Slashdot Mirror
Cookiegate Explained
Pete writes " EPIC reports that privacy advocates call for investigation of "Cookiegate". Privacy advocates wrote to congressional leaders urging an investigation of the privacy practices of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy Web site. The site has been using DoubleClick advertisements which placed cookies on users' computers, possibly violating federal laws on government collection of data from citizens. See the press release."
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N668.SlashDot/B2020 1;sz=468x60;ord=961771260961771260?
This is the one featuring the boxer. There's at least one other, featuring characters from User Friendly advertising the latest version of SuSE. Isn't this interesting?
www.alarmist.org
The information may not ever actually exist on Federal Servers.
You misunderstand what the government is accused of doing.
What the government agency did was buy "targeted" adds on several of the big search-engine sites. Then, when anyone made a keyword search that included drug-related keywords (example: "grow pot") they were likely to get an "anti drug" banner add from the government along with their results.
The banner add was served from a government computer, with a name that sounded kinda druggy and not AT ALL government. The government computer got the user's IP address, the contents of the query (encoded into the URL for the convenience of the advertiser's add-targeting software), and all the other information about the user that the browser hands out. And it placed a cookie on the user's computer, to label him from then on. They admit to tracking the users' email addresses "to gauge the effectiveness of the (alleged anti-drug propaganda) campaign".
Browsers hand out a LOT of information, and some of it can be used by other tools (such as finger,
reverse domain number lookup, and domain registration data bases) to identify the user and/or his employer (if he's browsing from work).
The potential for abuse is astronomical. For instance: If they trace some drug-related queries back to a company domain, they might contact the employer, insinuate that the employee is a druggie, and tell the employer to look in the user's cookie file for proof.
I could easily compose a dozen other nightmare scenarios.
(I tried to submit this info a couple days ago, with a reference, when it first came to light, but slashdot rejected the article.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Does this shock you? It's just the tip of the iceberg. A brief summary of the price of America's (originally Nixon's) War On Drugs(tm):
;).
1. No-Knock Warrants. Any idiot can see that the police breaking down your door and charging in with guns drawn, with a warrant issued on the basis of an ANONYMOUS TIP, is a violation of our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and siezures. The whole point of "probable cause" is to protect against stuff like anonymous tips.
Here in Denver, a Mr. Ismael Mena was gunned down by police executing a no-knock raid (issued on an anonymous tip) ON THE WRONG HOUSE. Unacceptable.
2. Asset Forfeiture. Do you know that if the police SUSPECT you've violated drug laws, or worse yet if they actually arrest you, THEY CAN SIEZE YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS, EVERYTHING YOU OWN. And what if you're found not guilty? Or released without even a trial? Do you get it back? Nope. You essentially have to prove your innocence to get it back. Even beginning the process can take more than 6 months, during which time you have to pay for your lawyer(s).
You might want to read that again. These aren't paranoid ramblings, this happens, every day. They can confiscate everything you own, and keep it forever. Intolerable.
3. Roadsite searches. Two kinds, legal and, er, "extra-legal". If a cop pulls you over for speeding or running a red light, he can frisk you and search your car for drugs with no probable cause. It's unconstitutional already! But there's more. You might think "searching" you car amounts to looking under the seats, in the trunk and other storage compartments, maybe even under the hood. But it doesn't stop there, the cop can practically destroy your car in the search process. He can slash open your upholstery, your roof liner, cut open your tires, do ANYTHING to get to any part of your car that could conceivably be used to hide drugs, and more that couldn't. Again, this is not some urban legend, it happens every day.
Then there's the "extra-legal" roadside search. This actually happened to a friend of mine, and is not only happening but happening right here in my own city of Denver. You're driving along, not breaking any laws, and you see flashing lights and hear sirens. You pull over. You're asked to step out of the car, you're frisked, your car is searched (thankfully not in the above way), and you're sent on your way. They're looking for drugs, and they pulled you over because you fit the profile. Apparently, while I wasn't watching, simply being a teenaged male driving at night is probable cause for drug posession. But the best part is that these searches are not explicitly authorized by law, city, state, or federal. The cops are simply doing this as a "trial run" to see if it's effective, so they can get a law passed if they like it. So now they can do ANYTHING they want, as long as they plan on legalizing it later.
4. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. This is HB2987 in the House, but I've forgotten the senate version's number. It has two major provisions. One, it becomes illegal to disseminate information about the use and manufacture of meth (as if it'll only apply to meth, it'll apply to all drugs). That's right, it's illegal to SAY things. So much for freedom of speech. I cannot possibly see how this red-flags the "clear and present danger" test. Two, police are empowered to search your home while you are not home (again, anonymous tips are OK), copy your documents, copy files off your computer, seize "evidence", and NOT TELL YOU ABOUT IT FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS. So, they don't have probable cause, their warrant is not specific, they don't even have to inform you, and you receive no compensation for seizures. This breaks just about every clause in the 4th Amendment.
But you know what? It passed the Senate UNANIMOUSLY. That's right, not a single senator voted against this piece of trash. The only thing I can imagine is that they just read the title, figured it'd look good to their constituents, like they were "tough on drugs" or something, and voted yes without reading the damned thing. At any rate, it's sitting in the House Judiciary Committee right now, and though it's house sponsor is considering a re-write due to the volume of correspondence opposing it, I very much doubt that it will be stopped unless it receives major mainstream media coverage, or everyone who actually cares about their rights calls their reps and senators and expresses in no uncertain terms how much they love their rights and how quickly they will vote for other people come re-election time.
These are just hilights. The story of the drug war is a story of impossibility, yet of brutality, ruthlessness, and unmitigated sacrifice of our constitutional rights. It mirrors alcohol prohibition in almost every way:
1. drug use has increased, not decreased, just as alcohol use did
2. it has brought about immeasurable amounts of organized crime
3. enforcement is extremely costly and horribly ineffective
The only difference is that drug dealers are rarely considered heroes like bootleggers were (except maybe pot hook-ups
It's time to end the war on drugs. Not just because it's doomed to fail, but because we have no business waging it in the first place. Use of drugs is not a violent act. You have a right to put whatever you want into your own body, don't you? Under current law, you don't. Drug use can, in and of itself, harm no one but the user, who engages in the act of his own volition. Prohibition of a peaceful act can never be justified.
http://www.lp.org
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
MoNsTeR
possibly violating federal laws on government collection of data from citizens
So, who was it who was collecting the data again? DoubleClick, or the US government? Did DoubleClick pass the details back to the government, or just used it to target further adverts? Did the website in question illegally attempt to access the DoubleClick cookies?
What's that? The government wasn't collecting the data? Thought so. Next hysterical reaction please.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
As a future parent, I have long since decided that I will teach my kids that while Mr. Mackey is right, drugs ARE bad, m'kay, what's FAR more dangerous to the individual and society than a few lines of blow every now and again is the concept of a taxpayer-funded propoganda organization tasked with spreading misinformation, statistics that are damn lies, and just plain wrong, divisive thoughts in the minds of the populace with the sole purpose of numbing them to the war on civil liberties that is the "War On Drugs", which does admiteddly benefit many Americans - specifically those living off the ultra-corrupt industry that is law enforcement.
Using Doubleclick ads does not surprise me one little itty bit.
Out of all of the various agencies and bodies that comprise the American system of "justice", those that deal with the "War on Drugs" are the most dangerous of the lot. The entire program of systematic persecution of a large section of society who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody is a true testament to the methods by which even Constiutional "protection" can be subverted in the name of the "greater good".
The fact that the Office of National Drug Control Policy is spying upon the web browsing habits of people viewing its site should really come as no suprise. After all, the whole war on drugs has provided a succession of American governments with a ready-made excuse to violate freedom left, right and centre and thanks to the educational brainwashing that occurs in American schools and homes Americans are only too willing to give up freedom for safety from the drugs "menace".
And despite the war on drugs having failed miserably, this in itself is a bonus for those in power. Citing this failure as being the fault of the "drug barons", they can get more measures into law, so that things like this will become legal, even mandatory. After all, the internet is already known as a haven for pedarats, terrorists and nazis, add drug dealers to that and the American government has all the "moral" justification in the world to impose a Stalinistic regime on the net.
At this rate freedom on the net in America will become a myth by the end of the decade.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru