Lea Laura Michelsen – Cracking the surface of biometric “face value” or getting under the skin of the biometric mask

Current research within the digital humanities has difficulties coming up with strategies for dealing with the issues raised by biometric technologies. This paper pays particular attention to the biometric masks made by art activist Zach Blas. Drawing on Halberstams continuation on Foucault’s concept naïve knowledges, I argue that Blas contributes with knowledge of great value to the overall research field.1

Biometrics is a group of technologies that scan biological characteristics in order to verify the identity of a human being (Pugliese 8). This could be faces, as I will be focusing on here, but it could also be fingerprints, gait, brain activity etc. Face biometrics visualize either as a biometric template or as an altering of the face (e.g. cute doll eyes). I define this aesthetic expression a biometric mask, emphasizing the difference between biometric identities and their subjects.

Biometrics can be found at borders, in CCTV surveillance and airports, but many are in touch with biometrics on a daily basis through social media such as Instagram, Snapchat and Messenger. As we process our faces in these social media with seemingly innocent beauty effects, generating doll eyes or magically transforming our faces in Hollywood style, we often don’t think about the underlying apparatus we provide with intimate data. In this paper I crack open the biometric mask by using three tools: introducing a current example of how biometrics discriminate, digging into the history of the biometric mask and looking to a contemporary art-activist processing of biometrics.


A physiognomic renaissance: revealing the real face of biometric masks
Biometric masks are made of a somewhat obscure material. Since it has a digital infrastructure, the components and workings of the biometric mask are not perceivable to the human eye. As such the fabric, the thread and stitching of the mask is invisible, and so it is unclear how it is made and what it is made of. Still, it leaves visible marks on our culture. Take this biometric mask:

Skærmbillede 2017-11-21 kl. 10.51.21

In January 2017 FaceApp was released. The app can alter your face in ways that make you look more feminine, masculine etc. During the spring a debate began evolving concerning the so called “Hot”-filter (Cresci; McGoogan). When applying this filter, the app brightened the skin and enlarged the eyes. I have chosen the example above because it seems like a glitch. Looking to other examples following the #faceapp on Twitter, the app would normally generate a biometric mask that blends into the original face. In this particular case though the glitch open a small crack in the surface of biometrics, through which a very telling biometric mask pops up. What pushes forward and covers the face of the user entirely is the inner operations of the biometric technology. The algorithms have momentarily manifested themselves, visualizing a highly normative body politics running through the threads of FaceApp’s biometric masks. A politics that apparently values white faces hot and others not.

This mask reveals the real face of biometrics. Biometric glitches and failures often occur, when subjects deferring from a normative white body ideal present themselves to the technology, rendering them unbiometrifiable (Magnet 5). As Magnet writes:

Given the long list of reasons why a biometric scanner might fail, it seems that these technologies work best for blue-eyed males with good eyesight and no disabilities, neither too young nor too old, a Goldilocks subject who is “jussstright” (31).

Being confronted with the invisible yet obviously white ideologies of the biometric mask as a non-white subject can be an extremely unpleasant experience in itself. Additionally, by rendering certain subjects “not there” biometrics can deprive the unbiometrifiables of their subject status and cause that they are temporarily retained in airports, at borders etc. It might even register certain subjects as “terrorist faces” (Gates; Lyon).

Because of this, getting a biometric mask can quickly turn into being a claustrophobic experience, which is visualized by Blas in his artwork fittingly titled Face Cages (2013-16):

Face Cages2

Sticking to the face; attaching stereotypic value to it, overwriting it with normatively structured cultural meaning or simply effacing its value entirely, the biometric mask might both insult and deprive its subject of its freedom of movement. By transforming the obscure fabric of the mask into a more solid material: metal, Blas points towards the mask as a reductive representation of a human being. The physical reproduction of the mask is, as he states, “basically stabbing [his] eyeballs” (Zach Blas, “Informatic Opacity” 51:55-52:05). There is a clash between the face and the mask; the identity and the biometric identity. By pointing this out, Blas both gives attention to the problematic sociocultural inequalities produced by biometrics and to the problematic logics inherent to the technologies that enact these inequalities.

