If Phishing Email Can Kill NY Power Grid, Lack Of Cybersecurity Legislation Is Not The Problem

from the oh-come-on dept

We've been talking about the faux urgency to pass some cybersecurity legislation coming from the federal government, with plenty of fear mongering from politicians who never seem to want to point out any factual basis for why we need such new laws. Instead, it's all been about Hollywood movie script-style scenarios about planes falling from the skies. It appears that the White House is heavily involved in this bogus fear mongering as well, having recently set up a "simulated cyberattack on New York City's power supply" to convince elected officials to move forward on the legislation.

During a classified briefing in the Office of Senate Security, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan showed lawmakers how a hacker could breach control systems of the city’s electric system and trigger a ripple effect throughout the population and private sector, according to a source familiar with the scenario.

“The fact that we could be subject to a catastrophic attack under the right circumstances and we now know some of the things that would help us to protect against such an attack, that’s why it’s important now for the Congress to take this up,” Napolitano said in an interview with POLITICO.

Now that's interesting. Just how could a hacker breach control systems of the power grid? Apparently with an email phishing attack:

During the simulation, the hacker gains access to the electric supply’s control system through a simple “spearphishing” attack, in which a worker merely clicks on a link in an email that appears to be from someone they know.

Um, there's your problem. If the NYC power grid is attached to the public internet in such a way that it can be taken down, then um, shouldn't we take it off the internet? This isn't about cybersecurity, this is about common sense, where things like the power grid should not be accessible via the internet -- and I'm pretty sure they're not (back here in reality). But in the world where we need fear, uncertainty, doubt and the ability for the federal government to spy on private networks, we have to pretend such a scenario is likely.

Of course, I also question why the White House chose NYC as the showcase for the simulation and suggested that there would be deaths and other massive harm from such a power grid takedown. After all, it was just about a decade ago that the power grid in the Northeast did, in fact, fail. It was an inconvenience for many people, certainly, but it was hardly damaging in the way the White House seems to have implied with this scare tactic.

So, once again, can we take a step back and ask some simple questions: what's the real threat and the real risk here? If it's that the NYC power grid is accessible by a simple password over the public internet, then the problem isn't cybersecurity, it's whoever was stupid enough to connect the power grid to the internet. Let's fix that. But let's not regulate and spy on large segments of the public internet to cover for a few bad decisions.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, fear mongering, hype, nyc, phishing, power grid, terrorism, white house

EU Censorship Plan With A Cheesy Name: The Clean IT Project

from the voluntary-until-we-make-it-compulsory dept

A couple of weeks ago, Techdirt reported on UK politicians calling for ISPs to "take down" terrorist content. Now it seems that the idea has not only spread to other European countries, but even acquired a cheesy name: "the Clean IT Project".

The internet plays a central role and is of great strategic importance for terrorists and extremist networks. These networks know that propaganda is a critical tool for generating funding, recruits and support for their cause within these communities. Historically they have used a variety of media channels, such as television, radio and publishing, in order to communicate their views. During the past decade of huge global growth of the internet, Al Qaida influenced extremists for example, have made increasing use of this medium. The internet and its fast and anonymous means can contribute to individual radicalization processes. There are concerns about the illegal use of the internet for terrorist purposes and the misuse of legal / neutral websites. The question is if we can limit the use of internet for terrorist purposes, without affecting our online freedom. Therefore this project is based on a public-private dialogue.

Those last two sentences are particularly ominous. First, because they show no awareness that any attempt to "clean" the Internet inevitably affects everyone else's online freedom. Given that there are no hard and fast rules about what is terrorism, the past teaches us that there is always collateral damage in the form of over-reaction -- not least because people understandably err on the side of caution in this area.

The other reason we ought to fear this new initiative is that it is based on getting the private sector to act as online police, using a "non-legislative" approach:

The main objective of this project is to develop a non-legislative 'framework' that consists of general principles and best practices. The general principles will be developed through a bottom up process where the private sector will be in the lead. Through a series of workshops and conferences, the private and public sector will define their problems and try to draw up principles. These principles can be used as a guideline or gentlemen’s agreement, and can be adopted by many partners. They will describe responsibilities and concrete steps public and private partners can take to counter the illegal use of Internet.

