The GAO (General Accounting Office) and OMB (Office of Management and Budget) are loosely tasked with giving a report to Congress on the status of each government agency's efforts to equip their computer systems and educate staff on preventing intruders from hacking in and gaining access to information that could compromise the security of the nation and the people who live in it. “Federal agencies rely on computer systems to support critical operations that are essential to the health and well-being of millions of Americans,” stated California Representative Stephen Horn (R), Chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Efficiency.
Each government agency is required to report to the Office of Management and Budget, giving a status on the well-being of its information security infrastructure. The General Accounting Office performs tests on the security of each agency's computer systems to determine how well they might hold up under attack from a hacker, terrorist, or other intruder.
Robert Dacy, Director of Information Security for the GAO, said that just because the “grade” of the security of the federal computer systems slipped from “D-” to “F” doesn't necessarily mean that security is more lax; it just means that the criteria for defining such weaknesses has become more identifiable and understood, an important step in shoring up information security. However, Dacy did say that investigators found “pervasive weaknesses” that needed to be addressed.
The GAO routinely attempts to hack into the computer systems of government agencies and rarely fails. One employee from the Commerce Department launched an illegal electronic attack on an investigator attempting to hack into the systems of the department. Last August, investigators found computers with no passwords, computers with “password” as the password, and computers with passwords in plain view posted on the systems.
Some agencies got better marks than others: The National Foundation of Science got a B+; the Social Security Administration got a C+, and NASA got a C. Other agencies with not so good ratings were the State Department (D+), the EPA (D+), and the Department of Agriculture (F).
Dacy applauded the Bush Administration's appointment of a National Advisor for Cyber Security, but said that the U.S. is not keeping up with the growth of possible attacks.
For more ratings of government agencies and more information, check out CNN. Thanks to Alterego for the link.
Several days after the 9/11 attacks, finding out that security at airports was still spotty at best, I told my wife that not enough people had died yet. I know this sounds morbid and horrible, but my point is that not enough has happened to cause people to get really serious about security. The airlines have mostly done only those things which are visible to the human eye, causing people to “feel” like they were safer. This is sad. In some ways, we are still half asleep as a nation, and I really don't think we understand what's at stake. Maybe some of us do, but we are not being listened to by those who have no clue and who are in positions of power to do something significant.
There is no excuse for the loose security that exists today in the government because I know that at least one person among our leaders understands the gravity of the situation and has the power to stop it. It's not about a separate “Govnet,” even though that would be a giant step toward the security of government systems. It's about people understanding the gravity of the situation, the need for security, and respecting the policies that are hopefully in place to try and curb some of the hacking going on inside government systems.
I look forward to keeping track of the progress of the OMB and GAO along with the House of Representatives regarding the very important topic of information security. It has to change.
USER COMMENTS 29 comment(s)
|Gov't (7:36am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
This doesn't surprise me one bit, but I think it's not just the goverment, most people where I am from call for more security then yell at me when I make them change there passwords from no passwords to some that is , gasp, more then 6 charecters long!
/sign - by Skippy
|Oops (7:37am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
that last /sign was suppose to be
/sigh - by Skippy-Oops
|no solution on horizon (7:55am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
The problem with your airport analogy is that there is virtually no incentive for government employees to improve security – no amount of reported security failures will make any difference.
Outside the CIA and other non-Civil Service agencies, you simply can't be fired no matter what you do or fail to do unless it's bad enough to BOTH put you in Leavenworth AND on the front page of The Post.
Merely making the front page as an incompetent lout just gets you transferred with no pay reduction and actually you get less work to do. Almost no federal employee is ever prosecuted for anything short of obvious and continued patterns of treason.
Wasting taxpayer money is rewarded, not punished.
BTW, I've been reporting on Federal computer usage for decades (I work for Post-Newsweek) so I'm not just guessing about this.
Unless or until some politicians find a way to gain enough power that they can risk alienating the entrenched staff employees nothing will happen. For example, Ridge has virtually ZERO power to do anything at all.