The biometric mask is made of algorithmic threads, running through and determining the figure of the mask according to logics that can be traced back to western colonialism (Ajana; Gates; Magnet; Pugliese). Thus, the biometric masks of today echo analogue and highly discriminatory biometric masks of the 18th and 19th centuries. Scientists, artists and philosophers have been trying to map the relation between body and identity since antiquity (Freeland 119; Pugliese 36). This exact phenomenon has been characterized in the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari as the tradition of faciality (197). But from 1775 to 1778 the tradition of faciality was systematized as an actual science named physiognomy by theologian Lavater (Pugliese 36). Lavater produced analogue biometric masks that established a so called scientific relation between outer and inner character. This analogue biometric mask from 1797, for example, claimed that people with similar faces were to be valued both ugly and stupid (Wegenstein 10):

Skærmbillede 2017-08-27 kl. 10.46.58

What emerges from this, is a duality in the biometric mask between obscurity and transparency. The biometric mask promises transparency – it presents the face as a portal, facilitating a direct insight into the soul of a subject – while actually covering the face with normatively structured cultural meaning. The physiognomic logic cultivated by analogue biometrics not only propagated an ideology of taking the face at face value. It also established a hierarchy of faces:

Skærmbillede 2017-01-26 kl. 21.15.55

This example by the anatomist Camper put the face of what he termed “the African” at the bottom of a hierarchy, comparing it with an ape, and a male Caucasian face at the top, indicating a higher status. According to Pugliese such biometric masks were later used by slavery apologetics in the U.S. (33). Later, the biometrics of criminologist Lombroso and eugenicist Galton allowed for representing certain subjects as having criminal tendencies (Pugliese 51).Because of this history both Ajana and Pugliese define biometrics as biopolitical technologies.

By stating that biometric failure is an undesired event, researchers like Ajana, Magnet, Pugliese and Lyon seem to propose that being biometrifiable is a privilege, though historically being biometrifiable has never been a desirable situation. With Facial Weaponization Suite (2011-14) – the counterpart to Face Cages – Blas creates an artistic expression that can open up an interesting perspective on being unbiometrifiable.

What can come from engaging with biometric counter-masks?
Contrary to the face cages it is not possible to detect any faces behind the masks in Facial Weaponization Suite:

Skærmbillede 2017-08-26 kl. 19.13.02

Furthermore, they look more organic and soft. They are colorful and almost kind of humorous, playful. And although they probably don’t fit perfectly, there is something much more spacious and inclusive about their shape. They have the exact opposite function of the face cages; they obscure the face not by encoding it with normatively organized cultural meaning but by shielding it from that cultural meaning to manifest itself at all.

In an accompanying video manifest called Facial Weaponization Communiqué, Blas claims that the first mask – the glossy, pink bubbly, candy floss-like one – can be used as protection against biometric identification. Evoking a political tradition of the mask – Anonymous, Pussy Riot, the Zapatistas and Black Bloc (Blas, FWC 06:28-06:52) – Blas investigates the potential of being unbiometrifiable and uses the counter-masks to exploit biometric failures rather than trying to fix them. Wearing this mask, a biometric face recognition technology would continually slide along the smooth surface of the mask; its curves and depths, its dead ends. It would search in vain for a face in the pink, non-signifying landscape. A scene illustrates the counter-masks in action:

Facial Weaponization Communique Fag Face Video still4 (2012)

While a green, thin square indicates a biometric identification, the lack of squares around the faces of the mask-wearing subjects seems to indicate that the biometric technology does not notice them. Yet the pink masks make them even more visible than the biometrified woman. There is something disquieting about their slow-motion stroll through the streets. In which city or airport would you not be asked to take the masks off? And keeping in mind that biometrics are able to identify subjects from so many other biological traits, the strategy of wearing a Fag Face mask seems clumsy and impractical.

