Do not visit The NSA web site.

Wildcard

Moderator
NSA Caught Placing Cookies on Web Visitors' Computers

Thursday, December 29, 2005

NEW YORK — 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.

"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."

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."

The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it authorized the 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.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180082,00.html
 
Seems like the thread title is misleading after reading this:
"After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies," he said.
And it isn't hard to deny cookies from being placed on your computer or even deleting them. I don't see this as a big deal.
 
Cookies - big deal. This site, along with 99% of the sites you visit, put cookies on your computer too.
Since when to we believe what the Government tells us?
Since it's so easy to check your computer for them yourself.
 
the_optimist.jpg
 
Oh good grief!

Anyone that is so computer illterate as to not know to how to check/delete/refuse cookies... Well, I'm sorry, but they desreve whatever they get.

Imagine driving a car and not knowing how to check your gas, oil and water...
 
UMM, I know how to delete cookies, refuse cookies. I was posting this to let folks read about it. Nice attack by the way.
 
Thanks for the advisory. I visit several gubmint sites including the National Parks and Library of Congress on a regular basis. Want a difficult time? Try writing a National Park site. Can't use apostrophes, commas, periods, return-bar, or anything else.
 
Remember old whats his name, Al Gore

He was very influential with the internet and getting people to back it. Probably figured it was a good way to keep track of the people using it. I am sure it would not have been quite so obvious if Al had his way.

I like Peanut Butter myself.

Harley
 
In a world in which viri, trojans, worms and other assorted dangers are mentioned on an almost daily basis by the same news services, I found it hard to understand those who travel unprepared. In the same manner I fail to understand those who would drive an automobile without knowing how to check the fuel supply.

Likewise, those who surf the web without knowing that most all websites pass cookies.

It was not an attack that prompted my previous post... Just utter disbelief that this story could be considered news by those who surf daily. Sorry that someone took my post in the wrong manner.
 
Cookies, whoop de doo. And it most likely was a simple mistake because virtually all web server applications must have persistent cookies enabled out of the box. This often makes it far less troublesom to configure and test the site before launching. I'd be willing to bet that the TFL web server originally had persisten cookies enabled.

Every site you visit puts a cookie on your computer. Every single one.


Imagine driving a car and not knowing how to check your gas, oil and water...

Imagine how many people actually do that and then complain that they Chevy they bought is a piece of crap just because the engine siezed from running the same oil for eight years.

Those same people love to complain about their computers crashing when they're the ones responsible for it in the first place.

He was very influential with the internet and getting people to back it. Probably figured it was a good way to keep track of the people using it. I am sure it would not have been quite so obvious if Al had his way.
Hope you're not being serious. Gore saw in the Internet possibilites that few other crotchety old Senators could've imagined and certainly helped push the technology forward but to think that he had any influence on what we're talking about here is ridiculous.
 
Wildcard,
If you percieved my pic as an attack, I apologize. It was meant as a good natured ribbing. (and FWIW, the apology is sincere, no mod has contacted me.) It's a cool pic, so let's leave it up, OK?

Here ya go.
Unofficial Cookie FAQ

Enjoy.
 
NSA= NOT scary, those geeks wont be knocking/kicking in my door at 3 AM because I'm a "threat to the state". Most of the info I think people are afraid for the government to know, i.e. what guns they have or how they feel about the government, people have no problem posting here. Personally, I could care less what the goverment hears me say or what they know I think, as long as they don't try to interfere with my right to say or think it.
 
I could care less what the goverment hears me say or what they know I think, as long as they don't try to interfere with my right to say or think it.

I agree with you, as most will. But, Monitoring is usually the first step in regulating something.
 
I could care less what the goverment hears me say or what they know I think, as long as they don't try to interfere with my right to say or think it.
I care...both on principle and historic practicality.

Others need not care. This is their choice and the legacy they leave their children; for good or bad.
Rich
 
Back
Top