This is of a piece with similar attempts to get ISPs to spy on their users, or search engines to censor their results: since everything is done through a non-legislative 'framework', there is no oversight and no formalized legal recourse. It's part of a general move to control the Internet through extra-judicial means, thus avoiding all the risks of a democratic debate or the need to produce any evidence that the measures are effective and proportionate. Significantly, it's also one of ACTA's key (bad) ideas.

Even though the project is being sold as a voluntary "gentlemen’s agreement", the reality is that lurking in the background is the usual implicit threat:

The covenant, the principles and the practices should be non-legislative because they will be adopted on a voluntary basis with support from the industry. It should also be possible to implement them quickly in any European Member State, or even worldwide. Nevertheless, it is possible that one of the results will be a call for better regulation by governments.

That is, if industry doesn't adopt the principles and practices -- and implement them "quickly", too -- it will be forced to do so through legislation.

It's not even clear that "limiting terrorist use of internet" is the best way to fight terrorism. There is an argument that it would be better for as much terrorist activity as possible to take place where security agencies can keep it under close surveillance. Shutting down the more obvious sites and means of communication will simply drive terrorists deeper underground, and make it harder to monitor and thus counter them.

So once more, we have the worst of both worlds: while the rights of the general public are diminished further in the name of "combatting terrorism", the actual fight will be made more difficult.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, clean it project, eu, isps, privacy, terrorism

FBI Saves Us From Another Of Its Own Terrorist Plots

from the no-boom dept

We've talked multiple times about how the FBI seems to spend an awful lot of time stopping its own terrorist plots, and it appears to have done so yet again. iamtheky points us to the story of a "terrorist plot" to blow up the capitol averted... thanks to the fact that the whole thing was planned by the FBI, so it was pretty easy to stop the one dupe who thought it was real. Now, as some people always point out, these kinds of operations do seem to get people off the street who wouldn't mind causing harm to Americans, but it's unclear if any of them would ever actually have the means to do so in reality. What's telling is that these seem to be basically the only terrorist plots we hear about the FBI stopping these days -- which makes you wonder if they just have too much free time to manufacture plots to stop.

Filed Under: fbi, law enforcement, plots, terrorism

Canadian Muslim Who Sends Text Urging His Employees To 'Blow Away' The Competition Arrested As A 'Terror' Suspect

from the common-sense-is-dead dept

Boing Boing points us to the crazy story of Saad Allami, a sales manager in Quebec -- who is Muslim -- who sent a text message to some colleagues heading to New York for a trade show, in which he encouraged them to "blow away" the competition. He (quite reasonably) says that he was trying to "pump up" his staff. However, apparently Canadian law enforcement thought differently and arrested him, detained him for a day, searched his house and repeatedly told his wife he was a terrorist. I recognize that law enforcement wants to be careful, but at some point, doesn't someone run these kinds of things through a "common sense" filter?

Filed Under: overreactions, terrorism, text messages

UK Report Blames The Internet For Terrorism, Says ISPs Should Take Down Content

from the can't-even-understand-the-role-of-an-isp-then? dept

It appears that technologically clueless, reactionary politicians blaming the internet for terrorism and demanding ways to censor content are not just limited to US Senators named Lieberman. Nope, it appears that some elected officials over in the UK have similarly allergic reactions to the internet. The Home Affairs Committee in the UK Parliament has released this fear mongering report about how the internet is somehow radicalizing the youth into being terrorists, and how ISPs need to pull down content.

All of these reports seem to assume that because some kids used the internet to learn about terrorism, that it's the internet's fault they became terrorists. There's no thought to the idea that these disenfranchised kids were likely to seek out whatever way they could to join a terrorism organization. That would involve actually understanding the root causes of terrorism, though, and it's much, much easier to just point a finger and blame the internet. Of course, since it appears these luddites don't understand the internet at all, it's no surprise that they confused ISPs with hosting companies -- and demanded that the ISPs "take down" content, when the only thing they really could do would be to block content. Hosting companies would be able to remove it. David Meyer, the ZDnet UK reporter who wrote the story linked above, asked a spokesperson for the committee to explain this rather glaring error, and the person "was unable to explain." That should tell you just about everything you need to know about this report, and it should be laughed out of any further discussion should it ever be brought up again.

Filed Under: blame, censorship, isps, terrorism, uk

The TSA Posts Its 'Top Good Catches Of 2011' List, Not One Of Which Is An Actual Terrorist

from the because-one-time-that-guy-tried-to-ignite-a-cupcake-with-a-lightsaber dept

Everyone loves a good "Best of..." list and with 2011 having just wrapped up, pretty much every site on the web has a few posted. Bruce Schneier points us in the direction of The TSA Blog, which has posted its own self-congratulatory list, "The Top 10 Good Catches of 2011."

"Good" is very much a sliding scale when you're a government agency that combines the incompetent brusqueness of classic security theater with the thoroughness of an overenthusiastic gynecological exam.

So, what sort of "epic gets" made the TSA's list? Well, there's a variety of weapons, ranging from normal loaded handguns in carry-on bags to something called a "Tactical Spike" to throwing knives to a taser disguised as a cellphone. There's also a science project, some wildlife, inert landmines, some chunks of C4 explosive and a flare gun. There's a lot of items that sound dangerous, but Bruce Schneier points out what's missing from the TSA's collection:

That's right; not a single terrorist on the list. Mostly forgetful, and entirely innocent, people. Note that they fail to point out that the firearms and knives would have been just as easily caught by pre-9/11 screening procedures. And that the C4 -- their #1 "good catch" -- was on the return flight; they missed it the first time. So only 1 for 2 on that one.

So, the TSA looks as though it had its gloved hands full during 2011, especially when you consider all the non-terrorist, non-weaponry that was seized in the name of safety over the past year. In addition to those incredibly threatening cupcakes, our favorite theatre troupe saved us from being killed to death by the following items:

TSA confiscates a butter knife from an airline pilot. TSA confiscates a teenage girl's purse with an embroidered handgun design. TSA confiscates a 4-inch plastic rifle from a GI Joe action doll on the grounds that it's a "replica weapon." TSA confiscates a liquid-filled baby rattle from airline pilot's infant daughter. TSA confiscates a plastic "Star Wars" lightsaber from a toddler.

With the list of threatening objects covering everything from actual guns with actual bullets to fake guns that can only be fired by those possessing ultra-tiny hands and the requisite "kung fu grip," it seems like it will only be a matter of time before we're asked to board the flight naked with our clothing and belongings being shipped to our destination on a bulletproof, bombproof supertrain. It also looks as though our children, previously thought to be "the future," are apparently now the "new face of terrorism."

Congratulations, Blogger Bob and the rest of the TSA crew! Here's hoping 2012 brings an even better list, one where inert plutonium sits side-by-side with purloined KFC sporks and back issues of Guns & Ammo in the 50-gallon trash container 15 feet away from the checkpoint. Safe!

Filed Under: security theater, terrorism, tsa

Senator Joe Lieberman Follows Up His 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Letter By Asking Twitter To Block Pro-Taliban Feeds

from the seems-it-would-be-simpler-to-just-revoke-the-Senator's-internet-access dept

Joe Lieberman is at it again. And by "it," I mean throwing around the word "terrorist" as an excuse to further sanitize the web for our "protection." Having already talked Google into allowing users to flag Youtube videos as "terrorist," Lieberman went a step further, asking for the "Report as Terrorist" option to be applied to Blogger as well.

Having taken a swing at long-form blogging, Lieberman is now taking the fight to the other end of the "wordiness" spectrum: Twitter.

Senators want to stop feeds which boast of insurgent attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan and the casualties they inflict. Aides for Joe Lieberman, chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the move was part of a wider attempt to eliminate violent Islamist extremist propaganda from the internet and social media. The Taliban movement has embraced the social network as part of its propaganda effort and regularly tweets about attacks or posts links to its statements.

Like everyone else in this digital age, the Taliban is using various social media to communicate with its fans. But why should our Senators be concerned about what the Taliban had for lunch? And more importantly, why do they feel so deeply that forcing Twitter to block these feeds will prevent future "violent Islamist extremist" action? If NATO forces are attacked and no one tweets about it, does it change the outcome?

The feeds named in the Telegraph article (@ABalkhi and @alemarahweb) are about as "threatening" as a Westboro Bapist Church Twitter account, with a few facts tucked away between tweet after tweet filled with jingoistic statements and "preaching to the converted." The very idea that blocking feeds like this will deter or diminish future Taliban activity is laughable at best, and disingenuous grandstanding at worst. In fact, it makes Lieberman and his fellow Senators nothing more than "preaching to the converted" grandstanders, scoring easy points with voters who still somehow believe the only thing Twitter has to offer is lunch descriptions and terrorist propaganda.

As for Twitter, it won't even confirm whether or not Lieberman has asked it to block the feeds.

Rachel Bremer, a spokesman for Twitter, said: "This isn't something we'd comment on."

Not only that, but Twitter won't have to block these feeds no matter how nicely Lieberman asks because the Taliban is not registered as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Any censorship applied by Twitter would pretty much just be a personal favor to Joe, rather than a government-sanctioned shutdown.

Lieberman obviously believes that his success with Youtube filtering should be applied to every area of the internet. He's already gone after the long (Blogger) and the short (Twitter) which means his next request for "Report as Terrorist" buttons will be sent to Tumblr, possibly resulting in the removal of f*ckyeahterrorism.tumblr.com and ryangoslingtaliban.tumblr.com.

One has to wonder why Lieberman is so persistent in his attempts to turn every form of social media into a scattershot weapon aimed at the angry words and hashtags of "Islamist extremists." Possibly a core chunk of his key demographic responds well to blaming the internet for terrorism, but that seems unlikely. Maybe he just likes to see his name in print and, much like four-year-olds and Lindsay Lohan, firmly believes any "attention" is "good attention."

[Press here to "Report Senator as Idiot."]

Filed Under: blogs, joe lieberman, terrorism, twitter
Companies: twitter

More People Realizing That The FBI's 'Big Wins' Are In Stopping Its Own Made Up Terror Plots

from the playing-at-cops-and-robbers dept

We've pointed out, more than a few times, that it seems like so many of the big "terrorist plots" that the FBI has been "breaking up" (to tremendous fanfare and press coverage) really appear to be the FBI's own terror plots. It appears we're not alone in that assessment. The Guardian recently had an excellent article highlighting these same concerns:

Critics say the FBI is running a sting operation across America, targeting – to a large extent – the Muslim community by luring people into fake terror plots. FBI bureaux send informants to trawl through Muslim communities, hang out in mosques and community centres, and talk of radical Islam in order to identify possible targets sympathetic to such ideals. Or they will respond to the most bizarre of tip-offs, including, in one case, a man who claimed to have seen terror chief Ayman al-Zawahiri living in northern California in the late 1990s.

That tipster was quickly hired as a well-paid informant. If suitable suspects are identified, FBI agents then run a sting, often creating a fake terror plot in which it helps supply weapons and targets. Then, dramatic arrests are made, press conferences held and lengthy convictions secured.

But what is not clear is if many real, actual terrorists are involved.

While we always get attacked whenever we use the word "entrapment" to describe these kinds of cases, it appears that at least some of the folks charged in these cases are going to try to claim entrapment in court. It may be tough to find a sympathetic court, considering many of those involved did effectively say they would take part in an attack. But if every part of it was orchestrated and paid for by the FBI... then the whole operation seems questionable. The real issue is why this is a tactic the FBI uses. It's almost as if they feel the need to "create" fake plots to stop just to justify their existence (and very, very large budget).