So, what are we to do with these seemingly useless masks? At first sight they seem almost too cute to arm a potential revolt. Pugliese has described the glorification of unbiometrifiability as naïve and privileged (75), Monahan has described Blas’ art as fashionable and “inviting a playful dance with [surveillance]” (171) and De Vries has pointed out that Blas’ art inserts a reductive dichotomy between humans and machines (81). I am not arguing here that there is not something naïve and aestheticizing about Blas’ masks. What I am interested in is the value of stepping outside of the academically well-founded map of biometrics and onto unknown grounds – even if they seem naïve. Turning to Halberstams continuation on Foucault’s concept of naïve or subjugated knowledges (Foucault 7-8), I want to propose that we investigate what kind of knowledge is produced by Blas’ counter-masks. As Halberstam writes:

Indeed terms like serious and rigorous tend to be code words […] they signal a form of training and learning that confirms what is already known according to approved methods of knowing […] Training of any kind, in fact, is a way of refusing a kind of Benjaminian relation to knowing, a stroll down uncharted streets in the “wrong” direction […] I propose that instead the goal is to lose one’s way (6).

What could come from strolling along with the mask-wearing subjects? When considering the rapid propagation of biometrics and the consequent physiognomic renaissance, aesthetic expressions that create spaces for alternative gazes seem much needed. We are looking at new forms of networked biopolitics that once again feed on normative and discriminatory valuations of the human. We are looking at long rejected concepts of identity haunting and changing not only our faces, but our culture as well. Much research focus on the sociocultural inequalities that biometrics bring along – and for good reason. But the tendency towards proposing adjustments to biometric technologies does not solve the more pressing and fundamental problems of biopolitical control facilitated by them. Conversely it risks refining and consolidating such control.

Following Halberstam new knowledge can come from lingering in the naïve and the fallible, and so I propose that we let ourselves loose our way in Blas’ worlds for a while. I propose to play and follow through to the dead ends, to let ourselves dream recklessly, insisting on getting out of the physiognomic logic of face value. Instead of looking for a practical potential in these masks, we could consider them as aesthetic objects opening up a new realm that cultivates different logics and ways of relating. In this new and unknown ground, there is no face to turn to. There is nothing to be taken at face value. The counter-masks devalue the face, disturbing the physiognomic identity logic produced by biometrics. A temporary interruption that makes room for new logics to enter the mind. This disturbance may be more of an aesthetic than practical strategy for dealing with biometrics, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be political. Why not counteract the aesthetics of biometrics with an aesthetics of counter-biometrics insisting on alternative logics; other ways of relating than through faces, surfaces? This is an early stage of proposing researching in such anti-biometric aesthetics which I find paramount to rolling back the renaissance of physiognomy.

Notes
1. The same could be said of at least four additional art activists working with biometrics: Adam Harvey, Heather Dewey-Hagborg, Sterlin Crispin and Leo Selvaggio.


Works cited
Ajana, Btihaj. Governing Through Biometrics: The Biopolitics of Identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Blas, Zach. Face Cages. 2013-2016. http://www.zachblas.info/works/face-cages/. Accessed 12 December 2017.

Facial Weaponization Communiqué (FWC). 2011-2014. http://www.zachblas.info/works/facial-weaponization-suite/. Accessed 12 December 2017.

Facial Weaponization Suite. 2011-2014. http://www.zachblas.info/works/facial-weaponization-suite/. Accessed 12 December 2017.

— “Informatic Opacity.” Conditions are Now in Transition: The Local, The Border, 23 November 2015, Goldsmiths Art, Goldsmiths College, London. Lecture published on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2AYoOyiF3g. Accessed 1 September 2017.

Cresci, Elena. “FaceApp apologises for ‘racist’ filter that lightens users’ skintone.” The Guardian, 25 April 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/25/faceapp-apologises-for-racist-filter-which-lightens-users-skintone. Accessed 12 December 2017.

Crispin, Sterlin. Data Masks (Series). 2013-2015. http://www.sterlingcrispin.com/data-masks.html. Accessed 12 December 2017.

De Vries, Patricia. “Dazzles, Decoys, and Deities: The Janus Face of Anti-Facial Recognition Masks.” Journal of Media and Communication, Volume 8.1 (2017): 72-86.

Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Dewey-Hagborg, Heather. Heather Dewey-Hagborg, 2009-2017, http://deweyhagborg.com. Accessed 12 December 2017.

Foucault, Michel. “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France. New York: Picador, 1976.

Gates, Kelly A. Our Biometric Future: Facial Recognition Technology and the Culture of Surveillance. New York: New York University Press, 2011.

Halberstam, Jack. The Queer Art of Failure. Durham, London: Duke University Press, 2011.

Harvey, Adam. ahprojects, 2004-2017, https://ahprojects.com/projects/. Accessed 12 December 2017.

Lyon, David. “Biometrics, Identification and Surveillance.” Bioethics, Volume 22.9 (2008): 499-508.

Magnet, Shoshana. When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race, and the Technology of Identity. Durham, London: Duke University Press, 2011.

McGoogan, Cara. “FaceApp: Viral selfie app in racism storm over ‘hot mode’ that lightens skin colour.” The Telegraph, 25 April 2017, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/04/25/faceapp-viral-selfie-app-racism-storm-hot-mode-lightens-skin/. Accessed 12 December 2017.

Monahan, Torin. “The Right to Hide? Anti-Surveillance Camouflage and the Aesthetization of Resistance.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 12.2 (2015): 159-178.

Pugliese, Joseph. Biometrics: Bodies, Technologies, Biopolitics. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Selvaggio, Leo. Leonardo Selvaggio: The URME Hack Me Kit, 2016, http://leoselvaggio.com. Accessed 12 December 2017.

Wegenstein, Bernadette. The Cosmetic Gaze: Body, Modifications and the Construction of Beauty. Cambridge, London: The MIT Press, 2012.

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Hi Lea Laura,

    I enjoyed reading your analysis of Zach Blas’ work whose work I know. You mention the historical hierarchies of faces based on race. However, Zach is white and male when considering his perspective however his concern is particularly with the Fag Face Mask is around discrimination against sexual orientation. It’d be great to hear more about the different ways in which contemporary technologies discriminate. The masks are generated by aggregated facial data of participants of a particular disadvantaged group presenting a symbolic solidarity against biased tracking technologies. His work raises some important questions in how these technologies are used today. To remain unseen is also an ‘invisible’ power to reject being seen in a particular way, of course in line with Hito Steyer’s work ‘How Not To Be Seen’. I’d be interested to hear of other artistic strategies of other artists who play with invisibility or reclaim the ‘ways of seeing’ or being seen.

    Like

  2. Hi Ashley,
    Thanks for this comment! I love Hito Steyerl – both her artistic practice and theoretical work – and I have also considered the relevance of her work, and especially the video you mention, in the context of my research. And so, if you have any thoughts on how her work could relate to my research in biometrics, it would be of great value to me. Since I am focusing specifically on artistic anti-biometric counter-masks, I have chosen focusing on Zach Blas, Adam Harvey, Heather Dewey-Hagborg, Sterling Crispin and Leo Selvaggio so far.. But I am also still looking – and will probably continue to look – for more artists. So I would be really interested to hear about it, if you or someone else in this workshop come to think of other artists as well.
    I am aware of course that I only mention one woman. And also that the four male artists I mention are white. At the same time, Blas is representing a queer position. As you mention, Blas’ artworks articulate a solidarity across several minoritarian groups – not only homosexual men, but queers in general, LGBTIQ-persons, people of different races, with different dis(abilites) etc. He is investigating this not only through his other counter-biometric masks – his black mask (working with the concept of blackness), his blue feminist mask (working with the veil and concealment) and his grey/white muac mask (working with Mexico-US border politics) – but also through theoretical references to scholars such as Shoshana Magnet and Simone Browne.
    I think pointing towards an artist’s sex, race etc. risks establishing some new hierarchies that I am not entirely comfortable with. Of course, as researchers, we should do everything we can to seek out the heterogeneity of our field. But then again – and this is a very interesting discussion that I often find myself engaging in in my museum work as well – can and should we devalue an artistic practice based on it’s position? In other words, is an artistic articulation of something only valuable or more valuable when it comes from a certain position?

    Like

  3. Hi LauraLea, In terms of artists I’ll have a think. Off the top there is also Paolo Cirio’s well-known work Face to Facebook which analyses peoples’ facial expressions that are appropriated for a fake dating website. https://paolocirio.net/work/face-to-facebook/

    I think for Steyerl’s relevance to biometrics is more the possibilities of remaining invisible to surveillance technologies and the use of dazzle camouflage techniques, which Jane & Louise Wilson have explored – https://www.artsy.net/article/editorial-jane-and-louise-wilson-false-positives-and – Though Adam Harvey is perhaps a better example.

