Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government Politics

NSA Caught With The Cookies 329

zardo writes "The associated press is reporting that the NSA is putting cookies on visiting computers. Apparently it is unlawful for the government to put anything but a session cookie out unless it's expressed in the site's privacy policy." From the article: "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. ... 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA Caught With The Cookies

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2005 @11:57AM (#14358340)
    Clearly someone made a mistake. If the NSA wanted to track you, they wouldn't leave it to browser cookies. They try to make the 203x expiration date seem like a big deal, but that's how you do "permanent" cookies for logins and such.
  • How dare they? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the computer guy nex ( 916959 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:00PM (#14358353)
    "So either one or both agencies in question are simply incompetent, or lying to us"

    I know, how dare they place a cookie on my machine! No other site in the intarweb does!!

    Don't you think you overreacted just a little??
    • Not a troll (Score:5, Insightful)

      by porkThreeWays ( 895269 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:22PM (#14358525)
      First of all, their office of management and budget made this policy. A pencil pusher/bean counter policy that is hard to keep up with in the real world that their IT staff has to follow, not them. I agree 100% with the parent. They probably have a million regulations they have to follow, with many many employees spread all over the map, with software from 3rd parties, with countless people who probably don't even know this policy exists there.

      The reality of it is, the CIA/NSA/Whatever has a billion other much more effective ways to track you. Their intention was obviously wasn't to track people, and they immediatly removed it after it was brought to their attention. I hate our current administration, but this is just some fucktard news reporter that is up 'n arms about the wire tapping escipade. I do not agree at all with the wire tapping, but this has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH THAT. I can't believe the reporter is such a fucktard that he couldn't spend 2 minutes to research cookies and what they are. Setting cookies far into the future is the de-facto way to keep a cookie on your computer a long time. Most cookies that aren't set as session cookies are set to dates 10 years or more in the future, way more than the computers expected lifetime. The reporter has no clue what he's talking about and should be slapped like a bitch. I hate reporting like this because then it takes away from things we should be legitimitly concerned with. People get an overflow of bullshit news and many can't pick out the real from the fucktards like this guy.
    • MOD PARENT UP (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Crashmarik ( 635988 )
      Comment is incredibly insightfull. Aside from the fact that if you check your browser there will hundreds to thousands of persistent cookies, Aside from the fact that cookie management is widely regarded to be the responsibility of the user, This is completely a non issue unless someone can proove that the NSA went to the trouble to track the cookies outside of their website.

      Once again it prooves the left has gone completely bonkers. If the NIH found that Sarin or BZ could cure cancer the story would rea
  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:00PM (#14358358) Homepage
    Cookies are easy to delete. This is hardly a "Your Rights Online" issue. Jeez.
  • by MyNymWasTaken ( 879908 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:01PM (#14358362)
    Because we know that the people in that agency, even more so their IT dept., know absolutely nothing about how computers work.
  • by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:02PM (#14358371)
    The NSA is stamping your PC with the Mark of the Beast, a... cookie? So if you ever visit a NSA website again they'll know it's a return visit? This is useful... how?

    Oh, this is all about riling up room-temperature-IQ journalists (I'll be charitable and note I mean Fahrenheit) into another hissy-fit over the fact that Bush is still president. Never mind. Go read some history [amazon.com].
    • Worst slashdot story ever...till the dupe.
  • Unlawful??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ferrellcat ( 691126 ) * on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:03PM (#14358372)


    Did I mistakenly click on a link for the Onion?
  • sigh (Score:3, Funny)

    by hardcnxn ( 593490 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:03PM (#14358375)
    So the NSA's gotta hold a bake sale now to fund a wiretap?
  • um. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1@COBOLhotmail.com minus language> on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:03PM (#14358378)
    yes, because the thing I fear most about the NSA, with their acres of listening stations, underground football fields worth of humming supercomputers, and small armies of intelligence agents, is the cookie that they placed on my computer while browsing their website....

    need glasses, anyone?
  • No big deal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Trolling4Columbine ( 679367 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:03PM (#14358379)
    We recently learned that the NSA could be listening to any of our phone conversations. This is insignificant in comparison.
    • Re:No big deal (Score:3, Informative)

      by Syberghost ( 10557 )
      We recently learned that the NSA could be listening to any of our phone conversations. This is insignificant in comparison.