Filed Under: fbi, plots, terrorism

Government Representatives Using 'Cybersecurity,' 'Terrorism' As Excuses To Further Trample The Bill Of Rights

from the they're-not-'rights'-so-much-as-they-are-'privileges,'-appar dept

Well, Facebook no longer needs to be the scapegoat when it comes to harvesting your personal information and doing nefarious things with it. Now, thanks to the House of Representatives, you can look forward to "a broad swath of ISPs and other private entities" collecting your personal data and sharing it with "the government, other businesses, or "any other entity" so long as it's for a vaguely-defined "cybersecurity purpose."

This is yet another governmental attempt to harvest personal internet usage data in hopes of somehow preventing something bad from happening in the future, all under the pretense of being hip deep in a "cyberwar." If you're looking to see who's spearheading this new attempt to rifle through your internet drawers, look no further than the bipartisan team of Committee Chairman Mike Rogers and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger.

And they're working with un-Representative-like speed. EFF posted this information on November 30th and they are already trying to move it out of committee today (December 1st). If someone is trying to push something through posthaste, generally speaking, it's a terrible bit of legislation that would raise all sorts of objections if left out in the sunlight for any length of time.

As it's written, this bill would "trump existing privacy statutes that strictly limit the interception and disclosure of your private communications data, as well as any other state or federal law that might get in the way," even opening the door for spyware installation. (For your own protection, of course.)

The bad news gets worse:

This broad data-sharing between companies wouldn't be subject to any oversight or transparency measures (users can't restrict companies' sharing), while the only oversight for sharing with the federal government, ironically, would be through the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board-which hasn't existed since January 2008.

Worse yet, the bill doesn't limit what the federal government can do with the data or private communications that ISPs and others hand over, except to say that it can't be used for "regulatory" purposes-apparently it can be used for law enforcement and intelligence targeting purposes.

Perhaps at the top of the list is concern over the fact that the bill allows information sharing with any federal agency-including the National Security Agency (NSA)-thereby threatening civilian control of domestic cybersecurity efforts.

This privacy-trampling rush job follows on the heels of another bill, rushed through the Senate on the Monday following the Thanksgiving weekend. This one concerns itself with terrorism, or at least uses it as an excuse. The National Defense Authorization Act seeks to bring the war on terror back to the homefront:

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president-and every future president - the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night's Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

Redefining the battlefield in order to use the military as a police force is generally the sort of thing totalitarian nations do, not nations that continue to tout a never-ending "War on Terrorism" as an essential part of securing our "freedom." This bill will now allow American citizens to join in on the "fun" that was previously only available to foreign arrestees:

The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday.

Now, whatever rights Americans might have had (like say, a speedy trial or the right to confront their accusers) are being removed and replaced with the "right" to sit in a detention center for the rest of whatever without ever being charged with a crime. Once again, a bipartisan team (Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain) put aside their political differences to draft the bill in secret and pass it in a closed committee without a single hearing.

Sen. Mark Udall tried to pass an amendment which would remove "the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power" but was shot down 61-37. Rand Paul went toe-to-toe with McCain, pointing out the audacious sweep of this bill:

"Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well then the terrorists have won," Paul argued, "[D]etaining American citizens without a court trial is not American."

McCain responded by fashioning a pair of blinders out of the American flag and (as Reason puts it so well) "puking up a rainbow of pro-America, pro-democracy, anti-terrorist drivel in response to Paul's very direct question":

"Facts are stubborn things," McCain repeated from the floor several times. "If the senator from Kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people who are released go back in to the fight to kill Americans, he is entitled to his opinion."

And that is how you rationalize "indefinite detention": without it, Americans will die.

In case anyone out there is getting ready to argue that this bill doesn't target Americans, the ACLU has an answer for you:

There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

All it takes is the order, and that's the whole point of the bill: to grant the President that specific power. And if you don't believe the ACLU's take, just read what one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor:

"1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."

Ah, the "homeland." You'd think that the people drafting bills like this would avoid using a term that conjures up images of dictators turning on their own citizens in order to maintain their power. But, if we've learned nothing else from the past decade, it's that our representatives in Washington clearly don't care what the public thinks. After all, we're just a bunch of suspects.

