PDA

View Full Version : Cookies and Spying


OPP
12-31-2005, 12:45 PM
Anyone remember when spying on your own country, and it's people would end you up in prison for treason.

Good luck U.S.A.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/29/spy.agency.privacy.ap/index.html


NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them.

These files, known as "cookies," disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake.

Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States. (Watch how cookies can track where you surf -- 1:47)

"Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a major concern," said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "But it does show a general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy."
'Persistent cookies' pre-installed

Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until 2035 -- likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.

Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary, permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies already on.

"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said.

Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that require them.

But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even if no personal information is actually collected.

In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies -- those that aren't automatically deleted right away -- unless there is a "compelling need."

A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.

Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not sufficient."

Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said mistakes happen, "but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say anything about doing it accidentally."
E-mail and phone calls

The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court orders.

Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda.

But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of domestic and international communications.

The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve the surfing experience "and not to collect personal user data."

Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional visits.

The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.

In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention

Synch
12-31-2005, 01:12 PM
I clear my cookies daily.

OPP
12-31-2005, 01:45 PM
Not alot of people do.

jeravicious
12-31-2005, 02:33 PM
Apparently, you people don't know much about "cookies"

Let me help you out, especially those who don't have the luxury, like some of us, of being from the USA and therefore, may not be aware....

************************************************
"Cookies" from one domain CANNOT...I repeat...CANNOT track your web surfing habits on another domain.
************************************************

The NSA CANNOT track you using "cookies" as you browse Amazon.com. Even "persistant cookies" CANNOT track you on another website. Perhaps you need to delve deeper into the story and enlighten yourself. The media tries to play up this story, and they're doing the same with the White House "cookie" revelation now also, BUT if you actually listen/read the story, you would realize this...in the news report about this on Television, they point this out at about the end of the story.

The NSA website and the White House website can ONLY place a "cookie" on your machine when you actually GO TO THEIR WEBSITE. And then...and only then, can they track you as you surf THEIR WEBSITE.

The NSA and the White House ARE NOT tracking your web browsing here on Ebaums by using "cookies"...quit being so ignorant and paranoid.

Oh...and do yourself a favor and use the INTERNET to learn exactly how "cookies" work....and quit relying in the Media to inform you.

Systemofa Noun
12-31-2005, 02:46 PM
I agree with not listening to the media about such matters, especially CNN. This also goes along with the recent reports about Bush and the spying. Everytime I turn on the tv they keep repeating the same thing about he should have had a court order, but fail to mention he didn't have to according to FISA. They are doing the same with this matter about the NSA and cookies. They know most are not going to research on the internet, so they will report inaccuracies.

jeravicious
12-31-2005, 05:05 PM
I agree with not listening to the media about such matters, especially CNN. This also goes along with the recent reports about Bush and the spying. Everytime I turn on the tv they keep repeating the same thing about he should have had a court order, but fail to mention he didn't have to according to FISA. They are doing the same with this matter about the NSA and cookies. They know most are not going to research on the internet, so they will report inaccuracies.

Indeed...when the "new" story about the White House website also placing cookies on people's PCs came out...they did a story on CNN Headline News about it where the anchor said, "The White House may ALSO be tracking your web surfing...that story in a moment." Then when they ran the story, near the end of it, they noted that the cookie would only be placed IF you went to the White House website and it COULD ONLY track you as you browsed the White House website and not on another site.

Oh...the horror!!!!

Now the White House may know if you looked at Dick Cheney's or Laura Bush's biography!!!

OUTRAGEOUS!!! It's ANARCHY!!!

Nocturnal
12-31-2005, 05:39 PM
Ahh yes, typical conservative manuevers. Disregard the big issue and focus on a minor innacuracy in the media.

"GW spied on Americans? no big deal, but the Media exagerating cookie concerns? Holy shit, stop the presses!"

jeravicious
12-31-2005, 05:45 PM
Ahh yes, typical conservative manuevers. Disregard the big issue and focus on a minor innacuracy in the media.

"GW spied on Americans? no big deal, but the Media exagerating cookie concerns? Holy shit, stop the presses!"

If your going to be accurate....BE ACCURATE.

The NSA was authorized by the President, under Constitutional Executive Authority as well as authority granted by Congress in it's post 9-11 Use of Force Resolution, to use warrantless wiretaps to monitor communications between KNOWN foreign terrorist organizations or those using KNOWN terrorists communication lines (phone#'s) even if those conversation included people here in America and sometimes U.S. citizens.

BTW, you do realize that Bill Clinton in 1994 argued for the use of ENTIRELY domestic wiretaps in Chicago to be used in extreme circumstances?? Why do I point this out? For historical precedent.

Nocturnal
12-31-2005, 05:48 PM
If your going to be accurate....BE ACCURATE.

The NSA was authorized by the President, under Constitutional Executive Authority as well as authority granted by Congress in it's post 9-11 Use of Force Resolution, to use warrantless wiretaps to monitor communications between KNOWN foreign terrorist organizations or those using KNOWN terrorists communication lines (phone#'s) even if those conversation included people here in America and sometimes U.S. citizens.

BTW, you do realize that Bill Clinton in 1994 argued for the use of ENTIRELY domestic wiretaps in Chicago to be used in extreme circumstances?? Why do I point this out? For historical precedent.

Not everyone agrees on that.

Historical precedent does not matter in that respect, Clinton is not the issue. Domestic spying is either legal, or illegal, and the fact that a previous president attempted the same thing does not change that status.

jeravicious
12-31-2005, 06:01 PM
Not everyone agrees on that.

Historical precedent does not matter in that respect, Clinton is not the issue. Domestic spying is either legal, or illegal, and the fact that a previous president attempted the same thing does not change that status.

An often overlooked piece of the 4th Amendment states that it protects against "UNREASONABLE" searches.

So one may ask themselves....is monitoring the communication between a KNOWN foreign terrorist organization and a U.S. citizen "unreasonable"??

We will see....

Shameless
12-31-2005, 06:18 PM
Oh...and do yourself a favor and use the INTERNT to learn exactly how "cookies" work....and quit relying in the Media to inform you.

Good idea. Know where I could find one of those?

EDIT: Uhhh, clearly jeravicious.

jeravicious
12-31-2005, 06:22 PM
Good idea. Know where I could find one of those?

Is that the "you misspelled a word and therefore I will use it as my response back to you" argument??

Brilliant!

OPP
12-31-2005, 06:51 PM
So one may ask themselves....is monitoring the communication between a KNOWN foreign terrorist organization and a U.S. citizen "unreasonable"??


US intel says so. Oh wait, they also said Iraq had WMD's.

By all means, yes we will see.:rolleyes:

Nocturnal
12-31-2005, 07:51 PM
We will see....

I hope so.