    My mention of identity politics is not intended to call out your use of particular artists. I was just suggesting to go more into details about how technologies are used to discriminate in different ways – which is the point Zach is looking to make. You provide a nice historical reference to how biometrics was developed to discriminate on race. For Zach the issues go beyond just race but to gender, sexual orientation etc. Though you raise an interesting point particularly as researchers to challenge ourselves to reference a fair number of women artists and theorists and to reflect on how knowledge is produced and circulated, which also determines who becomes more visible within the field. I think the question comes down to invisibility and visibility and on what and whose terms.

    Like

  4. Hi Ashley,
    Hope you are well. Thank you so much for these references – I didn’t know Jane & Louise Wilson, but from what I can read and see they are without doubt someone I should check out some more!

    I think the reason why I brought up the question of identity politics and which artists and theorists you choose to reference is that I have thought a lot about that myself and that I am very interested in discussing it, since I don’t have any answers myself. Other than I totally agree with you; As a researcher, you have a responsibility with regard to representation and what gets visualized and not. In that context I think you are right about Steyerl – I just haven’t been able to link my theoretical framework with her art yet. Maybe it will make sense later on in my research process to reference her art in a more general discussion on the relation between visibility and invisibility as you suggest.

    Regarding Blas, I will definitely get into how digital biometrics discriminate not just on race, but also on gender, ability etc. And I hope to have a lot of visual examples at the workshop.

    Like

  5. Dear Lea, thx for sharing! I love this idea of obscurity through transparency – it seems it refers to both the technical and cultural functioning of the bio-metric mask. Layers of algorithms work invisibly (and obscurely) over the mask – algorithms constructed by normative body politics, pointing to another invisible (and obscure) layer of cultural wiring over the merely technical algorithmic data extraction. The reference to physiognomy is great in relation to this cultural layer. The work of Zack Bias and his informatics opacity unveils the obscure algorithmic layer and transforms it into a wearable metallic mask – and does so by a reductio ad absurdum process which reveal an obscurity by obscuring it (again the the obscure algorithmic layer transformed into the materially obscure wearable metallic masks). The Face Weaponization piece opens the imaginary to think about how to step out of the facialization machine and to starts producing bio-metric counter-mask, or an AFI resistance. Here I was a bit confused about this idea of being biometrifiable as a privilege today but not in the past, and bio-metric failure as indeed an undesired event today – but not in the past. If culturally being biometrifiable means in your sense becoming the privileged model for the normative body politics you mention in relation to Faceapp, at the same time today as in the past not being biometrifiable is a privilege because for example it allows the subject to avoid data exploitation. In another sense, being fully un-biometrifiable means a bandit life that is not for everybody, especially in nowadays society where we might argue that a search engine such as Google has become the condition of existence of the real world, and not vice-versa. The Husserlian Lebenswelt turns into a Googlewelt, and creates a type of subjectivity that I’m trying to describe as Res Googable, hybrid organic and digital being traversed by processes of eye embodiment and (dis)embodiment, which would be interesting for me to analyzes more in details in relation to the AFI. Looking forward to talk more!

    Like

  6. Dear Mitra,
    Thanks for your comments and reflections on ‘obscurity’ in relation to biometrics and Zach Blas. I understand why you might get confused by the idea of being biometrifiable as a privilege today, so I want to briefly touch on this.

    The idea that it is a privilege to get a biometric identity can be detected in the digital humanities research into biometrics which by problematizing un-biometrifiability seems to set up the ideal that we should all be biometrically identifiable. But as you point towards, biometrifiablity is a precarious position – one of the most horrifying examples of this is the biometric systems of Nazism.

    What I’m stating – in accordance with Zach Blas – is exactly that being unbiometrifiable, obscure, invisible has a political potential. In other words, I’m not stating that being biometrifiable is a privilege. On the contrary. My research project aims to look at a selected group of artists to explore the potential of avoiding biometric identification; camouflage, dazzle, defacialization, desubjectivation etc. as I can understand you are also interested in – so I’m looking very much forward to discussing this subject with you!

    There is of course an internal stress in this potential, since – as I feel you also touch on with your notion on Googlewelt – the real-life experience of being unbiometrifiable in a contemporary technological context – be it racist glitches in biometric masks generated by social media apps or getting exposed to discrimination and differential treatment in airports or at borders – can be very harmful to the individual. So, on the one hand the existing digital humanities research into biometrics is of great value to a pressing and acute problem caused by these new technologies right now. On the other hand, I call for an ongoing, sort of parallel research investigating alternatives to and even a dismantling of biometrics in the long view. I believe this is possible because the development of a group of analogue biometrics with the same physiognomic tendencies back in the 17th and 18th centuries have already been dismantled once, or at least restrained for a while. So this is something that needs to be kept in check. And my point is that the artistic practices I mention in my paper are paramount to imagining this dismantling of the physiognomic renaissance we find ourselves in right now.

    Looking very much forward to talking to you,
    // Lea

    Like

  7. Hi Lea and thanks for a super interesting read. I really like how you talk about “unbiometrifiables” and position those (potentially radical) bodies within a longer history of facial (and racial) measurement.

    Your notion that there may be something claustrophobic about facial recognition and facial masks, also strikes me as a telling observation. It is, indeed, scary stuff. However, simply proposing adjustments to these discriminatory technologies is not enough, you say. We must instead activate an “anti-biometric aesthetics” which may roll “back the renaissance of physiognomy.” I really like this idea.

    Yet to be honest, I also feel like I want one of those counter-biometrical masks of my own… This is a bit of a speculative question perhaps, but do you see the future developing into one where people might actually be wearing counter-biometrical masks on an everyday basis? And if so, what effects might such a society of distorted facial images have? I guess I am wondering if you believe that the ultimate political potential of biometric distortions lies at the philosophical or the practical level?

    Perhaps one doesn’t have to choose between the one or the other, but I’d love to hear more about your thoughts concerning the imaginative and practical potentials of biometric counter-masks.

    See you next week!

    Like

  8. Hi Maria,
    Thanks for this comment which points to a very central aspect of my interest in these art activists and really got me thinking this evening…

    First of all, haha – I for sure would also like one of these counter-masks myself.

    To some extent, all the art activists I mention are proposing practical strategies for dealing with biometrics. But I think some of them (maybe Adam Harvey most of all, but Leo Selvaggio also plays with it) are doing this fully to create real technical solutions that are constantly up to date with the newest biometric developments. Harvey has such a vast technical knowledge on biometrics, and he is both trying to develop counter-technologies and to put forward suggestions for juridicial restrictions etc. that can enhance the individual’s privacy in an increasingly surveilled lifeworld.

    That said, I have chosen to focus on Zach Blas for this presentation, because right now I’m really interested in the counter-biometric imagery that these art activists are producing. As you write, they are beginning to activate a counter-aesthetics to a technology with a very long history, going back to antiquity and maybe even before that (according to Joseph Pugliese). So at face value most of the biometric counter-masks that the art activists produce seem sort of inadequate if viewed strictly as practical tools. They must be read also as more philosophical contributions, investigating very complex theoretical and technical issues in very sensuous ways (which I kind of like, since biometric technologies interfere deeply in our bodily, sensuous being). But their lack of practical usefulness (and here we can leave out Harvey, because I actually think his maskings could be used as practical tools) in a way also makes their statement even stronger; because they insist so stubbornly – despite of the humanities literature on biometrics, despite of the technical challenges and ruthlessly ongoing technological development – on breaking off this technology and its processing of human beings. And not only the digital biometric machines, but also contemporary analogue biometrics and the biometric desire inside of the human itself (the faciality machine).

    And so to answer your question I’ll agree with you that it doesn’t have to be philosophical or practical. It has to be both, right? In an age with so many reactionary forces in play – targeting refugees, queers and other minority groups – we need to use all means available. We need to put our heads together (as researchers, artists, activists, computer engineers, software designers etc.). And this is a part of my project concerned with investigating what has been termed ‘transformative digital humanities’ as a specific kind of research stretched out between exactly theory and practice.

    …….. Talk more in the morning I think! Ü
    Lea

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s