      You recently learned that the government has been conducting warrantless wiretaps on people whom the Attorney General signs a sworn statement are agents of foreign powers, and that they've been doing it since 1978, and that it's been upheld by the Supreme Court and even the FISA court; either that, or you read a New York Times headline and thought you were reading the news. Unless you'
  • 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.'
    If they can tap phone calls whats wrong with dropping cookies?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:05PM (#14358397)
    NSA has configured their webserver to track visitors in a "LOG" file. They keep the time, your ip address, where you visit, your browser and other information. What are they doing with this, you ask? They are ... MAKING STATISTICAL GRAPHS!!!! Alert Drudge, alert the New York Times... this baby's about to break wide open.
  • by acoustix ( 123925 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:06PM (#14358400)
    Ok. Let me get this straight. We don't want our government websites to contain persistent cookies, but every other website in the world (including sites with malicious intent) can have persistent cookies? Why is this a big deal? Don't like it? Then delete the cookie or disable cookies alltogether. It's not rocket science.

    This is all messed up. We're basically giving more rights to malicious websites than we are to government agencies.

    • "We're basically giving more rights to malicious websites than we are to government agencies."

      This statement suggests you endorse giving the government the same leeway in their actions that criminals give themselves.
    • The problem is that it's against the government's own guidelines. Specifically, OMB memo 00-13 [whitehouse.gov], which it's my understanding was to clarify 5 USC 552a [usdoj.gov], aka. The Privacy Act of 1974.

      So, by the Privacy Act of 1974, setting cookies may be illegal for the government to do. (I'm not saying 'is illegal', as I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea if there is a legal precident for this)
    • The issue at hand is the use of cookies in direct violation of govermental policy. To a far lesser degree, it's like Sony still installing the rootkit, even though you opted out of the EULA.

      From the article:

      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 ag
  • Simple Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bob_Villa ( 926342 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:06PM (#14358403)
    Just set your browser to delete cookies when you close the browser. I think that is a basic setting on any browser. Now, if they had some kind of "supercookie" that you couldn't delete, that would be more interesting. Or if you tried to delete it and the Department of Homeland Security came knocking on your door.

    Honestly, though, there are plenty of sites that install cookies. If you don't like them, delete them. It is as simple as that.
  • by Eli Gottlieb ( 917758 ) <`eligottlieb' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:06PM (#14358405) Homepage Journal
    Why Baath would Iraq I be kill on insurgency the Hamas NSA's London website Israel anyway?
  • Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:07PM (#14358415)
    How come if the government breaks the law, they get off with stopping the action and an apology? I should try this when they accuse me of a crime.

    "Sorry, officer. You're right, I was going to sell these 30 pounds of crack to some schoolkids. But it's okay, as long as I throw it away and promise not to do it again. Right?"
    • You're just not rich enough, and the crime you mentioned isn't white collar. Corporations pull this shit all the time. It doesn't apply to individuals, unless, of course, the infraction is small, and you're famous, in which case you're likely to get off easy, but that's something else entirely.
      • Corporations pull this shit all the time.

        Ya know, in criminal cases things like insanity are affermitive defenses and the defendant has to prove he is insane. I think I'd enjoy the corporations "i didn't know" defense a lot more if it they REALLY had to go out and prove "no, we really are that stupid!". ;-)

        Some of the Enron/WorldCom guys are doing this now and though I hope they don't get off, at least its entertaining.

    • I'm confused (which isn't difficult), how does a Whitehouse guideline become Federal Law ?

    • "Sorry, officer. You're right, I was going to sell these 30 pounds of crack to some schoolkids. But it's okay, as long as I throw it away and promise not to do it again. Right?"

      Wow, talk about overstating it! In which way do you think sending a cookie is similar to selling crack? There isn't any *law* against federal agencies sending cookies, it's just a policy from the OMB.

  • by sirmalloc ( 648119 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:08PM (#14358427)
    seriously...it's a freaking cookie. it's not like doubleclick where hundreds of thousands of websites have an iframe that is capable of reading your cookie and tracking your browsing habits. even if they decide to track it across all government owned websites, it's nothing they couldn't already do with simple logfile analysis.

    i'm sure if the NSA wanted to track your every move 1) They already are 2) You don't know it and 3) There isn't anything you can do about it.
  • by putko ( 753330 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:10PM (#14358432) Homepage Journal
    NSA Cookies don't scare me. What scares me is the idea that the NSA could get my ISP's records, or Google's data. All of that would give them a lot more info than my NSA cookie.

    All they need to get the data that Google has gathered is a court order.
  • by quinxy ( 788909 ) * on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:11PM (#14358445) Homepage
    I've now seen a bunch of comments modded down as trolling despite their being reasonable comments by people who just happen not to wear tin foil hats. If this article freaks you out or upsets you and seems like an important rights issue, great! I'm glad you're interested in defending your rights and by extension all of our rights. Thank you! But, don't by modding suppress the opinion of many who feel this isn't some stunning/shocking/scary revelation. That many feel the issue isn't a major one is itself an important thing to know.

    As for me, Carnivore and all the recent "unlawful" wire taps scare me, a permanent versus a session cookie, not so much.

  • Security and encryption - to protect us from our own government.
  • by jrwilk01 ( 88081 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:14PM (#14358464)
    So the NSA could use session cookies to track visitors to THEIR website across multiple vistis?

    Big freaking deal.

    Do people not get that? The cookie was issued by nsa.gov, and could only be read nsa.gov, and in no way could track a user's movements across "teh intarnets." The NSA could use it to see if you'd been to their site before.

    If they NSA wants to know where you've been, they'll just subpoena Google. Their cookies are all over the place.
    • The law prevents the NSA from issueing any permanent cookies without saying that is what they've done (in the privacy policy)

      As for bringing up google,
      1) you don't know if they have a google cookie
      2) you couldn't read it if they did
      3) you don't know if they visited a google site while using the same IP as the one they had at your site

      If they signed up for google analytics, then sure, google would have a perfect record of any google cookie that visited your site. But the law prevents them from doing that.

      • but someone thought it was important enough to put into law.

        Strikes one and two. First, it was put into White House policy, which is not the same as law. Second, it's a good bet that not even the person who did it thought it was important, they just thought it was good PR because the unwashed masses for some reason think cookies are evil.

        This way, they could, with a straight face, talk about how the NSA was protecting your privacy while simultaneously listening to their no-warrant phone tap on your home lin
  • by WidescreenFreak ( 830043 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:15PM (#14358470) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I'm lacking some information on cookie spcifications, but I was under the impression that cookies can only be read/written by the web site that you are visiting unless there are links to other sites, such as advertising sites, that manipulate cookies. This is of course how you can visit a site but then get cookies from 24/7 media, AdServer, and others. But the cookies cannot be arbitrarily read by other web sites unless there is some kind of partnership going on. Again, this is the impression that I was under regarding general cookie use. So, if that's correct the NSA cookie is not even an issue when you visit other web sites unless they're specifically looking for it -- like any of them would.

    Okay, so the NSA puts a permanent cookie on the system. Why is this an issue? It's not a security breach; it's not a cross-advertising cookie that tracks where you go. There's not one of us who has installed software and went over every configuration setting with a fine-toothed comb, particularly with off-the-shelf software, at one time or another. Cookies are also easily removed and can be blocked on future visits. Of course, the web logs themselves can get the IP address of everyone who visits, so even if you block cookies, the NSA can still tell exactly when a specific IP address contacted their site.

    I realize that the U.S. government, particularly the current administration, is not a favorite of the Slashdot crowd and that this will be (and has already been) touted as "yet another flagrant policy violation!!!" by political opportunists here on /. But this to me is nothing more than unnecessarily putting some fuel on an already smouldering dislike for the current administration, courtesy of an ill-informed and/or careless IT person at the NSA, in the hopes that a large, anti-NSA and more generally anti-current-administration fire will grow out of it.

    Just my two cents. Convert to your currency as necessary.
    • Okay, so the NSA puts a permanent cookie on the system. Why is this an issue?

      Because it is against the law.

      Prosecuting the "lying about blowjobs" was all about maintaining the "rule of law" for Republicans a half-decade ago.

      But maintaining the "rule of law" no longer applies with Republican administration? That's what I'm getting from you in your post.

      If the NSA did this, they broke the law. Doesn't matter if it is a stupid law. All my conservative friends told me in 1999 that the "rule of law" r

      • Because it is against the law.

        So is speeding. Don't tell me that you have never done that.

        So is downloading music/software that you didn't pay for. Don't tell me that you have never done that.

        So are a number of other laws that should have been taken off the books long ago that people don't care about and law enforcement doesn't bother to enforce. They're all against the law as well.

        The fact that you are expecting every employee at every level to be fully knowledgable of every law and every ram
        • Because it is against the law.

          So is speeding. Don't tell me that you have never done that.

          yeah, I have. And I've gotten tickets when I've gotten caught. Rule of law prevailed.

          So is downloading music/software that you didn't pay for. Don't tell me that you have never done that.

          Actually, I never have. But if I have, and I got caught, I should pay the consequences (according to the "rule of law" Republicans).