Filed Under: constitution, cybersecurity, free speech, individual rights, terrorism

Sen. Joe Lieberman Asks Google For A 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Button

from the clicking-our-way-to-a-safe-and-secure-nation dept

Senator Joe Lieberman, taking a break from his usual schedule of trying to stamp out all things Wikileaks-related, returns to his old anti-terrorism stomping grounds, sending out a letter to Google CEO Larry Page, expressing his concern that not enough stuff is getting labeled "terrorism."

He bases his request on the old "because someone did something once" argument that has served the DHS and TSA so well. (See also: "See something. Say something." because that one time a guy reported a vehicle with a bomb. See also: please remove your shoes and step into the Pornoscan because one time that guy tried to light his shoes on fire and that other time a guy had bomb-laced underwear.) Recent "lone wolf" terrorism suspect Jose Pimentel was, like so many other people in the world, a blogger. Lieberman apparently believes that the prevention of future acts of terrorism should be turned over to the blogosphere in the form of an option to "flag" a blog as containing "terrorist" content.

Talking Points Memo has more info:

"Pimentel's Internet activity - both his spreading of bomb-making instructions links and his hate-filled writings - were hosted by Google," Lieberman wrote.

"On his site www.trueislam1.com, Pimentel stated, 'People have to understand that America and its allies are legitimate targets in warfare. This includes facilities such as army bases, police stations, political facilities, embassies, CIA and FBI buildings, private and public airports, and all kinds of buildings where money is being made to help fund the war.' As demonstrated by this recent case, Google's webhosting site, Blogger is being used by violent Islamist extremists to broadcast terrorist content," Lieberman continued.

Lieberman also points out that Youtube already has this option (thanks to Liberman's tireless complaining), so it would logically follow that Blogger enforce the same limitations. In fact, he pretty much states that the same people that can prevent forest fires can also prevent terrorism (i.e. "You," meaning "all of us"), only in this case it can be done with a simple click of the mouse.

"The private sector plays an important role in protecting our homeland from the preeminent threat of violent Islamist extremism, and Google's inconsistent standards are adversely affecting our ability to counter Islamic extremism online."

Oh, wait. We can't actually stop terrorism. We can only flag "Islamist extremism," which for some people could mean the site quotes the Koran. For others, all it might take is a few angry words delivered by certain foreign types. And for others, all they need is the urge to start pushing buttons.

This is another attempt by a politician to shove the culpability for terrorist acts onto the shoulders of hosting platforms. By all means, Google could add a "Report as TERROR" button to its blogging platform, but does anyone not named Lieberman actually believe that this will ever prevent a future act of terrorism? I'd rather potential terrorists bogged themselves down in the minutia of blogging (endlessly checking stats, rescuing legitimate comments from the spam container, arguing with pesky commenters, following incoming links back into malware deathtraps, gaming their Technorati rating, etc.) than actually, you know, doing terrorist stuff.

There's also the fact that "flagging something as something" has got to be the most ineffective deterrent ever devised, whether you're trying to stomp out spam or to do something more difficult, like save the world from "Islamist extremism." Not only will whoever's policing this new banhammer have to deal with a new set of false positives, this also puts Google in the awkward position of trying to decide if the blogs reported are actually harmful or just some random person spouting a bunch of untargeted nonsense.

And if Google does decide to start doing this, odds are that there will be a bunch of racially-motivated clicking going on, which will only add to the "noise" side of the signal-to-noise ratio. Once you start shutting down a particular religion based on clicks -- all because the federal government demanded it -- you're asking for all sorts of trouble in the First Amendment arena. Uglier than this is the fact that asking for a "Report" button is yet another punt by those in charge of keeping this country safe. The implicit statement seems to be "We can't figure out how to stop terrorists so we're leaving that to you," which would make this no different from every previous foiled terrorist attack. It's not the DHS, TSA or air marshals that stop terrorists. When they're not being foiled by their own incompetence, they're being taken down by fellow passengers. A plea for a "Report as Terrorism" button has all the hallmarks of another windmill tilt in the hopes of appearing to be doing "something."

Filed Under: blogs, joe lieberman, terrorism
Companies: google