Is there a way to download premium-only files from depfile.com without having a premium account?

Who is this girl. A random account posted it on snapchat it's obviously a found image. If there's videos with her...

Because I'm too lazy to make an account, the chick's name is Soya, aka Soyacide. Google, she's not hard to find. Posts nudes on her tumblr as well.

I have a request for someone with a Model Mayhem account - to log in and post the private pictures of a busty, cock-hungry pig I know. That's her below. If you go to the profile you can see a bunch of her, but many can only be viewed from an account. It would be a huge favour to me, and fun for everyone else!

I want to fuck a kike in the boom boom box while she wails "GOY GOY GOY!" and talks about her bank account.

New member... old time lurker.

Created an account earlier today and uploaded a few vids.

How long does it normally take for a mod to approve them and they show up in my gallery?

Arrests, by Race, 2011
In 2011, 69.2 percent of all individuals arrested were white, 28.4 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were of other races.
Of all juveniles (individuals under the age of 18) arrested in 2011 in the nation, 65.7 percent were white, 32.0 percent were black, and 2.3 percent were of other races.
Nearly 70 percent (69.7) of all adults (18 years of age and over) arrested in 2011 were white, 27.9 percent were black, and 2.3 percent were of other races.
White individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race, accounting for 59.4 percent of those arrests.
The percentages of white adults and black adults arrested for murder were similar, with 48.2 percent being white, and 49.4 percent being black.
Juveniles who were black accounted for 51.4 percent of juvenile arrests for violent crimes.
Juveniles who were white accounted for 62.4 percent of juvenile arrests for property crimes.
Of the juveniles arrested for driving under the influence, 91.6 percent were white.
Juveniles who were white accounted for 72.9 percent of the persons under 18 who were arrested for arson in 2011.
I hate breaking down stats based on race. I just done this to prove a point to all the racists. There's no need for your hatred. All that racist,stereotype, shit only hold true in your mind. We are all individuals, with different personalities. No one personality fit a particular race. Character should use to render judgment for a person, not prejudging a race.
Mr.Blackman

if anyone knows a member called Kelly35mom it's a fake account and here is a link to the full gallery http://18-to-milf.urlgalleries.net/blog_gallery.php?id=4137347&t=3&g=Young+MILF

so i need some help, if i know someones iCloud account info how can i see their imessaging or photos to get a win?

my mum uses my amazon account for her kindle but she doesn't know that i get an email receipt when she downloads a book and lately she has been downloading a lot of erotic novels, very hot erotic novels. i didn't think my mum could be this horny and as you can guess this made me very horny too. i loved to read all the stories that she was reading too about gangbangs, first time anal and lesbian, fucking black men with big cocks and all the other crazy sex that makes her so horny. i knew she had to be masterbating with her fingers at least when she read them but curiosity got the better of me and when she was at work i went into her room and looked in her drawers and there it was sitting in plane view a nice pink dildo (obviously it was being well used) my dick went rock hard i picked it up to get a better look and it was coated in her dry pussy juice. i took it to my room lay out on the bed and pulled my cock like there was no tomorrow at the same time i licked all the dry juices off. i came all over my hand then rubbed my cum all over her dildo and put it back in her room. now every time i get a email receipt about another book she downloads i smile thinking that she is sliding her dildo coated in my cum in and out of her pussy tring to make herself cum and has no idea what i did

news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.

Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

CNET obtained a draft of the proposed amendments from one of the people involved in the negotiations with Leahy; it's embedded at the end of this post. The document describes the changes as "Amendments intended to be proposed by Mr. Leahy."

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data "undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:

There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.

The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

A bitter setback
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.

At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.

Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy's work on the Patriot Act "appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties." Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.

Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.