People always blame the politicians but it really doesn't matter very much what they do since the various agencies make the rules and decide which laws to ignore and which to enforce. - by siliconsamurai
|Unless you've been a Fed, (9:06am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
stop bashing the Federal workforce. They CAN and are fired for things that would never make any newspaper. It is true that it is harder to get rid of an incompetent federal employee, but that does not make it impossible. The problem simply is that MANY federal positions are low-paying, so we aren't hiring the cream of the crop – i.e. – you get what you pay for. Those that are competent have to fight the same red tape that everyone else complains about. There are thousands of bright, well-intentioned citizens doing everything they can to run the government in a strong and efficient manner.
Think you could do it better? Get out from behind your newpaper and take a Federal job – see how far you get! - by Former Fed
|Ok (9:12am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
So, they raised the grading curve. And, since government security has yet to change, the grades appeared to slip. Big deal.
Government security has always been a joke. A couple of weeks ago the economic stimulus bill allotted $1 billion to increase national cyber security. I said then that it was a joke and I'm still saying it. The GAO has issued this same report for the past several years and the governemt has yet to do anything to improve the siituation. Why would we expect this to change? Because of 9/11? Get real.
The thing that I've always wondered is, precisely what tests the GAO performs. I personally doubt that the GAO is very adept at security testing. As a government agency, accountants no less, why do should we assume that they are anymore technically proficient than the rest of the government. What sort of attacks are they using? We all assume that they are using the latest attacks and real threats for these tests but, I wouldn't be surprised if the tests were no more advanced than WinNuke. If that's the case, then I'd have to say that the D- and F grades would more likely be G- or H.
|Walking In (9:42am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Not only is the computer security lax, but so is the location security. If you walk into just about any goverment building with a clipboard, you can bluster your way into sensitive areas, and probaly gain access to critical network functions. (I have not tried for a server room yet) It just astounds me that having a password taped to a screen is a security risk, NOT ONLY because the password is out in the open, but because just about ANYONE can come in and read it. - by Doors Wide Open
|Unless you've been a fed (9:53am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
I've been a Fed before I started reporting on the Feds.
I'm happy to report we had considerably better physical security – it takes a lot more than a clip board to get in to some agencies – although several people were shot by a terrorist at the McLean entrance a few months after we left the Washington area, but that was off federal and agency property.
RE GAO testing – I agree that they are just accountants, but consider that they are mostly gathering internal security reports from the attacked agencies – they are just auditing, something they are qualified to do.
|former fed (10:04am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
BTW, I'm curious as to just why you automatically assume that someone reporting on problems in the federal government has no background qualifying them to do so?
You'll find that, outside small town papers and local TV news, most people hired as experts by major publishers know a great deal about their subjects.
As a former DDO (Deputy Director Operations) and also DDI (DD Intelligence) told me about a decade ago when he asked me for an informed opinion on current conditions in Quala Lampour, “Often reporters are better informed than Embassy personnel.”
(No, he was not with the government at that time, he was operating a private security firm and I was no longer with the govt. either.)
|Re: Siliconsamurai (10:18am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
And I'm curious why you assume that, even though the rest of the government seems technologically inept, the GAO is so much more technically qualified?
My assumtions are based on the premise that if all of the other agencies are so inept when it comes to technical security, that another department composed of accountants would be no more technically proficient.
While I have no doubt that the GAO is highly skilled at crunching numbers and manipulating spreadsheets, I do not see any evidence to suggest that they have any great expertise on cyber security. Which again brings us to the question, precisely what tests and what hacks are they using for the basis of these reports?
- by Get a Grip
|gao (10:29am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
I'm not making any particular assumptions about individuals in the GAO but the situation is quite complex. Here is just the bare outline:
As I indicated in an earlier post the GAO is mostly conducting an audit of reports from security specialists.
Federal agencies are required to report security problems. Also, there are security experts who conduct white hat attacks.
Remember also that there are groups in federal agencies which are tasked with measuring compliance with various rules and regs which include security procedures.
In addition, the GAO is a VERY large federal agency so it's a mistake to assume that they are all accountants. In addition, there are a number of computer specialists in the GAO, for example, for many years most federal computer hardware and software purchases were made from GAO-negotiated contracts so they do have a considerable expertise in computer technology. This has changed somewhat but the GAO still plays a major role in MIS procurement and contracts.
If you go the the GAO site the report has probably already been published and they normally describe the complete methodology used in preparing reports. Since the reports and methods often take hundreds of pages to explain I can't do more than give a general explanation.
Hope this helps. - by siliconsamurai
|more on gao report (10:35am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
To be a bit more specific, the report, released by congress on the 9th, specifically states that it is a compilation of reports submitted by agencies as required under last year's Government Information Security Reform Act as well as GAO and Inspector General audits.
OMB is involved because it isn't supposed to fund new IT purchases if the proposals aren't considered secure.
That's probably more than any of you wanted to know about how the govt works but there you are. - by siliconsamurai
|GAO, Security, & Reporting (10:44am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
It is a sad fact that GAO, while a very good concept, is not effective. Should the Feds ever want to seriously improve their accoutability, they need to look to the States to provide guidance. Virginia's JLARC is the premire organization around to analyze significant policy, practice, and legal changes needed to improve agency effectiveness. CBO is far, FAR more effective than GAO, which makes sense as the legislature has a longer term vested interest in efficiency than a short term President. However, in terms of policy analysis, JLARC puts both of these organizations in the shade.
Security. Attention gets paid to the squeaky wheel. 9/11 and suddenly we get significantly increased #s of air marshals. Having a workforce that is both underpaid and underappreciated is not a good place to start from, but it is where we are. Computer security must become a culture among staff, not a hinderance. Only good leadership combined with good staff is going to significantly improve the situation, its just that no one wants to pay for it until a 9/11 happens…
Reporting. Its easy to throw stones without solving the problems. All too often the Feds are held to a standard that few corporations with much higher expenditures per staff member could meet. The major difference is that the corporations are not subject to FOIA and can relatively easily retask their funds to meet the needs. The constant tearing down of Federal Agencies not only harms their ability to retain and attract staff, but makes a significant portion of the public question the reasons for government at all (ignoring all the good things leads to cynicism about everything that government touches). There is a delicate balance to both analysis and reporting, far too often reporting is done with nothing more in mind than to destroy and tear down government based upon extraordinarily poor analytical and investigative skills.
(this is not a personal attack on Siliconsamurai) - by Action
|Siliconsamurai (11:04am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Regarding your quote as follows:
“OMB is involved because it isn't supposed to fund new IT purchases if the proposals aren't considered secure.”
Given the recent passage of the Export Administration Act of 2001, I'd say that is a dubious statement at best. This recent Act effectively dumbed down the security safeguards in an effort to “streamline” regulation.
Once again “trade” triumphed over “security” considerations.
The list of examples is endless, but I'll spare you…Suffice it to say, security matters has never been a strong point of concern in U.S. policy-making decisions….
Sad but true…And, yes, I wish it were not so….
|gao, security, etc. (11:05am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
While I would be the first to agree that, in general, fed agencies are not very good at doing things, I do feel the need to point out that the GAO is merely reporting what agencies themselves filed.
I would be extremely skeptical about any agency which reports that it's security is “good” but they all basically said they are doing a poor job and I tend to believe agency reports which say their own people are failing to do their job.
Of course a cynical old reporter might just think they are looking for more funding to correct problems (GRIN).
As for reporters (no, I didn't take Action's comments as a personal attack) it's sometimes forgotten that reporters are the fourth branch of government and our job is precisely to throw stones, not fix problems.
If reporters get too involved they loose objectivity and the cornerstone of democracy (see the first ammendment) is that reporters be free to say nasty things. Also, reporters, by all the ethical rules of journalism, are forbidden to take sides or try to solve problems.
Stock holders and owners are in charge of corporate problems but, precisely because the founders knew that govt. couldn't be trusted to police itself, and because, after all, they are spending money they take from us by threat of force (taxes), the govt. must always be watched carefully by the only people qualified to do so, and charged with the job by the constitution with watching the govt. – reporters.
As both a reporter and columnist, I get the best of both worlds – I am objective in my reporting but in columns I get to make recommendations.
It's important to bear this difference in mind when reading newspapers – the front page is supposed to be strictly facts, but the editorial page is commentary. (this isn't directed at Action, just a general comment.)