          So are a number of other laws that should have been taken off the books long ago that peop

          • Then kindly quote the law which was approved by the House, approved by the Senate, and signed by any President that makes the usage of permanent cookies on any government web site a violation of federal law. I know of no law and thus far none of the anti-Bush, or in your apparent case anti-Republican, crowd has been able to bring forth the bill that placed that restriction into law.

            Clinton lied under oath. That is a violation of established law. But unless you can bring forth the bill from Congress tha
            • From TFA:

              "...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."

              By law, all government agencies are required to follow OMB guidelines. By law, not following an OMB guideline is illegal.

              Also from TFA:

              "Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist wh

      • It's not against the law. It's against White House policy, "In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits federal agencies from using persistent cookies ... blah blah blah." Wow, so the Bush Administration, whom you are so keen to slam as soon as you see an opening, was who set the policy that those cookies *weren't* supposed to be persistent.
  • OMG! (Score:3, Funny)

    by mshmgi ( 710435 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:20PM (#14358501)
    Oh No! Slashdot has set 36 cookies on my computer. Is Cowboy Neal in league w/ the NSA???
  • So what??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jakemertel ( 942061 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:23PM (#14358526)
    This is obviously an attempt by the reporter to blow things out of proportion. The article is quite misleading to the non tech-savvy reader. A cookie sent to your computer by a website can be access only by that website. The cookie can only contain information from that website. Meaning that this limits NSA's ability to track you to which pages you have visited on THEIR site. Now, I understand how some people feel that even this is a violation of their privacy, but when my brother read the article, he got the impression that by the use of these cookies, NSA was able to track where he went online, not just on the NSA site.
  • Cookies? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cro Magnon ( 467622 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:23PM (#14358527) Homepage Journal
    Wow! I got cookies from my mom, my aunt, and my cow-orkers, but I didn't know NSA was doing that. That's nice of them. I'll have to visit their site and pick up some.
  • by Scratch-O-Matic ( 245992 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:28PM (#14358568)
    I hear that NSA mail servers have also been decoding headers on all email received, including from the general public!
  • by canfirman ( 697952 ) <pdavi25&yahoo,ca> on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:34PM (#14358610)
    From TFA: "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.

    Considering the provisions of the Patriot Act, wire tapping, internet tapping, unauthorized surveylence, and the US government spying on it's citizens, leaving persistent cookies "by mistake" is a really small issue. What are they going to do? Track the fact I play EverQuest online? Anybody who's compitent enough to either block cookies or delete them should have no problems. IMHO, this article's intention is to provide more embarrasement on the current government. "Oooh, the government's spying on you...". Guess what? They already are. This is nothing new.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    The real, frightening question is why the NSA apparently:

    1). Put software into production without checking all the settings
    2). Put software into production without fully testing it
    3). (probably) used software which they don't have the source to, and thus don't know if there are any backdoors.

    I am worried about it from a National Security perspective - NSA using cookies worries me far less than Microsoft doing it - but the above issues could expose the NSA, and hence the USA to attack.

    With software companies
  • by camperslo ( 704715 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:46PM (#14358698)
    Sued by the state of Texas under the stalking laws, Doubleclick has made extensive use of cookies.
    With the Office of Homeland Security having a former officer of Doubleclick on staff, it's a pretty good guess that the government sees their sort of information gathering technology as useful.
    Doubleclick handles banner ads on a huge number of websites.

    I wouldn't put it past them to be buying the purchasing data from every chain store that has a member discount card. Do/will RFID chips in our tires get scanned at intersections? If it is possible, and potentially useful, shouldn't we expect it to happen unless there are laws to prevent it?

    Have you ever had to answer a bunch of questions when applying for a purchase rebate?
    Someone is using or selling that info.

    How much gathering, sale and use of data on us reasonable? What should be legal?
    What about the damage done to us when info from the data collectors is used for identity theft?

    Who passed these laws allowing opt-out privacy policies at banks and insurance companies?

    Where does the Auto Club get off tying in with MBNA sending out credit card mailings?
  • by David's Boy Toy ( 856279 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @12:49PM (#14358720)
    I'm alot more worried about suspects being shipped off to secret prisons and tortured than I am about cookies.

    Sometimes I ended up helping friends with computer problems. The most annoying to deal with are the ones which equate cookies with virus's due to media hype, "I can't get my stock quotes" "you need to have cookies turned on for that website" "COOKIES?! Are you kidding they can see everything I do, even watch me have sex with my wife" "But you don't even have a web cam" "You need to do some reading young man [when your almost 40 thats almost flattering], here look at this www.paranoidnutjob.com, see! Don't go putting me at risk by recommending that I accept cookies! A friend wouldn't do that to a friend, your no friend of mine! Your an agent for the greys!" "ummm I I guess your meds have run out, I just remembered I left a candle burning at home, got to run."
  • Other than political reasons-- for which this should be exploited to the hilt in order to frighten the credulous even more about the policies of the dictatorial and illegitimate Bush administration--

    Other than those reasons, being afraid of the NSA because of cookies is like being afraid of thermonuclear war because it might muss your hair.

    They eavesdrop all electronic communications. They can crack cryptography in realtime. If they want to, they can have you disappeared to some torture prison in a foreig
  • Its a COOKIE. Get over it already.
  • by Heem ( 448667 )
    Dear NSA:


  • Apparently it's just me, and those I've coached on how to keep their system clean, but I never keep my cookies. Whether when I used IE or now the more secure Firefox, I always clear my cache and cookies when I am done surfing.

    In fact, one of the nice additions in Firefox 1.5 is the automatic cleaning of cache and cookies when one closes the browser.

    Wasn't there an article about ad companies trying to convince people to keep the cookies on their system so there could be a more accurate assessment of

  • by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd.bandrowsky@gma i l .com> on Thursday December 29, 2005 @02:03PM (#14359320) Homepage Journal
    Any computer professional's complaint of spying is innately absurd.

    The job of computers is to track and spy on people. They track this, track that, data mine this, data mine that, report on this, report on that, and we do it so our corporate masters can make more money. In fact, we even have a philosphical movement to build spying technology for -free-.

    Here we are, a bunch of web dudes, complaining that a web site about spies uses cookies of all things, when just about every major web site also uses cookies, or, you get the same effect of cookies by playing games with the URL. You can stick the state in the URL, you can stick it in a hidden POST tag to keep it along, but somewhere along the way, we're all keeping state. Ironically, at least the cookies are most upfront about it.

    We complain about the government listening in on people's phone calls without a warrant, yet, I would bet at least half of us on this board have user superuser powers on his or her company systems at one point to read another user's documents. If you are a network admin, you don't have to have a warrant to read your users' email or documents. You just do it.

    We voluntarily let every detail about what we buy or sell get tracked when we purchase products electronically, but, god forbid, the government might actually keep a database itself, that's evil. Heck we write these systems. If anything, the only real concern about government spying is that we haven't gotten the contract ourselves to write the system or that it might not be written using Linux.

    The solution is to not build ever more arcane systems to have things in secret, but really, we should just make everything public about anyone.
  • by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Thursday December 29, 2005 @02:28PM (#14359525) Homepage Journal
    I have no problem with the NSA using persistent cookies - people get so damned worked up over a file which doesn't do much more than store user preferences, visitor frequency (what's wrong with tracking user stats? Hell, even I do that on my web sites, just so my web logs have a little more accuracy), and in the case of session cookies, your session state. It's common practice on web sites and not a violation of any constitutional rights - it's just making obvious, standardized use of a technology that was put in place for that very purpose.

    What I DO have a problem with is government agencies telling citizens that the first, second, and fourth amendments were merely guidelines and they don't matter any more due to case law and unconstitutional executive orders. Things like gun control (proper gun control = making sure the citizenship is well-armed to hold back a tyrannical government, and I'm ashamed to admit I don't own a single gun), illegal wiretaps (uh, Dubya, mechanisms are in place for constitutionally-sanctioned secret wiretaps. Use the secret court sessions to obtain wiretaps. Put select justices on call for such things, but don't bypass the courts, because that goes against your oath to preserve and protect The Constitution of The united States of America, which is basically treason), illegal search and siezure, and abatement of freedom of the press and freedom of political expression ("free speech" areas are bullshit, as are made-on-the-fly rules regarding sign sizes, etc. just so you can "justify" arrest of smelly hippies - as misguided as some protestors may be, they have an inalienable right to tell you they think you're a prick), and abatement of the freedom of worship)

    Also: You don't need court orders to wiretap non-citizens who are here illegally. They have no rights except out of the kindness of your heart. Deport the f*ckers and encourage LEGAL immigration following legal, well-established processes. EVERYONE here is an immigrant from somewhere else (including so-called "native" Americans) so I don't believe in shutting down immigration, but to encourage people who are willing to become worthwhile members of society to come here and work.
  • heh... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by qzulla ( 600807 ) <qzilla@hotmail.com> on Thursday December 29, 2005 @11:06PM (#14362314)
    Does anyone else see the irony in the fact TFA wants to set a cookie that expires in 2038?


"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault