BuzzMachine

Just cookies? True, but mere cookies in the hands of the NSA are like a mere carving knife in the hands of Norman Bates.

The National Security Agency has issued an apology after the Associated Press reported that it had installed surveillance cameras in its lobby. NSA spokesman Don Weber called the installation of cameras a “mistake,” and said they would be removed immediately.

“The NSA should never have installed cameras in its office building, and for that, we apologize,” said Weber. “Some over-zealous security contractors put in the cameras after we paid them to increase security at the building.”

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the NSA was conducting a covert operation to spy on people, via video cameras, as they entered through the front door of the Washington office building where it is housed. Civil libertarians decried the secret operation, calling it a violation of basic fundamental principals of freedom and privacy established in the Constitution.

Although the cookies were dismantled this week and the NSA issued an apology on Wednesday, the episode will add to pressure on the White House to engage in a national debate about its use of the agency, and its interpretation of the constitutional limit

Don McArthur Says: “This is truly a non-issue, and symptomatic of the technical ignorance of the average American computer user”

No, this is truly an issue of how government entities are ignoring Federal law under the Bush administration. The Federal privacy laws (such as they are) are, in this case, designed to prevent the assimilation of data by the Fed. The NSA specifically violated a Federal Law.

Cookies can be innocuous or they can be used by companies to cross reference personal data with your browsing habits. What did the NSA need them for? Probably just for remembering preferences, but do you trust the NSA or any branch of the Bush run Fed to respect your privacy or Federal Law?

hey. i’m going to come over to your house at some random point and shuffle through your stuff.

you won’t mind, though, right?

you have nothing to hide.

and of course you’d let me wander right in because your not paranoid about anything.

sure thing, asshole.

One should also note the misleading headline, “Paranoia.” Is it really paranoia to to be concerned that the NSA may be violating privacy and spying on US citizens? Granted, the cookies issue may be just a mistake, but it is a mistake brought on by an indifference to Federal Law. Before this month one might have argued that the NSA was prohibited by law from spying domestically and that domestic NSA spying was just a paranoid fantasy, but as we have found out that is just what the NSA has been doing in spite of the law.

How can one be paranoid when the current administration has introduced to our democracy unlimited secret detention without trial, secret courts, secret evidence, secret laws, secret legal rationales, secret searches, warrantless wiretaps and warentless access to medical data, financial records, library records, web browsing habits, phone records–just about everything. And they consider themselves above the law in the name of defense. I’d say there is way too little paranoia under the circumstances and that our democracy is literally in danger from becoming a fascist state.

Sinclair Lewis recognized in 1935 that when fascism came to the US it would come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Unfortunately, he was right.

Don McArthur says that the hoopla is brought on by the “technical ignorance of the average American computer user,” ignoring that the the NSA’s excuse for violating Federal Privacy laws was ignorance of it’s own web server software, so it isn’t the “average American’s” ignorance that is at issue here.

We’re talking about cookies, and you’re Goodwining yourself.

Only on the Internet!

Scote has a good handle on what this is all about. Sure, cookies aren’t that big a deal in the computer world. But the great cookie debate is not about cookies – it’s about the trampling of our Civil Liberties by a President who says the constitution is nothing but “a piece of godammed paper” and his reckless administration.

Brian O’Connel wrote, “That this law even exists suggests that some privacy paranoiacs demanded it and some politicians thought it expedient to pacify them and pass it. In reality there’s no danger.”

No danger from internet tracking? Hmm, gotta disagree with that. The aggregation of databases is perhaps *the* most dangerous threat to our privacy. Tracking your internet activity is a critical part of that data. Would the NSA cookies be important to that? Probably not since the Administration has outsourced and offshored some data mining that would be illegal if done directly by the government (and probably still is). But, ignoring the Federal Privacy Laws is not acceptable. The lack of care to do so is consistent with the lack of care the Administration has for privacy and civil liberties.

The Administration has created a culture where privacy for individuals is bad but secrecy for the government is good. The NSA cookies violation appears to be a symptom of that lack of care for our civil liberties, whether that violation was through ignorance, indifference or malice.

So, is it “privacy paranoiacs” who are overly concerned about government tracking or Bush apologists who are insufficiently concerned about the subjugation of our constitution?

kirabug writes, “As for the idea that Internet tracking is dangerous, exactly how? Because somebody might stop trying to sell me penis enlargements if they knew I wasn’t buying? They might start trying to sell me stuff I’m interested in? The horror!”

Hmm…”dangerous?” How about when the DHS comes to your house to ask you why you have been posting to blogs about GWB is a danger to America? Or when your insurance company denies your coverage because they see you have been searching about AIDS on WebMD. Or when you are denied an apartment rental because your future landlord saw that you bought kitty litter on your grocery Club Card? Or when you were denied a job because your employer found you bought Cigarettes from a web retailer? Or when the police come and search your house because you bought small plastic bags?

If you are not concerned about data aggregation you are very missing an important threat to your freedom.

Kirabug writes, “Nope. Not worried…First, because I’m relatively sure the Director of Homeland Security (That’s what your DHS stands for, yes?) has no interest in me or my opinions. (His offce? Maybe, eventually, if I said something that warranted concern.”

I respectfully suggest you should be. As the current administration is transforming the US into a police state you might wish to be concerned–if not for that fact alone–then because a police state isn’t concerned with “false positives.” Accidently arrest too many people? No problem–it’s all in the name of security.

You add, “Second, because I’m confident my insurance company wants my money and won’t deny me coverage until a doctor says I have AIDS. Doesn’t make financial sense to rule out folks for learning. Mathematically, it would screw all their actuaries. Not worried about that.”

Actually, the actuaries will have a field day with the extra data. Actuaries are not concerned whether you as an individual have AIDS, only whether they can estimate risk. Insurance companies have already denied people insurance because they even so much has **had** certain genetic tests regardless of the results. Insurance companies would prefer to offer insurance only to those who will never need it. They’d rather not have you than take a chance that you might be a risk. They are in the business of collecting money, not paying it out. As it is, the Medical Information Bureau collects data on high risk activities that will get you denied for life insurance and they err on the side of caution–for the insurance companies–not your rights. Oh, sure, you might not be denied but you will probably pay more if you can get it. Oh, and you’ll never know why you were denied insurance because your insurance company doesn’t have to tell you why.

You wrote, “Third, because you’re assuming that someone’s not only aggregating this info but selling it on the open market, to anyone, including my future landlord.”

I never said this is currently happening, though it may be. However, currently there is no legal barrier to prevent it and your assumption that landlords couldn’t afford it is only that–an assumption. Already, landlords run credit checks and, sometimes, background checks on future tenants. There is no reason to believe that these checks will not include data-mined profiles.

You wrote, “Ziploc bags getting me investigated? Dude, when the hell would the police have the time to investigate plastic bag purchases?”

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has **already happened** in 90′s when the DEA subpoenaed Smith’s Food and Drug Centers in Arizona for their discount card purchase records to check who had purchased large numbers of plastic bags. In that case they were checking a number of named individuals and had a subpoena, but today they would probably just threaten a National Security Letter.

Keep in mind that the current administration started the Total Awareness Project to data mine all available databases both public and private for “terrorist” patterns. While you may not one of the people falsely accused and investigated as the result of data mining, those that are face possible indefinite detention and torture by this administration. The cookies may not be a big deal by themselves, but you shouldn’t use that as an excuse to ignore the bigger picture.

Your assumptions that threats to your privacy wont’ affect you are unjustified.

As the current administration is transforming the US into a police state…

Whenever someone writes something like this, it’s safe to ignore everything else they write–they’re clearly unable to give serious and useful thought to much of anything. As though this is the first administration that has done any of the supposedly horrid things irrationally feared here…

Sorry, but who the heck even goes to the NSA web site?

Do they have free music downloads there or something?

The mere fact that the NSA website is not allowed to use cookies only shows the absolute ignorance of technology displayed by the Congress. Ignorance of technology creates fear of technology. Cookies are not some kind of spying device. They don’t tell the host website your information. They tell YOUR computer that you’ve been there before, similar to a preference file. Cookies are a good thing. They help the user.

So NSA can’t use cookies, but Amazon, eBay, banks, credit card companies, porno sites, and everybody else can use all the cookies they want. This truly reveals how sad the anti-Bush brigade has become, that they would be willing to display such ignorance for all the world to see.

Idiots who fly off the handle with paranoid fantasies are a barrier to progress and improved user interfaces.

“I respectfully suggest you should be. As the current administration is transforming the US into a police state you might wish to be concerned…”

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a raving nutcase!

Look, if this WAS a police state, do you REALLY think you’d be allowed to post what you’re saying? Nope, the evil powers that be would have already dragged you off to the Liberal Internment Camp, where you’d be beaten until you stopped being a moonbat.

Oh, wait, you don’t have any tracking cookies on your computer. CURSES, they can’t come get you now!

Grow up, Scote.

That pig won’t fly.

If you’re really concerned about cookies, turn them off. Or if you don’t want them to be turned off, use adblocking software and/or adware/spyware detection software as a countermeasure. Use an IP blocker like PeerGuardian. Etc. Of all the possible folks trying to get at my web browsing patterns, I’m probably *least* concerned about the NSA using that info than hundreds—if not thousands—of other folks.

Obviously, Scote has never heard of Echelon.

I love a healthy discussion. I’m glad to see the level of discourse is fairly moderate, yet I am somewhat surprised that my position has been so consistently knocked down. One might say that it is because I’m wrong (as many will no doubt second the motion), or it could be that there truly is an amazing indifference to the violations that have been going on under the Bush Administration.

Let’s start off with the allegation that gets the most attention, my contention that the US is increasingly becoming a police state. Will the US really become like East Germany where people were routinely informed on, spied on and held indefinitely at the whim of the government. Hopefully not, yet the Bush administration has been both secretly and overtly acquiring Police State Powers. Dick Cheney has actually been fighting a ban on torture for God’s sake. Doesn’t that ring alarm bells with anybody? In addition, the Administration has asserted that it can detain **anybody** indefinitely and in secret at it’s sole discretion and that the invocation of the term “enemy combatant” allows the administration to suspend the constitutional rights of American citizens indefinitely and without review by any court–ever.

That the current administration is acquiring Police State powers is undeniable, the only question is what are we going to do about it.

Pok says, “I’m not really sure where I stand on this issue; but I think Scote’s concerns are ridiculously exaggerated. I grew up under Martial Law and it does’t look anything like current America. If it were, Scote won’t live 25 minutes after saying his constitutional rights are being violated – that or his tongue would be an inch shorter”

I’m glad, Pok, that you have had the chance to escape the Martial Law you grew up under but I’m not buying the argument that because you’ve seen worse we should ignore what’s happening. I’d hope that you’d want to preserve the freedoms you are supposed to be guaranteed in the US rather than watch them be whittled away by an Administration that considers itself above the law and the constitution the country was founded on.

Rand Simberg says,” “As the current administration is transforming the US into a police state…”

Whenever someone writes something like this, it’s safe to ignore everything else they write–they’re clearly unable to give serious and useful thought to much of anything. As though this is the first administration that has done any of the supposedly horrid things irrationally feared here…”

Am I unable to give serious and useful thought or are you unable to see a clear argument backed up with verifiable facts? Would you really dismiss **facts** because I used the term “Police State”? It seems you have a bit of cognitive dissonance where the Bush Administration is conserned. Actually, many of the powers the Bush Administration has asserted are literally without precedent in the US. Name another US administration that has asserted in court that even it’s legal reasoning (not its briefs or documents, but the reasoning) was secret and could not be revealed to the public? It’s never been done before. How about an Administration that has asserted that the law being challenged in court was secret–”if it existed”–and couldn’t be challenged in court? That is new, too. Or claiming that prisoners in US controlled military jails in Cuba were exempt from the authority of any court–even the US Supreme Court?

It would be great if I was wrong. We have all been brought up to question anyone who claimed the US is a police state, or fascist, or against human rights because it used to be false. The new paradigm shift is hard to acknowledge. Although it is comforting to try an dismiss my concerns as those of a lunatic, the facts I have enumerated are true and easily cross referenced and are true. Many people are in denial. I hope they are able to wake up before the Administration takes more powers for itself.

To show just how bad it has gotten, let’s look at what Tom Gunn has written:

“If you think your rights are being trampled you may be reaping what you sowed…For years libs have been infringing the rights of the law-abiding to keep and bear arms.”

Tom seems to acknowledge that rights are being trampled but justifies it as political payback. The Republican party used to be the party of individual rights, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility. Now they stand for the opposite and supporters are too drunk with power to care about this complete reversal.

Now, to bring it back home, celibrim writes, ““Granted, the cookies issue may be just a mistake, but it is a mistake brought on by an indifference to Federal Law. ”

Only someone who is not themselves in IT would write something foolish like that.”"

Another faulty assumption. You need to look at my posts more clearly. My point was that the mistake (assuming it to be such) was brought on by an indifference to Federal Privacy Laws. If the Fed really cared about privacy it would have checklists and procedures that everyone would follow before going live with a dev site, but the fact that Privacy Laws are not a priority to the government meant that there was no double check of the NSA site. My argument stands.

A.W. of Freespeech.com Says: “No Scote, this is not a constitutional crisis. This is an attempt by the left to create NEW PRIVACY rights,”

You mean my “NEW PRIVACY” right to not have my international calls intercepted by a warrantless search by the NSA? Oh, perhaps you mean the “NEW PRIVACY” right to not have the government use cookies to track you? Actually that is illegal by Federal Law. One can argue over the dangers of cookies and such but you can’t argue that we are talking about “new” privacy laws here. What we are talking about involves the violation of Federal Laws.

J. Peden Says: “Warrantless searches, Judges rubber-stamping warrants, and on-the-spot fabricated reasons for searches have existed for a very long time.”

Yes, and the abuse of these have lead specifically to laws like the FISA court system which makes it illegal to do the type of warantless spying the Bush Administration has used the NSA for (no, I’m not talking about the cookies!)

J. Peden adds “In my thinking the Left fears searches, detention, torture, and the death penalty…”

Well, I’d hope anyone would fear these things.

And “At the same time, it is clear to me that Bush’s actions in the WOT are legal, and warranted given the terrorist threat as proven by its actions and statements.”

Funny that you should use the term “warranted” here in light of the Administration’s love of warrantless (or “unwarranted) searches…Is there any liberty you will not hand over to the Bush Administration to assuage your fear of terrorists? What, then, does the US stand for? Fear of terrorists?
We have to stand for more than just being against terrorists. We need to regain the moral high ground and remain a nation of laws and civil liberties.

Scote writes: do you trust the NSA or any branch of the Bush run Fed to respect your privacy or Federal Law?

No abuse by Bush has been found.

BUT: one Senator suggested, the best reason to oppose the PATRIOT Act is that we may someday have President Hillary Clinton to abuse it.

Wired Sez :Unbeknown to the Bush administration, an outside contractor has been using internet tracking technologies that may be prohibited to analyze usage and traffic patterns at the White House’s website, an official said Thursday”

Someone up there who mentioned echelon. Yes, echolon, carnivore and rainmaker have beeen active for a long time. Way back in April/05 we heard that wireless encyption is being broken by FBI in 3 mins

Christ, scote. Shut up.

ss Says:
“Christ, scote. Shut up.”

Who should shut up? Christ? Or Me? Either way, I think you make a valuable point. There is an increasing attempt by the Administration to stifle dissent, often by saying it will embolden the enemy. Well, not if, in part, the enemy is us. So, unless you you only want to hear ditto heads, I’d hope you’d want a healthy discussion of politics and federal policy.

Brian O’Connell Says”If you look in the bottom right corner of this page, you’ll find an outside contractor using internet tracking technologies to analyze usage and traffic patterns at this site.”

Quite right. And my boss can legally monitor my internet usage. However, the government’s ability to spy is limited by the constitution and by statute. The NSA cookies were a violation of a federal statute.

As to the private tracking data mining and its future consequences for our rights, I do, in fact, consider that an important issue.

If this was fought as a real war, we’d all be asked to sacrifice. There would be a draft, for starters, and tax hikes so we can properly armor our troops and anti war profiteering laws.

Just lettin ya know, when most of us see these talking points being thrown out, we know that they are just that – talking points – and we write you off as someone who once read something about the military and believes that they know what they are talking about. (or they are a politician)

You see, we don’t want you to sacrifice, we volunteered for this job, you didn’t.

We don’t want a draft. This is professional, all volunteer military. We chose to be here, we prefer to have others that chose to be here watching our backs.

If you have problems with our armor, where were you in the 90′s when our infrastructure was being decimated? It’s funny, I NEVER heard this from the Democrats when our pay was trash, bah and housing were trash, equipment was trash.

Why didn’t I hear you talking about anti profiteering laws in the 90′s when we were serviced by the same contractors as we are now? Why is it only an issue now?

You didn’t give a rats ass about us then, excuse us for finding your motivation a bit suspect now.

Scote: Listen to McConnell.

I’ve spent quite a bit of time in genuine police states and I can assure you, you haven’t any idea what you’re talking about.

Reaching for hyperbole and shrieking outrage at every turn doesn’t help your argument. It also means that should “fascism ever arrive in America” we’ll all be numbed by years of false alarms.

Settle down. Not only have rights been abridged during war time in the past, but there exist mechanisms for addressing abuses and for sunsetting abridgements (e.g.: the Patriot Act must be renewed).

No, it’s not perfect. And, yes, abuse may be occur. But if evidence exists for a fraction of the things Bush is accused of, he’ll be removed from office. And if not, his administration ends in January 2009. These are features I guarantee you won’t find in a real police state.

As some one in IT, I find it strange that certain people would deny the NSA the same abilities they are NOT willing to go to battle over with corporations.
And I’m a Libertarian.
This does NOT bother me, other things like the RICO act bother me.
The ability to take a persons home without due proccess because the law found ONE tiny illegal plant some where on your property.

Those things bother me.

Getting your knickers in a wad over cookies from the NSA website is joke. As others have stated, you are crying wolf and ruining your chances of being taking seriously in the future should REAL need arise.

Scote, provide a citation for the CFR in which you claim the cookies are in violation of Federal Statute.

Cosmo is absolutely correct, “Reaching for hyperbole and shrieking outrage at every turn doesn’t help your argument”.

Cite the relevant law you claim is being violated, please.

OT

Just a grunt wrote, “You see, we don’t want you to sacrifice, we volunteered for this job, you didn’t.”

All military personal have my highest regard for their sacrifice and service. The idea that people who speak up for our rights are inherently “anti-military” is insidious and false. Speaking of people who “didn’t” volunteer for the active duty military, you conveniently omit the President, Vice President and all of their advisors. Why would you do that? My service record certainly can’t be as relevant as that of the inexperience people who are sending our valuable military personal into an idealized and insufficiently planned war.

“We don’t want a draft. This is professional, all volunteer military. We chose to be here, we prefer to have others that chose to be here watching our backs.”

I’d also hope you’d want people at home watching your backs to make sure you only fight the fights we should fight and wars we can win. The most important aspect of using any weapon, including the military, is the decision of when and where to use it.

“If you have problems with our armor, where were you in the 90’s when our infrastructure was being decimated? It’s funny, I NEVER heard this from the Democrats when our pay was trash, bah and housing were trash, equipment was trash.”

You mean when Senator Dick Cheney was canceling military programs in the 90s. Or when the Republican congress elected, time after time to close more and more baeses? Your selective memory of just who is responsible for downsizing the military shows that your politics are interfering with your rational judgement.

“Why didn’t I hear you talking about anti profiteering laws in the 90’s when we were serviced by the same contractors as we are now? Why is it only an issue now?”

Why didn’t you hear me? Now you are just being silly. Your lack of knowledge about what I said in the 90′s is not evidence in support of your point. And you are still missing the picture. You are trying to say that it was bad then so it is ok now? That is just inane.

“If it wasn’t so sad, I’d laugh. We’ve served under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen both sides of the aisle fighting over who can “give” us more, fighting over who “cares” more.”

That is, perhaps, true. But no one is better at it than the Republican party, a party which has repeatedly shown its disdain for military service, military awards and for the military war planners who knew how to plan post war operations.

“You didn’t give a rats ass about us then, excuse us for finding your motivation a bit suspect now.”

Your psychic knowledge of my position is unconvincing. I suspect that the reason that you are resorting to psychically derived strawmen is that you have a lot of anger but not a lot of evidence or logic to back up your position.

I think our military is the best in the world, but you don’t keep it that way by squandering our resources in a half-assed, Vietnam manner. The administration has never wanted the public to be aware of the sacrifice our military pays for the War in Iraq and has been unwilling to ask the American people to support our troops in meaningful ways.

Gaius Arbo Says, “Cite the relevant law you claim is being violated, please.”

Well, that is a legitimate question. Though I note you don’t bother to try and disprove any of my contentions.

The original guidelines were issued by the OMB in 2000.

This memoranda was followed up by the “E-Government Act of 2002, which was signed by the President on December 17, 2002 and became effective on April 17, 2003…Section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347, 44 U.S.C. Ch 36) requires that OMB issue guidance to agencies on implementing the privacy provisions of the E-Government Act ”

The confusion about “rules” versus “law” in this instance is that there is a law requiring the implementation of rules to be finalized by the OMB. So strictly speaking the cookie violation was not a violation of statute, but a violation of the implementation of the statute as agreed upon by the Administration. So the NSA was in violation of rules required by statute that the Administration had, itself, signed off on. That doesn’t, however, allow them free reign to violate those rules required by the E-Government Act of 2002.

The 2000 memorandum states:

Tracking technology prohibitions:
agencies are prohibited from using persistent cookies or any other means (e.g., web beacons) to track visitors’ activity on the Internet except as provided in subsection (b) below;
agency heads may approve, or may authorize the heads of sub-agencies or senior official(s) reporting directly to the agency head to approve, the use of persistent tracking technology for a compelling need. When used, agency’s must post clear notice in the agency’s privacy policy of:
the nature of the information collected;
the purpose and use for the information;
whether and to whom the information will be disclosed; and
the privacy safeguards applied to the information collected.
agencies must report the use of persistent tracking technologies as authorized for use by subsection b. above (see section VII)20.
The following technologies are not prohibited:
Technology that is used to facilitate a visitor’s activity within a single session (e.g., a “session cookie”) and does not persist over time is not subject to the prohibition on the use of tracking technology.
Customization technology (to customize a website at the visitor’s request) if approved by the agency head or designee for use (see v.1.b above) and where the following is posted in the Agency’s Privacy Policy:
the purpose of the tracking (i.e., customization of the site);
that accepting the customizing feature is voluntary;
that declining the feature still permits the individual to use the site; and
the privacy safeguards in place for handling the information collected.
Agency use of password access to information that does not involve “persistent cookies” or similar technology.

So, there isn’t a ban on cookies but there is a ban on persistent cookies that exist without justification–which the NSA cookies did and the NSA admitted to.

Cosmo writes, “Cosmo is absolutely correct, “Reaching for hyperbole and shrieking outrage at every turn doesn’t help your argument”.”

It is a sad day when the misdeeds of the current Administration are so outrageous that merely reporting the demonstrable facts passes for hyperbole. While I may agree that in argumentation one may need to subdue ones point to get it across, I also think the problem here is not any hyperbole on my part (I’ve been fairly careful to provide verifiable examples and cogent argumentation) but an amazing national cognitive dissonance which cannot accept the plain facts about the current Administration at face value.

So, Scote, in the end you think it’s a rules violation. One, it seems, which was quickly discovered and remedied. No violation of statute, by your own reckoning. No relevant laws broken. Hardly a “free reign to violate those rules.”

Again, Gaius’ question stands. “Cite the relevant law you claim is being violated, please.” It’s not an essay question with extra points for clever sophistry.

So, forgive me if I don’t hold my breath for the indictments. And forgive me, too, my fatigue and skepticism over every new (manufactured) outrage.

You want rule of law? After five years of Bush Cheated, Bush Lied, Bush Knew, Bush Spied — all of it a bust — I’d like to see some due process, beginning with a presumption of innocence and including, perhaps, indictments, articles of impeachment, inquests, hearings or trials — all of which would occur if there were enough evidence of malfeasance — before guilt is determined, conclusions drawn and sentence pronounced.

As for Gaius needing to ‘disprove your contentions,’ I’m afraid as you are the one making charges, the burden of proof rests with you. This isn’t a show trial. As it is the “demonstrable facts” don’t support the charge that “misdeeds of the current Administration are so outrageous.” On the contrary, simply stating so, no matter how hysterically, does not make it so.

Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Not to get too far off topic, but do you know how much you are being tracked by private companies?

Try this site to see what google does, for example:
http://www.google-watch.org/

Given the number of unwanted pieces of software commonly installed on a person’s computer, cookies may be the least of it. Wasn’t there an issue with the FBI installing keystroke capture software on some computers recently?
Do you actually know what the latest Microsoft “security” upgrade does?

Robert Feinman Says: “Not to get too far off topic, but do you know how much you are being tracked by private companies?

Indeed, I do know some of this. Nobody knows the full extent, of course, because private companies usually keep their datamining activities closely held–the light of day tending to cause public outcry.

Private data aggregation is just one more reason to keep the government out of this business altogether. In fact, the Pentagon already started a project to aggregate all available public and private databases, called the Total Information Awareness project. It has since been publicly scrapped, but given the recent revelations about NSA warantless wiretaps, it is entirely possible the TIA project has been moved to a secret status.

Again, I’ve never contended that the NSA persistent cookies violation was a big deal unto itself, but accidental or not, it calls attention to a wide swath of civil liberties violations by the current Administration.

Sigh.

“Well, that is a legitimate question. Though I note you don’t bother to try and disprove any of my contentions.”

I did not have to disprove any of your contentions. I asked you to cite a reference. Very simple, actually.

You did so. Thank you.

You also negated your own contentions in the process. From your own post:

“agencies are prohibited from using persistent cookies or any other means (e.g., web beacons) to track visitors’ activity on the Internet except as provided in subsection (b) below”

The setting of the cookie does not provide proof that the relevant section of your own citation was violated. Where is the proof that the cookie was used to track activity? THe mere setting of the cookie does not prove tracking, please see the above, more technical comments about that subject.

And frankly, stating – repeatedly – that a statute was violated then later acknowledging that no statute violation occurred negates your entire string of logic. Knowingly using a mis-statement of fact as the springboard of a discussion completely negates all that follows it. (Spare me any “BUSH LIED statements, please.)

As for this particular statement: “Speaking of “repeating memes,” that seems to be what you are doing. It is extremely sad that the Administration has been so successful in propagating the meme that questioning the Administration is treason, aids the enemy, means you don’t support the troops. “, please show me exactly where I stated ANY of your complaints.

I just can’t find anything I typed that says that you committed treason, aided the enemy or that you didn’t support the troops. So stop projecting onto me.

You ARE repeating things I have read elsewhere today, virtually word-for-word. That would be a meme. So would the “never asked the American People to support….” be a meme. Your later qualification “general public” does not negate your earlier blanket statement.

Your ready use of hysterical, unfounded blanket charges and cries of “Police State” are ridiculous. As others have said, if this was a Police State you WOULD already be silenced. Instead you get to post whatever you want anywhere you feel like it. (on a site that -gasp – sets COOKIES on your browser. How do you think it remembers your login ID?)

Incidently, it is the belief of my son and a LOT of his fellow soldiers that the general public has no reason – or right – to see flag-draped coffins. It is disrespectful to take pictures of what is a solemn, VERY private agony for the families. This particular meme is ghoulish and beneath the dignity of anyone who repeats it. (Yeah, that last sentence was a jab, Scote).

Disclaimer – I am not a particular fan of GWB, and I never did get that VRWC card I sent for. Dang, I guess I wouldn’t belong to any club that would have me as a member anyway.

I can’t decide whether (1) the media outlets breathlessly reporting this shocking “revelation” are completely clueless as to what cookies actually are, what they can and can’t do, the fact that almost everyone uses them, etc., or (2) they actually do know that this is a non-story but are just using it as an excuse to dogpile on the administration. I suppose, though, it is possible to combine the two, as Scote has so amply demonstrated.

Scote writes: “It is extremely sad that the Administration has been so successful in propagating the meme that questioning the Administration is treason, aids the enemy, means you don’t support the troops.”

This, Scote, is itself a meme. And a awfully tired one, too.

Cosmo, do I really need to spend the next 5 minutes googling up 25 quotes from Bush administration member and Fox media people, calling anti-Bush and anti-War people traitors? And now, people who don’t like their contitutional rights violated, they’re anti-national security?

Meme? No, more like the standard line of attack.

The funny thing is, according to people in your world, 60%+ of the population are traitors. Get a clue.

You are now, and have been for a while, on EVERY poll item, a member of the vast minority.

Iraq? Social Security “reform?” Torture? Domestic spying? Losers, all of them. The nation has woken up. Unfortunately, a year too late.

This is really getting to the point of paranoid delusion, isn’t it?

While the White House (AP reports) only counts the number of visitors anonymously and doesn’t record personal information, the issue of Web bugs is bigger than that, because the things can, and are, used to track users who, whether they know it or not, are no more anonymous than their IP addresses, which are totally knowable.
Wanna get paranoid? Think about that the next time you visit a porn site. Or a site considered a threat to Homeland Security.
If there’s a hat here, it isn’t tin, it’s old. Here’s a Web bug FAQ from the EFF, written back in 1999. That’s also when “Richard M. Smith” first started writing about the topic.

Whadaya mean you can’t hold people without charges and without a hearing?

My father was taken and held by agents of the US government for 4 years!!!! He was definitely a non-combatant!!!!!!! (okay, no more !!!!!!) He was held behind barbed wire the entire time in heavily guarded secret wilderness camps. At the end he was released without a hearing, without a conviction and without compensation. He never done nobody no wrong.

Oh wait a minute. It was 1942. He was a ‘non-combatant’ merchant sailor on a German ‘privately owned’ submarine supply boat just off the Spanish coast, carrying only sauerkraut and bier, none of those nasty torpedos, shells nor nuthin’. Or so he says, laughing his head off. Flying a Spanish flag too, as I recall. He was then 19, a devoted Nazi, Hitler youth, whole ball of wax. What kind of loon would have wanted him free? Or had any doubts about locking him up? Or hesitated 1 microsecond in eavesdropping on every word he exchanged with an American citizen?

Even so the poor misunderstood boy now realizes his civil rights were violated and he needs lawyers, tons of them. Bring on the plaintiffs’ bar. Sue everyone.

My own perhaps paranoid theory is that most of these loony leftoid scares are watched carefullyby the Democrat leftist bar ‘trying them on for size’. If they ever find one that fits and resonates with Joe Average, they won’t want criminal sanctions against wrongdoers, they will want their usual blackmail blood money.

Recommendation to Scote – immediately cancel your internet service, your electrical service, your water and sewer. Cancel all magazine and newspaper subscriptions, better yet remove your mailbox from the street. Immediately line the entire inside of your house, including windows and doors, with heavy-duty aluminum foil, quit your job, pull your kids out of school, and for god’s sake stay inside. We’re coming to get you!!

Scote, you are a moron

Bob, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.

> the bad-old-days of the Red Scare,

Funny you should make the comparison, but it turns out that there WAS a red under the bed. Defenders of Stalin in the ’50s poo-pooed the notion that the USSR was “evil” and had it out for us. Diehard sociialists to this day defend the traitorous Rosenbergs. The press back then covered up what they knew about the gulags and death camps in Russia. And it extended all the way into the ’90s when the USSR finally fell.

It sounds very similar to the left’s defense of the rights of islamofascists to wage war unmolested on the civilized world. Thank God neither Gore nor Kerry got into the White House, or they would be following your unreasonable absolutist advice. People who care more about the chances of having their embarrassing remarks recorded by faceless men in black than they do about the chance of a city being vaporized have no business deciding national defense policy.

>Why not bring the level of discourse up to the level of facts and rationality …

Oh, that’s rich coming from somebody who spouts:

> As the current administration is transforming the US into a police state…

You make me laugh, sir.

By referring to the Bush administration as a police state, by comparing Bush to Hitler (and unfavorably), by using the word fascist every other paragraph, by declaring Bush the “world’s worst terrorist” and a dictator, people like you do a great disservice by watering down the awfulness of such words.

There are real police states in this world. Two recent examples, the Taliban and Saddam’s Iraq, are now democracies thanks mostly to the President, and no thanks to liberals who tried everything in their power to stop him. No thanks to Amnesty International who insist that only mass email petitions will free people from torture, and actually doing something makes you worse than Saddam.

Fascism is a serious thing. For some idiot to glibly shoot his mouth off and call Bush a fascist devalues all the real suffering that goes on under REAL dictators.