(good discussion so far)
|OMB is involved… (11:11am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
You may consider the statement “dubious” but I'm just quoting Mark A. Forman, OMB’s associate director for IT and e-government, who told Government Computer News, in part, “We’re not going to fund systems that don’t meet the requirements,” adding, “Money is not the issue. Focus is, and details.”
I don't make this stuff up.
BTW, the trade bill has absolutely nothing to do with either this report or the fact that OMB is tasked with managing where many agencies spend IT money. - by siliconsamurai
|re: siliconsamurai (11:50am EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
I'll just say that I disagree strongly that reporters are the “fourth branch of government” and that they “don't take sides.” We could start an entire separate thread on how the media is biased on everything from politics to gun control.
As for -ethics-, well there's a reason I quit journalism. I've seen quite a few people who's lives and careers were ruined by some SOB with his eyes on a Pulitzer who either wanted to make a story (and damn the consequences) or took someone in confidence and then left them out to hang.
Nothing personal against you, since you know I don't like you anyways, but if journalists are a branch of our government, it's a role they wrote themselves into. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwwiwiwiwi
|ATTENTION SILICONSAMURAI (12:07pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Hey, bud, you want some real dirt on Departmetn of Defense computer security (or lack of it)?
Read news.admin.net-abuse.sightings and find out about how many DOD mail servers are so unsecure that anyone, anywhere (including Red China) can use them to relay e-mail to third parties – and many of them allow root access with only trivial exploits which were well-known years ago
|Its not just government employees (2:32pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Unions, in general, have made an effort to destroy accountability and productivity in the name of ensuring employees have high wages for easy work in rigidly fixed hours. The government is the easiest target. It is less the politicians and more the unions.
I have worked 6 government jobs while in college and noticed that it was impossible to fire someone. As an example:
A janitor refused to sweep a floor while he was on duty at a hospital I worked at. He stated that since he was already assigned to mop another floor, his supervisor couldn't stop him from his current job and do an emergency clean up of a hospital area without scheduling him to do so before his shift begun. He argued with his supervisor for 10 minutes and she suspended him. The janitor's union held a strike for a week. Why? because a man refused to do his job.
Another example: A Chicago Subway Operator crashed his train into another train, stopping rush hour traffic and injuring nearly 50 people this summer (several people were hospitalized). He gets paid just under 50k to operate one f*cking lever (speed) and one pedal (gas). His incompetance causes several million dollars of damage and lost revenue and almost killed a few people. His union threatened to strike if he was fired. They demanded that he be “re-educated” and placed back on the job (till he actually killed someone)
The sad thing is that these stories aren't extraordinary. They are quite common. That sh*t wouldn't fly in a corporate environment, but are common in state agencies. Thank unions for laws and regulations that recklessly serve employees and screw the employers, general public, and customers of places that employee unionized employees. - by Steven
|Nice Diatribe against Unions, now how does this tie in? (2:59pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
So firing employees is going to solve security? Gimme a break. Leadership and good work can make it happen, its just not likely to happen by itself with underpaid, underappreciated staff working for an organization that is repeatedly degraded in public.
Siliconsamuri, objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. Is there anyone that is not prejudiced in some fashion? Is there anyone that can be truly objective? Are you objective? I'm not.
Virtually none of the press that I deal with have any idea or background on the items that they cover. They sway with the wind, how they report depends upon the last person with whom they spoke. Inexperience and uncaring = poor safeguard for democracy. Then again, I am primarily referring to the newspaper and weekly hacks out there, not the monthly journals of policy analysis that actually have useful discourse and relevant information on policy decisions. Like it or not, policy is not a 1-2 minute sound bite. The reporters that respond to this market are no better than telemarketers.
I actually trust the legislators, more than the reporters to keep the executive branch in check and running as intended by law. It just needs a more effective tool to report on the effectivness of these agencies. It needs a JLARC or a revitalized CBO. I trust that reporters can keep the politicians from sticking their hands into the barrel, nothing more. Reporters, in general, do not know enough about government operations to adequately report on them. Also, if reporters don't know enough (or care enough) to present options for improvement, just go away, they have nothing to say that I want to hear. - by Action
|reporters 4th estate (4:23pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Anyone who doesn't think a free press is important in a democracy should check out what happens in countries where there is no free press.
The “media” does NOT take sides, publications take sides and hire reporters with similar slants – this results in “the media” taking all sides and therefore providing a balanced picture if you select the right mix of publications. The Media includes everyone from Rush L. to the editors I know at the WSJ, from NBC to CBN. If you think ALL reporters are on the same side of ANY issue then you need to check out some more publications to find ones that agree with you – I guarantee that some do.
I don't know where you worked as a reporter but at The National Press Club I found most reporters to be very focused on getting out the truth.
I didn't make that up about reporters being the 4th branch of the U.S. govt. either. Washington, Jefferson, George Mason, etc. and the Supreme Court did.
Icesnake – thanks, I always appreciate leads but I know all about DoD problems.
BTW, have you heard of honey traps? How about the Intellinet? Ever heard of anyone hacking the Intellinet? In government, particularly in the military and intelligence community you can't always take things at face value. For instance, I guarantee that the CIA takes great glee is seeing reports of their screw ups and they never brag – it tends to give the opposition false feelings of confidence – think about it. Sometimes your best asset is being thought stupid.
BTW, the publication I write for goes ONLY to government employees and vendors. I get a LOT of mail from current govt. employees who agree with almost everything I write there so I guess I'm still in touch.
- by siliconsamurai
|trust legislature – Action (4:31pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Sorry, ran out of room.
Yep, I trust the legislature too, look how well they did on Vietnam, The Pentagon Papers, Nixon, etc. OOPS, that was the press, just like every scandal back through Tea Pot Dome and even further.
If it weren't for the press just how would you know when the govt. did anything wrong? You just misunderstand the roll of reporters, they shine lights in dark corners, they aren't the exterminators.
Let's face it, without reporters Nixon (remember him, the guy who tried to subvert the constitution so he could get re-elected?) would probably be king by now and we would still be in SE Asia.
As it is, due to two reporters we suffered through our first unelected head of state but got rid of Nixon.
Reporters don't “stop” either the legislature, the executive, or the courts, but they shine a light on them and, without that light no one would ever know of the excesses in one branch so they would never get fixed by the other two branches.
How do you think congress learns about executive misdeeds so they can hold hearings? That's why the press is the fourth branch, without the press citizens would never know what the elected and appointed govt branches were up to.
|Siliconsamurai (4:32pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
In your previous post you did not attribute the quote to Mark A. Forman, OMB’s Associate Director of IT. Hence, my comment on the “dubious” statement. I thought it was your comment on the matter. Unless you want the audience to think the views expressed are your own, please in the future attribute the source. Or in this case, just stating something like “paraphrasing the GAO’s report findings” would have sufficed. People do not usually “report” in post to bulletin boards? So, understandably, I thought you were personally commenting on the aforementioned section of the GAO report in the following paragraph.
Of course, Mark A. Forman would express such a viewpoint. That is his job. He is required to “spin” the administration’s programs and policies favorably. I would not have bothered responding to your post if I’d understood that you were summarizing the GAO’s report. Such a viewpoint from Mark A. Forman is expected.
|Siliconsamurai Part II (4:33pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Regarding, the comment that the trade bill has absolutely nothing to do with either this report or the fact that OMB is tasked with managing where many agencies spend IT money. True, the trade bill mentioned by me has nothing to do with this specific GAO report. My comment was meant to be more generally applied to the role the Executive Branch (which OMB is just a part) has in all matters of IT security, domestic and international. My point being, and I welcome the opportunity to clarify, is that the United States does a poor job managing IT security matters on both fronts: domestic and international. Personally, I believe the mishandling of international IT security matters poses a greater threat to national security and world stability. Hence, my reference to the Export Administration Act of 2001.
Oh well, just the same I enjoyed our exchange. This forum is really not the place to discuss such a topic in great and far-reaching detail. It is too complex an issue to be handled with frivolity. Nonetheless, I commend your effort to inform. We all come here to keep abreast of the latest in technology news. So, in the end, that purpose was served.
|late nite (4:40pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
I have to get back to reporting, I just took a day off.
- by siliconsamurai
|re: siliconsamurai (4:47pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
I'm not against a free press, I'm against a press that is unelected, run by private corporations, and is *biased* declaring itself a wing of the government. Trying to say that since every point of view is out there evens it out doesn't work as the major networks (CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC FOX) control most of what people see and hear.
I have no need to defend journalism, and I've seen all the little tricks and sleight of hand, from the “750,000” figure for the “million mom march” that drew more like 40,000, (Hey, the organizers said it was so, that's a fact.) and the next years's march which drew only about a 100 and somehow was barely mentioned.
There's also how CBS's web site in the last election kept showing large and prominent pictures of Al Gore and smaller and often blurry pictures of GW Bush. Uh-huh, you know who they liked. I won't even go into the mess the media made by “calling” the election with the polls still open, or the endless defense of Clinton, and on and on.
If the media stuck to just reporting the news and facts, rather than endlessly trying to sway opinions and impress their ideas, I wouldn't have much of a problem with them.
Again, nothing personal to you, but I've seen the slimy underbelly of journalism, and much like thieves there is no honor among reporters. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwwiwiwiwi
|ziwi (5:05pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
You may have been mixing with the wrong reporters.
An “elected” free press is a total contradiction as you must know if you were ever a journalist of any sort.
I find it difficult to believe any reporter could so completely misunderstand the purpose of a free press and why it is the only profession even mentioned in The Bill of Rights so I can only believe you are just keeping the discussion alive.
If you check “bad” reporting carefully and it is from a reputable publication, you will find that they were quoting someone. For instance, that million mom march number probably came either from the park police or organizers and the number was probably clearly identified as being from some source other than the reporter actually counting every participant.
You mention press defense of Clinton, but who informed you about Clinton's excesses if not the press?
Again, if you don't learn of news from the press, all you get is government propaganda. If the press were elected it wouldn't be free.
And, if the press is so bad, you might want to stop and note that this section is labled news/geeknews and is hence journalism.
How would you know about the OMB report on poor security if it weren't for this very report from Ron? - by Siliconsamurai
|Which is why Congress needs a Watchdog Organization (5:10pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Some reporters have done yeoman's duties. Most have not. This is exactly why Congress needs to setup an organization that reports solely to a bipartisan Committee. Take a look at JLARC's website
and see if you think that its a good place to start, I do.
Its nice that you point to Watergate and Pentagon Papers, however these are the things that reporters may be particularly good at ferreting out, however policy analysis and legislative oversight are areas that reporters are typically not good at. The secutity issue is a policy one, not a corruption or a case of deliberate malfeasence.
I would also comment that reporting on the activities over Afghanistan has been horrid. The various ways that the news organs try and sway opinion to make it seem like the 'war' isn't going well just makes me cringe everytime I read about it. If WWII coverage had been so concerned about making headlines or 'beating' the competition, support for the War would have diminished significantly before we entered it wholeheartedly. - by Action
|re: siliconsamurai (6:50pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Even this web site itself has as strong pro-Linux bias, but that's another story altogether.
I wasn't demanding we have an elected press, but against the press deciding they're part of the government the power of free speech shouldn't be hijacked by the media for their own “message.”
The idea of a “fourth estate” was I believe relevant for the newspapers of the time, not the massive corporate “news” companies we have today.
Personally I wouldn't see what would be wrong with with a state run media service. (Shock!) Britain has a state media service that co-exists with the “free press.” (NPR just doesn't cut it here.)
To answer a few of your statements, the “million mom march” was reported by the organizers at 750,000, facts the press reported wildly on the first day but didn't corroborate from other sources. Quite a few independent web sites noted all the pictures of the crowd were tight close ups, and the far off shots which most of the media didn't play showed there was no way that many people could have been there.
But the real kick was how the unknown “housewife” founder of the “million mom march” turned out to be a part time CBS staffer, something I never found CBS once acknowledging in any report.
That's only one of the things that have made me turn my back on the “free press.” I kind of chuckle at how you feel it's either a free press or government propaganda the way I see it we're getting plenty of propaganda anyways. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwwiwi
|re: Action (7:43pm EST Tue Nov 13 2001)
Getting back on topic I think you've probably got the best idea about the whole thing today. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwwiwiwiwi