Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy News Politics

Feds May Soon Be Allowed To Use Cookies 181

Posted by timothy
from the it-looks-like-you're-building-a-bomb dept.
fast66 writes "The White House may lift its policy barring federal Web sites from tracking users' online behavior. In place since 2000, the cookie policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget was intended to protect citizen privacy but has sparked criticism — even from White House officials — for hampering citizen outreach. On Friday, Bev Godwin, the director of online resources and interagency development at the White House's new media office, blogged on the White House Web site, 'We want to use cookies for good, not evil' — and invited the public to comment on cookies through various online channels, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy blog."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds May Soon Be Allowed To Use Cookies

Comments Filter:
  • No problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by religious freak (1005821) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @05:51PM (#28874251)
    If you don't like cookies, block them. For those that don't even understand what a cookie is, make it clear what the government is doing and prove it through open source. Makes for a better web experience.

    What's the problem with that?
    • Re:No problem (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:13PM (#28874561)

      If you don't like cookies, block them... What's the problem with that?

      I block cookies, javascript and all plugins (with the exception of my whitelist). The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work. I'm fine not having a draggable map, but ever since GoogleMaps, every map site has become reliant on Javascript. Half the random sites bitch if I have cookies off. Etc.

      Much like the "works best in [Browser X]" these annoying additions are being used in the place of, not as a suppliment to, standard webfare.

      • Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by religious freak (1005821) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:34PM (#28874809)
        If you choose to live in a cave, you can't bitch about not having electricity.

        (not trolling just being blunt)
        • by daeley (126313) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:45PM (#28874939) Homepage

          He's not complaining about not having electricity. He's complaining about being forbidden from whacking sabertooths on the head unless he's using a newfangled club that shouts "I AM A CLUB!" while you wave it in the air and it shoots out orange and yellow flames.

          If he were asking for the Google Maps website to send him directions via telegraph, then he would be complaining about electricity.

          This post brought to you by the Mixed Metaphor Society: Keeping the Home Fires on Track since 1962.

        • If you choose to live in a cave, you can't bitch about not having electricity.

          Well, in that case, you can always leech charge your mobile phone at a public place (toilet, cybercafe).... but with mapping sites' annoying reliance on arcane javascript, you can't use the phone that you just charged to browse a mapping site: neither via-michelin, nor googlemaps, nor mappy, nor mapquest.... Ok, so draggable maps and autocompletion of city and street names are nice, but why o why do these sites have to insist on making javascript mandatory, rather than to gracefully fall back on a simpler i

      • Re:No problem (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Falcon4 (946292) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:46PM (#28874953) Homepage

        Um, I dunno why your tin foil hat is so large, but seriously, you're living in the 90's. There is - and never was - anything wrong at all with Javascript or cookies. Flash can be annoying, but the benefits far outweigh the "risk". Java is the only thing I don't particularly trust, since it's pretty much an open gateway to malware today.

        Javascript, though? Seriously? Javascript is "standard webfare" in the modern world. Cookies are, as well. Every single modern web browser supports them, and enable developers to do some pretty cool things, like draggable maps, real-time page updates (AJAX), etc.

        Put simply, you've got more to worry about in your web history than you'd ever have to worry about in cookies. With cookies, what are you protecting yourself from? A company trying to improve their product? What about Javascript? Protect yourself against... dynamic webpages? You're doing yourself more harm than good with these old principles. Should've left them at the door with Firefox 1.0... welcome to the Internet of the 21st century.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by geekoid (135745)

          Stop spreading those lies. Cookies can be hijacks and can be leveraged for an attack.

          I know, I was paid to do that when I did security.

          Ever see the expression on a financial CEO's face when you hand them a list of customer information, account balances and passwords you get after 30 minutes of being on the job?

          Priceless.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

            Ever see the expression on a financial CEO's face when you hand them a list of customer information, account balances and passwords you get after 30 minutes of being on the job?

            You mean the expression that says "Who is this troublemaker, how much are we paying him, and call legal, because we have a potential blackmailer?"

            That expression?

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by bluej100 (1039080)
          I'm a Javascript developer, and I use NoScript, because I'm frequently Googling for information and checking sites I haven't visited before. Almost any time a Firefox vulnerability is announced, NoScript already prevents the exploit. Besides, I don't want third-party tracking and flashy ads when I'm just browsing for information. I'm happy to add genuine web apps to my whitelist, but blog comment forms, for example, should never require Javascript to function.
          • The main reason I don't do this is... Take that blog comment form. Yes, it should work without Javascript. However, with Javascript enabled, it shouldn't require a page reload, and could even provide realtime updates of comments other users are posting.

            And if it's a proper, gracefully-degrading website, the only way you know about that is to turn Javascript on and test it.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

            I'm happy to add genuine web apps to my whitelist,

            See how easy that was?

            Next problem?

        • Um, I dunno why your tin foil hat is so large, but seriously, you're living in the 90's. There is - and never was - anything wrong at all with Javascript or cookies. Flash can be annoying, but the benefits far outweigh the "risk". Java is the only thing I don't particularly trust, since it's pretty much an open gateway to malware today.

          Wow, just... wow.

          Javascript is one of the most common ways to inject code into a machine to install a rootkit / trojan / worm / botnet. There are thousands (if not hund
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        From the perspective of a web designer/developer who uses Javascript to enhance and optimize the user experience: people like you drive me up a frickin' wall. There's no need to disable all that stuff, unless you have a paranoid personality disorder.

        Look, it just takes some common sense. Don't surf to sites that may be malicious. 99% of the time, it's completely obvious what those sites are. Also, it helps to not use IE, which is more susceptible to attacks than Firefox and other browsers.

        Someone please giv

        • Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @07:36PM (#28875497)

          I posted a response to a comment on the parent griping about flash and javascript--they are a security risk. I'll ignore cookies--that gets a bit...difficult to explain.

          But because you don't seem to get it--let's make the javascript answer so simple even a programmer can understand it...

          1) go to www.slashdot.org
          2) hit view source
          3) search for "ad.doubleclick.net"
          4) you should see a call to document.write at a dynamic URL slashdot doesn't control
          5) understand that a LOT of these go out through resellers--who go through other resellers--and so on...and all you have to do is buy a single script that gets into an ad rotation at a site like CNN or /. to be loading content off of another site--that can edit my DOM and run the driveby exploit du-jour.

          Even if the script was safe when they checked it--it might not be safe five hours later when my browser pulls it down from a different IP address or netblock. The javascript isn't the risk--the third party javascript writing to my DOM to open an iframe with a driveby exploit is.

          (and FWIW, there are actual javascript vulnerabilities--but I figured I'd stick to the obvious in this post)

          As long as people continue to use things this way--they're a security risk.

        • Last Measure (Score:3, Informative)

          by tepples (727027)

          Someone please give me a valid reason why anyone should be blocking cookies (1st party, NOT 3rd party) and disabling Javascript, other than paranoia and/or a bad case of nerd grump.

          The site http://paranoia.on.nimp.org demonstrates this, but do NOT visit this site unless you've turned OFF JavaScript and plug-ins for this domain.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Leave cookies on, just make the directory that they go in is read only.
        The site will think you allow cookies.

      • Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @07:35PM (#28875479) Homepage
        Simple. Just do what I do. Let cookies be saved, but only until you close your browser. I do this except for my whitelist where I let it store cookies permanently. This is really easy to set up in Firefox. I also have flash block installed, which is the only plugin I have installed. As far as Javascript goes, I let that run, but there's only so much it can do with cookies disabled, along with a good popup blocker. Never really had much of a problem with Javascript.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Skapare (16644)

        The site I'm building now won't bitch if you have cookies off. But if you try to login, you'll find that subsequent requests will be handled as if you have not logged in. If the web ever gets a better login scheme standardized, implemented, and widely deployed, then maybe cookies won't be needed as a half-arsed way to achieve login sessions. Also, if you disabled Javascript, the site will not lay out nicely. But that will fall under the same "degrade gracefully" principle as if you disabled CSS.

      • by Quothz (683368)

        I block cookies, javascript and all plugins (with the exception of my whitelist). The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work.

        The proposal specifically prohibits restricting access to information or discrimination of services based on opting out of cookies.

      • by severoon (536737) on Thursday July 30, 2009 @03:30AM (#28878545) Journal

        You should do what I do...leave everything turned on, but to poison all the DBs in the world, spend at least 90% of your time browsing stuff that doesn't interest you. This absolutely foils their plan to get to know you through tracking. There's just no way they can get around it at all for 'em.

        I even take it to the next step beyond—90% of the money I spent on the web is for stuff I have absolutely no use for and definitely don't want. It's a brilliant, positively ironclad way to screw them over and make sure they get theirs!

        Oop...I just used up my 10% time on /. writing this post. Gotta go surf pee-pr0n...disgusting stuff. laterz!

      • Then don't block cookies. Use something like Chrome's privacy mode (I think at least firefox is getting it too, dunno about others), and let the cookies land and get blasted as soon as you close the window. No long-term tracking, only that which is strictly necessary for the session.
      • The problem is that more and more sites annoyingly (and uselessly) require these to work. I'm fine not having a draggable map, but ever since GoogleMaps, every map site has become reliant on Javascript.

        Google Maps works fine without JavaScript. Reduced functionality, obviously, but definitely usable.

    • by Hojima (1228978) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:23PM (#28874683)

      Thanks for telling me this. You see, I am an inept and computer illiterate terrorist. We all are, since none of us are smart enough to get an education. Hell, I barely managed to read this web page, and all my dumb terrorist buddies simply couldn't. We go to www.I-AM-A-TERRORIST.com all the time, and if I didn't get the heads-up, we would all be in jail now. You guys were smart to allocate resources to this sure-fire way to catch us. Oh well, time to get back to using the internet for evil, not good.

    • by kindbud (90044)

      If you don't like kooties, block them. For those that don't even understand what a kootie is, make it clear what the government is doing and prove it through open source. Makes for a better web experience.

      What's the problem with that?

    • Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stephanruby (542433) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @07:50PM (#28875611)

      What's the problem with that?

      There is no problem with that, and may be that's the point.

      Let's be really pedantic about cookies, let's waste all our time discussing them, all the while the government (with the help of the private sector) is silently trying to archive, index, and search through all our private emails, private phone conversations, web browsing logs (and search terms), phone graph relationships, travel plans, medical drug and mental health information, dna relationships, and/or anti-war political affiliations.

      And let's not worry about the fact that all the low level city cops (at least in San Francisco) routinely do background checks and get private medical information for any random woman they're interested in dating (without any oversight, without any official reason, and without any logging that they've even accessed that information in the first place).

      Let's talk about cookies instead and let's keep on explaining what cookies mean (because here on slashdot, I'm sure that no one knows what cookies are) -- ignoring all the other ways our privacy is being violated over and over again -- without even us knowing.

    • by mh1997 (1065630)

      What's the problem with that?

      You think they don't already track your movements on the web, cell phones, etc? I seem to remember something about illegal wire-taps recently. What other illegal activities have you not heard about yet.

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rewind (138843) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @05:52PM (#28874267) Homepage

    The Cookie monster will most certainly be displeased...

  • by the_humeister (922869) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @05:55PM (#28874309)

    I delete all my cookies automatically every time I close Firefox. I run Firefox via a script such that all the Flash cookies (yes Flash cookies) are also deleted.

    • by bheer (633842) <`rbheer' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:12PM (#28874531)

      > such that all the Flash cookies (yes Flash cookies) are also deleted.

      Good point. Too few people even know about Flash cookies. There's also a Firefox extension called BetterPrivacy [mozilla.org] that'll do this, for those that can't be bothered with scripts.

      I know that some shadier ad networks also use Java local storage to store tracking info, if your browser has a Java plugin. Solution: disable storing temporary files on your computer using the Java control panel icon.

      Honestly, I do all of this, but I wonder how many others would even bother. It's almost like Scott "You have no privacy. Get over it." McNealy was right.

    • Is there any app that leaves the cookies but just randomly changes a few bits in them? Seems like good clean fun to me.
      • by bheer (633842)

        There's this very old Perl script [tbtf.com], but it was designed for Netscape. I think Firefox now stores its cookies in a sqlite database, but Perl should still be able to handle that.

  • Dupe? (Score:3, Informative)

    by rsmith-mac (639075) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:07PM (#28874483)
    We already had an article about this Saturday [slashdot.org]. I don't see anything new in TFA that would not make this a dupe.
  • What? (Score:3, Funny)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) * on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:07PM (#28874487)

    We want to use cookies for good, not evil' â" and invited the public to comment on cookies

    Isn't that like a double oxymoron?

    White House good.
    Public comment evil.

  • by hugi (878361) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:13PM (#28874549)
    yup, now our privacy is completely gone. I heard ECHELON is mostly based on cookies.
  • So for those at home Feds get cookies and police get donuts.
    • Feds May Soon Be Allowed To Use Cookies

      That is an interesting interrogation technique. Maybe more efficient than torture: "Who wants a cookie! Now tell me where the your terrorist colleagues are"

  • The government thinks it's doing good while most of the time it's not doing good at all.

    It's a very bad idea to let the government folks have any more tracking capabilities than they already have.

    Every little cookie crumb you let them track about you gives them more power over your lives. Before you know it they have the entire cookie jar to themselves, including the chocolate chips of freedom! Don't let the cookie monster get all your cookies. Bake a new batch and keep them to yourself and your family and

    • by geekoid (135745)

      The government does good almost all the time. Yeah, thre has been some screw ups,but overall it does good.

      • by itsybitsy (149808) *

        Sure a soldier gets a medal for valor while the people he murdered get put in graves and their families have to figure out how to survive. Yup, your Government State Mass Murderers doing good work every day.

        • by sumdumass (711423)

          Umm.. That would be good. Unless you think Female genital mutilation and allowing terrorist to kill innocent people because you believe in a different god or no god at all is a good thing?

          I guess the moral of the story is that if you don't want to be the killed person, then don't support and defend bad things in life. Killing in wars is not necessarily pretty but it doesn't make it bad when the people you are fighting is worse. Without war and killing the enemy, I'm pretty sure you world would be worse off

          • by itsybitsy (149808) *

            No obviously I don't support such horrific practices as "female genital mutilation" however using murder, death and killing to solve it isn't the answer and in fact makes YOU a worse problem and a terrorist to them!

            No one wants to be the killed person. Yes, killing others who you consider worse than you isn't the answer not even in war as it will not make you safer for it will generate more people who consider you a terrorist that needs killing. By politically advocating the death and murder of people you'r

            • by sumdumass (711423)

              No obviously I don't support such horrific practices as "female genital mutilation" however using murder, death and killing to solve it isn't the answer and in fact makes YOU a worse problem and a terrorist to them!

              Oh, you are one of those "let's just talk about it" people. Yea, tell me how that worked out for people like Nick Burg or the numerous journalist beheaded in Iraq or the innocent civilians who were doing nothing more then attempting to live a normal life when the suicide bomb went off in the cr

              • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                >Oh, you are one of those "let's just talk about it" people.

                Nope, I'm one of those people who think that killing people is the worst possible idea.

                There are many answers other than the simplistic let's kill them solution that you resort to making you one of the bad guys on the planet.

                Clearly you're blind to the horror that you unleash upon the world happily justifying it by thinking dead and murder and killing are the only answers.

                Get a brain. Learn about communication. Diplomacy. Education. Other soluti

                • by sumdumass (711423)

                  There are many answers other than the simplistic let's kill them solution that you resort to making you one of the bad guys on the planet.

                  And I asked you what your big plan was. So give it up, how do you deal with dictators that machingun down civilians asking for basic human rights or regularly behead people for not believing enough in the same god. Sometimes there is evil and you have to do bad things to stop it. That doesn't make you evil, it makes you serious about doing good. Get out of your fantasy

                  • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                    The big plan is simple, don't kill people.

                    Your plan is kill people to solve problems which makes you a mass murderer.

                    When you go and kill people over there you must expect they they will attempt to kill you back there or if they can over here. The more people you kill the greater the odds that you'll create a terrorist of their families.

                    That is why the not killing option works out in the long run for the better dude mass murderer.

                    You're too simplistic and you buy into the death politics of your country (whi

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      The big plan is simple, don't kill people.

                      Your plan is kill people to solve problems which makes you a mass murderer.

                      When you go and kill people over there you must expect they they will attempt to kill you back there or if they can over here. The more people you kill the greater the odds that you'll create a terrorist of their families.

                      That is why the not killing option works out in the long run for the better dude mass murderer.

                      So let me get this straight, You think that when all else fails, we should

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      No mass murdering dude, I'm simply telling you that your path of destruction isn't the solution and that it will come back to haunt you as it already has. I lived 1 1/2 blocks from the WTC and was on foot two blocks away from it during the 1993 attack. So I do know of what I speak of. Violence and revenge isn't the answer it's the "cause" of more attacks. Just as those that attacked the WTC those two times felt their need for revenge for atrocities inflicted upon them the revenge of the USA will and has gen

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      Fuck man, for crying out loud! give a fucking alternative or shut the hell up. No killing people is only a solution when other solutions work. It is not one when they are trying to kill you and refused to listen or recieve diplomacy or anything else that has already failed.

                      You act as if going for the gun was the first choice. You must be hiding under your bed and not paying fucking attention. It has been the last choice and is still one of the last choices. IF you don't want people to get killed, then you a

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      I've given you an alternative, stop killing people, it's quite simple really.

                      The problem with your mass murdering methods is that your very policy of mass murdering people gives them implicit permission to mass murder you back. When you get that maybe you'll see the folly in your methods.

                      Mass murderers like you deeply worry people. In fact people with your policy are considered terrorists by most governments of the world.

                      Learn to think man. You've got a brain don't you?

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      I've given you an alternative, stop killing people, it's quite simple really.

                      No you haven't. Stop killing people is not an alternative when killing people was the last resort. You have done nothing to address the underlying issues or the alternatives that have failed to date resulting in the killing of people. In essence, you are saying give up and give in instead of standing your ground for what is right and what you believe in. Stop doing something that is preventing that is not a fucking alternative.

                      T

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      Well, as they say you're doomed to be stuck in your mass murdering ways. You are no different than Charles Manson or that flesh eating Dahmerdude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer) or the multitude of other mass murders in human history.

                      Send aid not bombs.

                      If someone bombed your family I'd bet you'd want revenge. Yes? Well then those that you bomb and thereby kill are really no different than you mass murdering dude.

                      Someone has to break the cycle and that might mean sucking it up for a long while

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      Well, as they say you're doomed to be stuck in your mass murdering ways. You are no different than Charles Manson or that flesh eating Dahmerdude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer) or the multitude of other mass murders in human history.

                      You need to get back to reality.

                      Send aid not bombs.

                      That failed in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you had been paying attention, you would know that. It has historically failed and it is currently it is failing in the Palestine territory too. We send aid and t

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      What ever dude, obviously you'll continue your mass murdering... remember karma... that which you sow you reap...

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      Yea, it will continue because you failed to present some alternative that hasn't already fail. This goes back to my original point, sometimes you have no other options but to kill and that if not a bad or evil thing. You yourself have admitted there was no other options outside of giving up which isn't an option.

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      No, it will continue because the likes of you on both sides choose to keep killing each other rather than giving your mass murdering revenge a pass for a change supporting life.

                      You see them as your enemies, they see you the same way, thus you both need each other to support your murderous policies of destruction.

                      I never said anything about giving up, that's your delusional mind set not getting what is written in front of your eyes mass murdering dude.

                      The solution is to stop the killing.

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      No, it will continue because the likes of you on both sides choose to keep killing each other rather than giving your mass murdering revenge a pass for a change supporting life.

                      It will keep continue because there is no workable alternatives. Fuck, how hard is that for you to understand? There needs to be a solution that hasn't already failed in order for it to fucking stop. And no, giving up or giving in to the demands of thugs worshiping pedophiles is not a solution.

                      You see them as your enemies, they s

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      Your delusions are deeply messing with you and your anger shows that you know deep down that killing isn't the solution.

                      Give it a rest dude.

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      Delusions, what delusions? You are the one ignoring everything just to repeat stop the killing as if it was a viable option without something else happening or replacing it. If anyone is delusional, it would be you.

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      Ok sure if that's what you really think mr. parroting is the best form of arguing you can do.

                      It's clear that sumdumass name really applies to you and your mass murdering ways.

                      I and many others have suggested many solutions rather than killing, it's that you sumdumass in your infinite wisdom gained from mass murder have choose to keep on with your addiction to killing people as a way of solving problems around the globe. That makes you a mass murderer who is also unwilling to stop killing. Despicable sumduma

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      Maybe with your mass murdering ways you'll end up like your mentor Hitler.
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6omQ5JjjLsE [youtube.com]

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      One of these days, someone is going to mass murder you if you keep up acting a stupid as fucking possible and ignoring everything relevant not only to the conversation but to the entire argument you are attempting to present.

                      As I already said and you have yet to answer to, killing is the last resort in a line of actions attempting to resolve the dispute. If you can offer something that hasn't already been tried and failed, then I'm all for it. Not killing is not an answer, it has been tried and failed miser

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      Death threats are a crime sumdumass, even those made over the intertubes.

                      It's funny how you put the onus on others to find solutions. That's a great way for you to stop thinking and keep up your murderous policies. Nice non-rational mind set you've got there. I'll bet you're a raging god freak too.

                      Oh, and the Hitler reference was to how he ended up burned in gasoline proving his murderous plan didn't quite work out for him and his followers, and if you watch the video you'll see that and other points releva

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      Death threats are a crime sumdumass, even those made over the intertubes.

                      I didn't make any death threats. I have no idea who your real identity is or where you are located and no motivation to act in any way. I'm saying that you will piss someone off and they will harm you if you don't change your ways and act in the same maner with them as you did with me. I am more then patient enough to ignore you for lack of importance. Hiding behind a keyboard somewhere is one thing, when you forget that degree of se

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      You just don't get it mass murdering dude.

                      Until you renounce mass murder and actually stop doing it you're guilty of mass murder regardless of what others are doing. In fact much of what they are doing is directed at you for your past mass murders.

                      No difference between Hitler and you.

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      No, you just don't get it. There is a difference between murder and killing and not all killing is bad. And there is a difference between that and hitler unless you think killing hitler before he killed all those jews or ally forced would have been a bad thing.

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      Specifically your methods with all power over other grubbing groups is the use of death, killing and murder justified for whatever you want; and of course it's always in the name of "the greater good" that the killings are justified. The Nazi's thought they were killing for the greater good of their fatherland. You thing that you're killing for the greater good as you've said in your comments. Same thing, killing is the result, not just the killing of someone who is personally attacking you, but the mass mu

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      Specifically your methods with all power over other grubbing groups is the use of death, killing and murder justified for whatever you want; and of course it's always in the name of "the greater good" that the killings are justified. The Nazi's thought they were killing for the greater good of their fatherland. You thing that you're killing for the greater good as you've said in your comments. Same thing, killing is the result, not just the killing of someone who is personally attacking you, but the mass m

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      Oh look, a mass murderer like you at work:
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELrezD6PSbc [youtube.com]

                      There is no difference. When people insane with patriotism drop bombs which fall from the sky on people there is death and bloody murder. When a gun man insane with murder on his mind kills shooting people there is bloody murder. Same difference, dead people. Reason for it doesn't matter, not to the dead people and those that loved them for dead is dead is dead is dead.

                      When you cause dead people on a mass scale you are a mas

                    • by itsybitsy (149808) *

                      "I said that killing isn't the same as murder and not all killing is bad."

                      That means the thing as killing for the greater good. The dead people certainly wouldn't think it was for the greater good dumb ass.

                      You can deny the facts about my grandfather all you want. That just shows that you deny objective reality. No doubt you are a god freak thinking that jesus is going to save you from death by taking you to the mythical heaven. Every time you eat meat you eat the proof that jesus the man could not rise from

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      Go troll somewhere else. You are nothing but an idiot blinded by your cowardliness.

                    • by sumdumass (711423)

                      That means the thing as killing for the greater good. The dead people certainly wouldn't think it was for the greater good dumb ass.

                      No it does not mean that. It means exactly what it means, that there is a fucking difference between killing and murder and not all killing is bad.

                      You can deny the facts about my grandfather all you want. That just shows that you deny objective reality. No doubt you are a god freak thinking that jesus is going to save you from death by taking you to the mythical heaven. Eve

  • ...the government spies on people who use the Internet.

  • They already monitor and record phone conversations, emails, IMs and pretty much every means of communication, yet tracking cookies arent used?

    What kind of a backwards government is this, I want my vote back.

  • Up to date (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BorgCopyeditor (590345) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:35PM (#28874829)

    The next exciting and up-to-date town-hall meeting discussing government's use of technology will be...Webpage Layout: Tables or CSS?

  • by Nick (109)
    If anyone felt like tracking where I've been, eavesdropping, etc, they would be very bored.
  • Hmm, this story sounds familiar [slashdot.org]...

  • I love it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blue l0g1c (1007517)
    Tens of years ago, someone decided to name something a "magic cookie" and now we have FBI agents talking about "cookies" with solemn and serious faces.
  • I see this story has been tagged 'democrats', which implies that something is being done explicitly by democrats. While indeed this could be a change driven by democrats, they are not changing something that was implemented by republicans. After all, it says that the policy began in 2000 - when Bill Clinton was president. Just because it wasn't changed during 8 years of a republican POTUS doesn't mean they didn't want to.
  • Another boneheaded subsidy to the dairy industry. Stop this bailout train, NOW!
  • There has been some dissatisfaction with this decision, as some see cookies as an imperfect system. However one government official to whom we spoke via telephone said the resolution was "good enough for me." We had hoped to ask some further questions but all we heard was some sort of ruckus accompanied by a sound like "om nom nom" just before the phone connection was lost.

  • If they are worried about the idea of tracking visitors (which seems reasonable), then why don't they just store the user's preferences directly in the cookies? The idea of storing user preferences server-side is just a bandwidth saving trick (because the preferences will tend to be bigger than an index into the site's users table) because cookies get sent with every request. There: nothing unique appears in the cookies, so they cannot be used for tracking people.
  • Javascript, Cookies, Flash... just tools. Same as guns, knives, pens and computers.

    People who think that technology which can be used to improve your life should be banned because individuals abuse them to hurt, annoy or make life less enjoyable for others - I think we call those people luddites.

    So, for those of you who've left comments about how these tools should not be allowed - go join a bible group and get on the creationist bandwagon, you're no different than the evolution and science haters out there

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Working...