “moon shots” when they stumble around as they appear to have done on this one.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

5
Mar

Perhaps accurate metrics on the extent of cloud adoption are not important

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthA lot has been made over the last few weeks about a skew between Microsoft’s announcements about sales of cloud SaaS and PaaS subscriptions to enterprise business and the extent to which these subscriptions are actually used. For any readers unfamiliar with the current chatter about Microsoft on this topic, an article titled Microsoft’s Cloud Successes Based on Sales Not Usage? (http://windowsitpro NULL.com/azure/microsofts-cloud-successes-based-sales-not-usage) may provide a quick introduction to this tract of opinion.

But what if the question of adoption really does not matter? What if the more important metric, at least at present, meaning March 2015, are the actual statistics of big businesses signing onto Office 365 and/or Azure? After all, to what extent are businesses using all of the components in the Google Apps for Business set? I would argue not much.

In fact it may simply be too soon to expect high levels of enterprise business adoption of cloud computing services. If nothing else stands in the way, simply consider the current noise about the insecurity of data communications via public cloud options. Surely most readers will attest to a deafening volume, with some new, prominent business or US government agency pushed into the limelight almost on a daily basis. Why would 28K people at Merck (simply to name one very large organization) drop their other computing options to embrace Office in the cloud given the potential risks?

But according to what most readers will likely take to be a combination of a testimonial, and a customer success story, Merck has, nevertheless, purchased Office 365 and is using it. The Office blog on March 5, 2015 featured an article titled A new foundation for connected business processes at a German pharmaceutical and chemical company (http://blogs NULL.office NULL.com/2015/03/04/new-foundation-connected-business-processes-german-pharmaceutical-chemical-company-2/). This article is attributed to Dr. Matthias Geselle, who is introduced as “a Vice President, member of the IT leadership team at Merck.” The content describes a collaboration solution, named “Connect 15″, which is built on Microsoft components. “Connect 15″ replaced a combination of Lotus Notes, “IBM Sametime”, and WebEx.

The Office blog includes a number of these articles. Perhaps some of the more vocal naysayers in this public discussion would benefit from reading them. Every one of the articles is written by a representative of the customer, meaning the enterprise business opting to purchase Microsoft’s cloud services. It is hard to argue with this type of testimonial.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

3
Mar

Has the Harvard Business Review embraced the notion of controlled free market competition for the tech sphere?

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-width On Monday, March 2, 2015, the online edition of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) published an article written by Kira Radinsky titled Data Monopolists Like Google Are Threatening the Economy (https://hbr NULL.org/2015/03/data-monopolists-like-google-are-threatening-the-economy).

Does it make sense for anyone reading this article to tightly associate (perhaps in a Pavlovian manner) the opinion expressed in it with the Harvard Business Review, itself? Did Radinsky intend to capitalize on the opportunity of publishing this article on as ostensibly a prestigious web site as HBR for some reason?

I hope readers will not find themselves somehow adrift as they ponder the above questions. The questions are not coming out of the void. Because the position Radinsky presents in this article is actually consistent, as I read it, with a Socialist view of how tech businesses should be regulated by the government to ensure “fair” competition.

In fact, a review of Radinsky’s public profile on LinkedIn reveals her management position in a company based in Israel. So why is the HBR publishing her article? Is it not fair to assume the average reader could misconstrue the article and its position on the HBR site as a tacit endorsement of some new test to genuine American free market capitalism (credit to Larry Kudlow for coining this phrase).

So with this preamble in place, let me now dive into what I think really matters. Radinsky presents the following “fact”: “Today, the most prominent factors are historical search query logs and their corresponding search result clicks. Studies show that the historical search improves search results up to 31%.” Sure, if the technology is predicated on personalization techniques and “cookies”, etc.

There is no reason why competitors to Google (for example) couldn’t approach the same objective from a completely different angle. In fact, given the growing public concern about personalization and its dependence on activities of the invasion of privacy kind, there is, perhaps, a palpable imperative to find just this kind of new way of approaching the task.

Free market capitalism always rewards the “better mousetrap”. So why argue for a controlled marketplace where stakeholders in one approach are penalized just because the “better mousetrap” has yet to be found?

Granted, we have yet to witness the introduction of this “better mousetrap”, but I would argue the recent successes Facebook has reported over the last several business quarters are indicative of a real shift away from the kind of traditional search engine marketing for which Google is renowned.

In my opinion the editors at HBR should have thought a bit more about Radinsky’s article before agreeing to publish it.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

28
Feb

Microsoft takes three steps worth some thought by anyone following this mature ISV

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthIn late February, 2015, Microsoft announced 3 changes in components of its business worth some thought by anyone with an interest in this mature ISV.

On February 20, 2015 Dan Kedmey wrote about Microsoft’s acquision of Acompli for the Time online magazine. He noted “Acompli is the best example of Microsoft’s new playbook: In a matter of weeks, Microsoft took Acompli’s popular email app and rebranded it as Outlook for iOS and Android, to rave reviews from the tech press.” (readers can view Kedmey’s complete article, titled This Is Microsoft’s New Plan to Invade Your Smartphone (http://time NULL.com/3716303/microsoft-acquisitions/) on the Time magazine web site). But this method of consuming acquisitions and spitting them back out as simply new examples of Microsoft branded products, contrasts with another famous acquisition, namely the Skype purchase. The Skype service has retained its own independent brand despite being a wholly owned component of the Microsoft revenue model. So why the change with Acompli? Further, does it make sense to try (I would argue for yet another time in a long string of unsuccessful attempts) to extend a well known enterprise computing brand name — the Outlook email client — into solidly, at best, BYOD territory? Acompli had a great app following among mobile computing consumers, many of which could likely care less about the email client they use at work.

Then there is the question of the “about face” Microsoft recently took on what looked to be a welcome change of direction towards “the norm” (meaning Chrome and Firefox) in web browser world. As Nathan Ingraham wrote on little more than a month ago on the Verge web site, in an article titled Microsoft officially announces Project Spartan, its new web browser for Windows 10 (http://www NULL.theverge NULL.com/2015/1/21/7863331/microsoft-project-spartan-new-web-browser), Redmond looked like it was going to change the web browser of choice for Windows 10 from Internet Explorer (IE) to something new and promising — the Spartan Browser. As any die hard IE user knows, the quirks and, perhaps, nonsensical differentiations built into Microsoft’s flagship web page browser, make little sense anymore. Market share is eroding day by day. So a change in a popular direction seemed to make a lot of sense.

But then on February 26, 2015, Microsoft back tracked. As Kurt Mackie wrote for the RedmondMag blog in an article titled Microsoft Blinks on Using Open Source Engine for Spartan Browser (http://redmondmag NULL.com/articles/2015/02/26/open-source-and-spartan-browser NULL.aspx), one of the reasons given for the decision amounted to “‘we felt it was important to counter movement towards a monoculture on the Web.'” (please click the link just provided to read Mackie’s complete article). But could “monoculture” be a good think? Even for Microsoft?

Finally, there are a couple of realities about the present IE 11 browser on Windows 7 and the same browser on Windows 8.1 worth some consideration. In keeping with the point Microsoft just made about “monoculture”, and its determination to “counter” movement towards it, the feature sets of these two browsers are, in my opinion, radically dissimilar from Chrome and/or Firefox. These differences, once again in my opinion, are, perhaps, not for the best. Perhaps more worrisome is how my first thoughts about these features take me back to my original opinion about Windows 8 and touch computing on desktop machines in the first place — a big big stretch I did not care to make.

I kind of like the new Microsoft. The Microsoft looking to partner with everybody else. The one not trying so hard to stand out from the crowd. What about you?

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved