Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Scary NSA Story Of The Day: A Cookie Controversy

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.


Alarming!

Here's the NSA's explanation for what happened:



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.


I'm inclined to believe the NSA on this one, and here's why:

First of all, go read the entire article. Notice something missing? Like maybe some evidence suggesting that the cookies put on user computers by the NSA website actually tracked where people were going on the internet? There is a suggestion here that these cookies could have done that, but nothing telling us that they did do that. It would be kind of nice to know, wouldn't it?

You'd think that the Associated Press could have dug up an expert to tell us one way or another. Kind of funny how they didn't, isn't it? I mean, if these cookies never delete then surely somebody must still have one on their computer. A quick analysis by an expert could tell us one way or another, but instead the reporter responsible for this article chose to leave that question unanswered while suggesting, through innuendo, that the cookies were tracking what pages users visited.

The other reason why I'm not buying into this is because the idea that the NSA is tracking the webpages people visit via cookies downloaded openly to their computers from the NSA's official website is just plain silly. Think about it. If the NSA wanted to track which websites you were visiting why on earth would they do it with a cookie that can be detected by anyone with even a modicum of computer knowledge? And why would they distribute the cookie from their own website? Not only is obvious it wouldn't be at all effective.

After all, how many people visit the NSA website in a given day? And what percentage of overall internet users do these people make up? Not very many, I'd say. And how likely is it that anyone the NSA would wish to track would visit the NSA's website and be so dense as to miss the cookie that just got downloaded onto their machine?

To me this story smacks of yellow journalism. A non-story beefed up with innuendo and half-truths aimed at ginning up outrage. Did the NSA break the cookie guidelines? That seems obvious. Was it a nefarious scheme to track the web habits of Americans? That seems pretty laughable. But no doubt this will be picked up by the usual cadre of lefty demagogues and thrashed about as another evil Bush administration tactic.

Comments

Avatar for Steve

Oh no, Rob, my comment name and other info is auto-populated in the fields. How are you doing this? Are you spying on me? Are you tracking me? You fascist!

Steve on December 28, 2005 at 09:12 pm
Rob
Rob
19387 comments
Send a private message

If the NSA really wanted to monitor a person’s internet habits they’d track that person’s IP address and then go directly to their ISP.  They aren’t going to mess around with cookies.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 28, 2005 at 09:12 pm
Avatar for Steve

This is a non-story, and very annoying because they keep perpetuating the myth that cookies can track where you go or that they’re some super secret “file”.

Apparently these morons have never heard of server logs. Your entire visit to a website can be tracked by following your IP through the logs.

Friggin idiots.

Rob, doesn’t your site use cookies?

Steve on December 28, 2005 at 09:13 pm
Avatar for Mark J

Plus, cookies are domain specific.  If someone from Rob’s site visits my site, I cannot read the cookie that Rob’s site placed on their computer.  I mean, duh.  And unless your IP address changes with every request, your doings on any one specific site can be easily monitored.  If you have a problem with this, you’re already using an anonymizer and have disabled cookies, flash, and JavaScript.

There is a popular belief that cookies can store information about you that you haven’t yourself provided, and that the information will be available to third parties.  No.  A web site can only put things in a cookie that you have told it about yourself, and no one but that website has access to that information.  It’s like a “Hello, my name is Mark” nametag that you wear at an AA meeting, but when the meeting is over you put the nametag away.  You don’t walk into Wal-Mart the next day and get recognized as an alcoholic.

Mark J on December 28, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Hey, Rob. No comment on this non-story, really, just a question. Have any of you guys been having problems with picking up viruses from following links in posted comments? Had to shut everything down and take laptop to my geek. He could not pin down exactly where, but it appears that they came in from places I have gone from links. I go to so many different sites we can’t nail down a specific source. Just wondering if anyone else has been having a problem in the last 8

2Hotel9 on December 29, 2005 at 04:12 am
Avatar for King of Fools

Hmmm.  Have you visited nsa.gov recently?

King of Fools on December 29, 2005 at 05:12 am
Avatar for Steve

I would recommend running Mozilla for Firefox. If you’re running IE, edit the security settings for the Internet zone and don’t allow any activeX controls to run, signed or otherwise.

Steve on December 29, 2005 at 07:12 am
Avatar for Carrick

The other option is to use a Mac running Mac OS X.

Carrick on December 29, 2005 at 08:12 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

I am running Mozilla, and Geek already read me the riot act on activeX. His thinking is that these are piggybacking from newssource links I follow. I have to wait till he gets back from Florida to get the skinny in detail. He is workationing till mid-Feburary. Till then I am running full system scans every night, pain in the ass but oh well. He turned all my pertinent details over to Younger Sister, not sure how to feel about that, I guess as long as she is gentle it will be cool. Carrick, I am pretty well committed to H/P and Compaq with Windows. All the problems I have had usually are caused by myself and that jackass,I. Thanks, guys. And K, I ain’t been there in probably 6 months, and that was on my workstation computer. Only .govs I go to with the laptop are NOAA and the Naval Observatory for time sync.

2Hotel9 on December 29, 2005 at 02:12 pm
Avatar for MInTheGap's Web Journal - Bravenet Web Journal

This webjournal almost didn’t let me post this message because it couldn’t remember my username/password and told me to enable cookies.  This article is scary hype trying to make the public even more scared of those trying to protect us.  As Rob over at SayAnything states, this is a non story.  Read his post, and check out the comments-- they are spot-on.  Take it from a computer geek! [IMG] 0 message(s) / leave message

Avatar for KurtP

Frankly, I’d rather have a bunch of gov’t hacks trying to see what was going on in my computer than GOOGLE actually knowing everything I did to my computer.

KurtP on December 29, 2005 at 06:12 pm
Rob
Rob
19387 comments
Send a private message

The other option is to use a Mac running Mac OS X.

Jesus.  I’d rather use a pen and paper.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 29, 2005 at 08:12 pm
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] Lately the AP has been making some noise about cookies on government webistes. First was this alarmist bit of yellow journalism about cookies on the NSA website. Then today the AP ran a similar story about cookies on the White House website. [...]

Avatar for Carrick

Rob:

Jesus. I’d rather use a pen and paper.

I on the other hand wish Windows XP only on my enemy.  And on my competition.

Carrick on December 30, 2005 at 03:12 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

I on the other hand wish Windows XP only on my enemy. And on my competition.

Must not be a gamer.

Apples aren’t all that.

likwidshoe on December 30, 2005 at 03:12 am
Avatar for Carrick

Likwid:

Must not be a gamer.

Well, duh. My game-playing computers are all PCs.  I don’t even have any commercial games on my Macs.  (Installing and playing computer games can make a system less stable, so I simply avoid having games on any profession system, whether Mac or PC).

I notice how often PC support staff blame the user for what are serious flaws in the OS.  2Hotel9’s situation is like that.  If the security wasn’t so fucked up, he wouldn’t have to worry about disabling ActiceX in Microsoft’s web browser or deal with the other multitude of PC problems.  That’s not 2H9’s fault, that’s system design flaws that you’re having to ass around with to keep your computer from being unusable.  Believe it or not, there is amazingly little that you have to do to keep a Mac going strong.

I also find it amazing how many people are willing to give Microsoft a free pass on what amounts to abysmal regression-testing of their systems & software (including Microsoft Office).

I’m not a mac addict.  I use them as well PCs, and choose which to use based on my needs.  For non-experts, the Macs just work, the PCs need more TLC, and there are lots more traps and pitfalls when the user installs new software.  This keeps IT people employed, but it doesn’t benefit productively.

Carrick on December 30, 2005 at 04:12 am
Avatar for Carrick

Likwidshoe:

I suspect that this is all going to change once the Apple OS goes multi-platform though.

This is possible, but most of Windows problems are not associated with handling multiple platforms.  2Hotel9’s experiences, which are typical, are entirely due to poor system design.

Microsoft, while copying everybody, does too much reengineering of their system over time.  Partly this is because many components were such hacks to start with, and partly because, when you have 20,000+ programmers, you have too many people that like to tinker with success.  That last part is pure opinion.

I have used the “Apple OS” on PCs when it was called OpenSTEP.  (And on HP workstations.) It was a very stable system (I could run the computer six months without rebooting, a good thing for a server).  Darwin (the open source core O/S for Mac OS X) has been running on Intel hardware for at least five years, so it’s not like this hasn’t been shaken-out a bit already.

The chief issue is that Apple is trying to prevent people from using hardware other than Apple certified via a copy-protection scheme.  I suspect part of this is to not have to directly compete with Microsoft’s O/S.  Naturally, hackers have figured out how to get around the copy protection (see this site for example.) But if you use Apple’s hardware (or other venders if they permit it), I suspect you’ll still have a very stable system.  I’m pretty optimistic that this will be the case.

Ultimately the reason is that Mach O/S is a very stable system and has been highly tested, as has been the BSD Unix layer on top of it (elements of that date back to the ‘60s).  On a higher level, Cocoa (OpenSTEP/NextSTEP) is a very well designed OO GUI API that has been very stable since the early ‘90s.

Carrick on December 30, 2005 at 05:12 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Hey! Did not mean to start a firestorm. Some of us drive Fords, some drive Chevys. I can’t really complain about my setup. Windows XP running on H/P Pavilion was the first system I ever used. All the problems we had were typical beginners F-ups. From the horror stories I have been told, we are very lucky. Wifey has had to do 2 destructive system recoveries, I get anything that bad, I shutdown and run to The Geek, and now, to some degree, Younger Sister. My current prob appears to be from me opening security blocks in order to get pages to open from certain news services, all over seas. They wont show text or photos if you are running popup blocker. I will not be doing that anymore, page does not open, away I will go.

2Hotel9 on December 30, 2005 at 05:12 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

For non-experts, the Macs just work, the PCs need more TLC, and there are lots more traps and pitfalls when the user installs new software.

No argument there. I suspect that this is all going to change once the Apple OS goes multi-platform though. Windows has to work on a multitude of hardware environments made by third party manufacturers. Apple doesn’t. Next quarter when Macs sport the “Intel inside” logo, the OS will finally be taking the first steps to be moved off of the Apple juggernut and into the world of PC choice. We’ll see how they stand up then.

In any regard, just a few more years and we’ll see the beginnings of workable AI. I believe the first uses will be used for the cleanup of our computer code. AI will go through Windows’ 50 to 70 million lines of code and do what no human can do now; namely clean up the bugs and make sense of the labyrinth of code. This is all just a guess on my part, but I bet you that I’m right. So just hold tight and in a few years we’ll all be laughing at memories of the blue screen of death.

likwidshoe on December 30, 2005 at 05:13 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

You done gone all techie on me, I only been at this since 2000. I resisted the electronic age for a long time, mainly due to Apple computers from the mid-’80s. I hated those bastards and walked away till things were more userfriendly. Me loves my laptop! I try to keep current with system and security updates. When we are at the Sister&brother-inlaw’s we used to have to use Mac, all their computers are. Now I have the lt and Wifey uses Mac. Seems fair to me.

2Hotel9 on December 30, 2005 at 06:13 am
Avatar for Carrick

2Hotel9, I didn’t mean to start a war on this (doesn’t seem like it materialized in any case).

We all have to pick the system that works best for our needs.  However, that doesn’t excuse the software & hardware vendors from being sloppy.

You accept responsibility for things that should never have caused your computer to go unstable.  On my Mac, I never have to worry about popups attacking my system, because the system is simply that much more secure.

And for the record, I hated the original Mac OS (especially as a programmer).  I have never owned a Mac until Mac OS X came around.

Carrick on December 30, 2005 at 07:12 am
Rob
Rob
19387 comments
Send a private message

I didn’t mean my comment to tweak anybody.  It was mostly just a stab at humor.

My dislike of Macs has always been one of compatibility.  I grew up in a family business and all of my computer knowledge comes from helping my father use them in his profession.  We looked at macs early on, but everyone else in our industry uses PC’s.  Back then there weren’t a lot of options for compatibility.  There are some now, but it is still more complicated than neccessary.

I like the PC platform because everything, from software down to hardware, is easier to customize.  Apple has never had the same level of “shareware” or “open source” application options available to it.  At least not in my experience.  I know some people prefer Apples, and good on them for that, but PC’s have always been the better solution for what I want to do.

Really, though, I wonder if this will even be an issue in the future.  As likwid points out, Apple is looking at distributing their OS to PC and Intel, if rumors are true, will soon be powering Apple systems.  I’ve also heard that Apple is looking at downsizing their computer operations and focusing more on their software/iPod/media sales stuff.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 30, 2005 at 09:12 am
Avatar for Carrick

Rob:

I’ve also heard that Apple is looking at downsizing their computer operations and focusing more on their software/iPod/media sales stuff.

Color me skeptical about this rumor.

Apple is currently #4 in sales of personal computer companies in this country, with a 33% increase in personal computer sales over the previous year.  I think they would be crackers to downsize now.

Carrick on December 30, 2005 at 10:12 am
Rob
Rob
19387 comments
Send a private message

Fair enough, it was just a rumor I picked up somewhere...though now I can’t find it.  So maybe it was a hallucination!

Though I’m not so sure that Apple wouldn’t be better off by focusing on distributing their OS and iPod line of products.  I think they could expand their customer base substantially if they focused on putting Mac OS on PC systems.

But maybe they don’t want to compete directly with Microsoft.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on December 30, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] The dumbest story of the year, just barely edging out previous reporting on the use of cookies on the NSA website. [...]

Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] Given that the media has, of late, given to obsessing about internet cookies on the White House and NSA websites there is little doubt in my mind that even if this spying had taken place via the FISA courts the media would still be ginning up controversy on the subject. [...]

Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.