ACLU Blasts Obama Administration on Cookie Change ...

[Member2019]

I've been following this for the last few days. There are countless articles on the subject, so I'll just post the official ACLU page (feel free to search media outlets):
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/40662prs20090810.html

This was first instigated in 2000 in the final year of the Clinton administration, basically outlawing all client-side stores of information when browsing US federal web sites. The W. administration did not move to change this, and maintained the prior policy. Now the Obama administration is moving to do so.

The changes don't seem unreasonable, as there will be a three (3) tier approach. However, like the ACLU, I take issue with at least one (1) of the tiers, if not two (2). I don't believe select info stored could be trusted, not just to the government, but being stored in the web browser. I regularly see how inept the government is with technology, and they'd do a poor job in securing it.

Although I do find it extremely funny that no one on this board brought this up. It's been hitting the news outlets. I assume that's because W. is not in the White House. Had he still been, I'm sure this would have been posted with the common, "nothing surprises me with this administration."

"Oh, Obama only does good things, and can be trusted." Yeah, okay.

 

[tiger1977]

Big Brother...he's well on his way

 

[Hot Mega]

I've been following this for the last few days. There are countless articles on the subject, so I'll just post the official ACLU page (feel free to search media outlets):
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/40662prs20090810.html

This was first instigated in 2000 in the final year of the Clinton administration, basically outlawing all client-side stores of information when browsing US federal web sites. The W. administration did not move to change this, and maintained the prior policy. Now the Obama administration is moving to do so.

The changes don't seem unreasonable, as there will be a three (3) tier approach. However, like the ACLU, I take issue with at least one (1) of the tiers, if not two (2). I don't believe select info stored could be trusted, not just to the government, but being stored in the web browser. I regularly see how inept the government is with technology, and they'd do a poor job in securing it.

Although I do find it extremely funny that no one on this board brought this up. It's been hitting the news outlets. I assume that's because W. is not in the White House. Had he still been, I'm sure this would have been posted with the common, "nothing surprises me with this administration."

"Oh, Obama only does good things, and can be trusted." Yeah, okay.

Two things; Can we now finally agree that the A.C.L.U is for AMERICAN civil liberties and not the America-hating, anti anything GOP, agenda toting cabal they are commonly accused of being by the people who actually have the agendas??

Secondly, user preferences/options enables anyone to determine what, if any cookies they will allow.

 

[Member2019]

Two things; Can we now finally agree that the A.C.L.U is for AMERICAN civil liberties and not the America-hating, anti anything GOP, agenda toting cabal they are commonly accused of being by the people who actually have the agendas??

When did I ever say such? I'm an equal supporter of the ACLU and EFF as much as I am the NRA.

Secondly, user preferences/options enables anyone to determine what, if any cookies they will allow.

That's besides the point and wholly unrelated to the argument. This is about what the government wants you to store, in three different levels. I don't have a problem with one level at all.

Remember, it's also more than what the government might do with the data. It has to do with the fact that some data is referenced in cookies, which can be an issue in general.

 

[Hot Mega]

When did I ever say such? I'm an equal supporter of the ACLU and EFF as much as I am the NRA.

You accusing me of accusing you of something absent me having done so. I made the statement in a vacuum. In other words, if you're reading it and "if the shoe fits...." "we" wasn't used to suggest you and I but in general terms.

That's besides the point and wholly unrelated to the argument. This is about what the government wants you to store, in three different levels. I don't have a problem with one level at all.

Remember, it's also more than what the government might do with the data. It has to do with the fact that some data is referenced in cookies, which can be an issue in general.

The government in this case is only collecting data you allow them to collect. They're not randomly canvasing the activity of people nor are they operating a dragnet or data mining.

Virtually every site one can visit on the web does this...By now, the people who are concerned with cookies are already taking the measures necessary to prevent them. Those who aren't one would have to assume don't have concerns.:dunno:

 

[Member2019]

You accusing me of accusing you of something absent me having done so. I made the statement in a vacuum. In other words, if you're reading it and "if the shoe fits...." "we" wasn't used to suggest you and I but in general terms.

Understand, but it was in response.

The government in this case is only collecting data you allow them to collect. They're not randomly canvasing the activity of people nor are they operating a dragnet or data mining.
Virtually every site one can visit on the web does this...By now, the people who are concerned with cookies are already taking the measures necessary to prevent them. Those who aren't one would have to assume don't have concerns.:dunno:

I think you just proved my point, we shouldn't have the government doing this as well. That's exactly what the ACLU is doing.

We can't assume everyone is a techie or even computer literate. If so, then the government might as well mandate Firefox with select Add-ons and other OSes than Windows, because that would do a heck of a lot more.

I'm for the government only using one cookie approach in its three tier program. I'm strongly against one, and partially against another.

 

[Hot Mega]

I think you just proved my point, we shouldn't have the government doing this as well. That's exactly what the ACLU is doing.

We can't assume everyone is a techie or even computer literate. If so, then the government might as well mandate Firefox with select Add-ons and other OSes than Windows, because that would do a heck of a lot more.

I'm for the government only using one cookie approach in its three tier program. I'm strongly against one, and partially against another.

Why even have websites and assume people can competently navigate them? I'm just not seeing the clandestine operation here.

And I had far more concerns...as well you should have with the surveillance program authored by Bush. It didn't simply extract fairly harmless data from users who visited their sites but dragnetted users emails and surfing habits then mined the data...but you're worrying about cookies at sites you not only don't have to visit but even if you do you have the ability to circumvent the cookies as you see fit????

 

[busenbust]

Browser Wars.....

 

[Member2019]

Why even have websites and assume people can competently navigate them? I'm just not seeing the clandestine operation here.

Cookies were a horrendous ideal. Some of the original Mosaic developers agree, and there are far better approaches to storing sessions and state.

I don't trust cookies because sites often code them very poorly. It's just too damn easy to get information from them, by other sites.

There's a long, exhaustive reason why they were chosen not to be utilized back in 2000.

And I had far more concerns...as well you should have with the surveillance program authored by Bush. It didn't simply extract fairly harmless data from users who visited their sites but dragnetted users emails and surfing habits then mined the data...

Actually, that started with Carnivore and several other projects during Clinton before W., but that's besides the point, and not to point fingers at Clinton. I wasn't making a comparision to W., or a complaint of the Obama administration for that matter, other than to say that if this had happened during W., you'd have people bitching all over this thread on this board. That's all.

but you're worrying about cookies at sites you not only don't have to visit but even if you do you have the ability to circumvent the cookies as you see fit????

No, we're talking about sites people have to visit. That's exactly the problem the ACLU has. People have to use them to do many things.

Have you read up on the 3-tier design document?

 

[Hot Mega]

Cookies were a horrendous ideal. Some of the original Mosaic developers agree, and there are far better approaches to storing sessions and state.

I don't trust cookies because sites often code them very poorly. It's just too damn easy to get information from them, by other sites.

There's a long, exhaustive reason why they were chosen not to be utilized back in 2000.

Actually, that started with Carnivore and several other projects during Clinton before W., but that's besides the point, and not to point fingers at Clinton. I wasn't making a comparision to W., or a complaint of the Obama administration for that matter, other than to say that if this had happened during W., you'd have people bitching all over this thread on this board. That's all.

No, we're talking about sites people have to visit. That's exactly the problem the ACLU has. People have to use them to do many things.

Have you read up on the 3-tier design document?

PV are you egging me on?? Seriously I can't believe you offer some of your recent arguments with a straight face. You're either being obviously duplicitous or don't have as clear an understanding of the points you argue as you think.

The government CAN do many things including raid your home, arrest you and seize your possessions....they may also use s/w like Carnivore. But what do all of those circumstances have in common??? They require (or required) court orders before they were executed or implemented.

That's far different from a policy implemented by a POTUS which requires no warrants or court orders. That's is the last line or degree of protection we have against a government abusing it's powers. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE and WHY people were pissed at what Bush did.

With respect to this particular case, you're wrong about the A.C.L.U.'s concerns. What government website MUST the generally public use??? The A.C.L.U.'s beef is with the mere prospect of a citizen being subject to the g'ment retaining any of their information irrespective of how benign just because they accessed a free, g'ment website.

This is what you are claiming we should be up in arms about???

In a July 27 Federal Register notice, the OMB said the administration is considering a three-tiered approach to the use of tracking cookies. Under the proposed new policy, cookies would not be used at federal Websites—or by contractors when operating Websites on behalf of agencies—unless the site posts clear and conspicuous notice that cookies are being used and the following conditions pertain: a compelling need to gather the data on the site; appropriate and publicly disclosed privacy safeguards for handling of information derived from cookies; and personal approval by the head of the agency.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/ACLU-Blasts-Feds-Proposed-Cookie-Policy-542363/

Why would someone be practically bothered by the Bush administration or any administration doing this?? I can see the A.C.L.U.'s academic position but practically it's an irrelevant circumstance to the average or any American IMO.