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."
Oh nos!!! NOT TEH COOKIES!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
How dare they? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Date of signing please? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an article from 2001 that states that the House is expected to adopt this provision. Please provide the document that states that this particular clause not only made it into the bill, but that the bill was approved by both houses of Congress a
Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Right. You'll hear that story but the story, "Student confesses to fabricating US surveillance story [Mao's "Little Red Book"] [boston.com] will never be posted by the slashdot editors.
I guess they're part of the "fake but accurate" crowd.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/28/2
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Perfectly understandable (Score:5, Funny)
And also (Score:2)
OMG! Run for the hills! (Score:3, Insightful)
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].
Re:OMG! Run for the hills! (Score:2)
Re:OMG! Run for the hills! (Score:2)
Re:OMG! Run for the hills! (Score:3, Informative)
No, you're thinking of the FBI. The NSA's job is to monitor communications to/from and between foreign entities that might expose potential threats to US security. Sure, some people physically sitting in the US may be party to those foreign communications, but the NSA is definitely not a domestic law enforcement agency.
but they can't be bothered to keep themselves in
Unlawful??? (Score:5, Funny)
"NSA"???
Did I mistakenly click on a link for the Onion?
sigh (Score:3, Funny)
the bake sales are great (Score:2)
Great place to get tinfoil so I can line my room.
And the brownies are great, but don't even think about asking for the recipe.
um. (Score:5, Insightful)
need glasses, anyone?
No big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No big deal (Score:3, Informative)
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'
Re:No big deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe, but the 1978 FISA act authorizes warrantless wiretaps for up to a year, with notification requirements that are legally able to be met by typing up a memo, putting it in a sealed envelope, and sticking it in a safe in NSA headquarters marked "FISA documents".
Per 50 USC 1802, subsection a, you only have to bust that envelope out of seal and hand it over to the FISA judge if you file charges, or
No right to privacy with the war on terror (Score:2)
If they can tap phone calls whats wrong with dropping cookies?
Re:No right to privacy with the war on terror (Score:4, Funny)
Next up: NSA keeping logfiles (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next up: NSA keeping logfiles (Score:2)
I guess there's no use explaining Unix time to them?
Re:Next up: NSA keeping logfiles (Score:2)
(I always wondered how those spammers found me, now I know...)
Where's the priorities/Who cares??? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all messed up. We're basically giving more rights to malicious websites than we are to government agencies.
-Nick
Re:Where's the priorities/Who cares??? (Score:2, Interesting)
This statement suggests you endorse giving the government the same leeway in their actions that criminals give themselves.
Re:Where's the priorities/Who cares??? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Where's the priorities/Who cares??? (Score:2)
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
Re:The Priorities Are Right Here (Score:2)
I think the prohibition against government sites dropping cookies is more akin to forbidding government offices from reading caller ID from incoming calls. This cookie business may sound ominous to people who don't know any better, but in fact it's just a very common implementation of standard web serving tech
Re:The Priorities Are Right Here (Score:2, Insightful)
It is the principle of the matter.
pre-9/11 some people used to think a minimally invasive government was a good idea. The country was founded on the idea of state and personal autonomy from the government.
technically involving "privacy" issues is the exact same thing as 'actually' involving privacy issues. Potentially invasive laws (or laws that specifically don't prohibit certain behaviors) usually means it i
Re:The Priorities Are Right Here (Score:2)
It doesn't?
Simple Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, though, there are plenty of sites that install cookies. If you don't like them, delete them. It is as simple as that.
What do I care? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What do I care? (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
"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?"
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
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.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
What a terrible analogy! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Was the NSA required to destroy the data it collected off the cookies? The article says they just disabled the cookies. Sure, this is a small issue now, but you can bet the same thing will happen even if the courts rule Bush isn't allowed to authorize phonetaps without a warrant anymore. They'll still be able t
am i the only one who isn't concerned? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:am i the only one who isn't concerned? (Score:2)
And getting the records of your browsing across any/all doubleclick websites?
Hmmm?
Simply put: The NSA isn't supposed to snoop domestically.
Cookies or not.
NSA Cookies Don't Scare Me (Score:3, Interesting)
All they need to get the data that Google has gathered is a court order.
you aren't necessarily a troll if you don't care.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for me, Carnivore and all the recent "unlawful" wire taps scare me, a permanent versus a session cookie, not so much.
Quincy
Hot Tech Skills for 2006 (Score:2, Insightful)
Doens't anyone understand cookies? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Doens't anyone understand cookies? (Score:2)
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.
It
Re:Doens't anyone understand cookies? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
A cookie?? Why is this even an issue? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Just my two cents. Convert to your currency as necessary.
Re:A cookie?? Why is this even an issue? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:A cookie?? Why is this even an issue? (Score:2)
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
Re:A cookie?? Why is this even an issue? (Score:2)
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
Quoth the law??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton lied under oath. That is a violation of established law. But unless you can bring forth the bill from Congress tha
Re:Quoth the law??? (Score:3, Insightful)
"...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
Re:A cookie?? Why is this even an issue? (Score:3, Insightful)
OMG! (Score:3, Funny)
So what??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cookies? (Score:5, Funny)
I hear that... (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing To See Here...Move Along.... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The real, frightening question (Score:2, Interesting)
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
You do all know Doubleclick? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Penny wise pound foolish (Score:3, Funny)
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."
Re:Penny wise pound foolish (Score:3, Informative)
How do you know they never complained before? No, you just want to point the blame for this to Clinton, and you chose this as your soapbox.
BTW, while not apologizing for Clintons behaviour, I feel it should be noted that the rules for who rendition applies to has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration.
Pointing at Clinton and saying 'he did bad things' is NO excuse for Bush to do the same, and worse.
This is silly (Score:2)
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
1984(, End of Freedom(tm), Stop the Oppression(tm) (Score:2, Interesting)
err.. (Score:2)
RTFM.
Who keeps cookies anyway? (Score:2)
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
Grow up, everyone on slashdot is a spy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Cookies? Not a problem. Everything else they do is (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
qz
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute malice to that which can be explained by stupidity.
I don't really think they'd gain much by putting cookies on the machines of web users. If terrorists do come to their site, their IP address will give them away far better than a cookie. Now if anyone finds an image on other sites pointing back to the NSA or CIA, then you may have found your smoking gun.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:2, Insightful)
We're talking about a regime in the federal government which has made, "oops, well, the ends justify the means" a policy they depend upon.
I don't really think they'd gain much by putting cookies on the machines of web users. If terrorists do come to their site, their IP address will give them away far better than a cookie. Now if anyone finds an image on other sites pointing back to the NSA or CIA, then you may have found your smoking g
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only motive Slashdotters need for outrage or intellectual dishonesty are 4 letters: B-U-S-H.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think the top trained NSA agents are wasting their time making websites and doing tech support? Its their website, I doubt they spent much time on it or use it much, they have better things to do than waste time with their public website. It doesnt really seem like you have a grasp on how company IT depts work.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
A cookie is pretty obvious, not exactly the high-end technology secret spy stuff. Erasing/blocking it is easy and done everyday. If you would go through all the trouble of having a "hidden agenda/top-secret", why have something that points directly to yourself, easily detected, well-known and is trival to defended against?
And exactly what would they get out of it? You need to have a motive for doing thing
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
If they keep track of every packet over the Internet, why do they need cookies?
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:5, Informative)
As a federal webmaster (not NSA or CIA), let me be the first to say "Thanks a pantload." Now, if I miss a configuration setting in IIS, I could go to federal prison!
Sometimes somebody screws up. Sometimes they screw up and nobody notices. Technical oversight of my work is thin on a good day, and my boss' boss sure as HELL doesn't know if I'm serving persistent cookies. For the record, I'm not, because I follow OMB memos to the best of my ability and I double-checked this one.
It's not always a conspiracy. Sometimes it's just some server jock who was mentally elsewhere and didn't uncheck a box in Windows. Bugs in web apps I write are not intended to catch you surfing pr0n. I'm just not as good a programmer as you are. Worst case scenario at your work, you screw up, get fired, and get another job. I don't have "company policy", I have "federal statute". My coworkers and I do our best, and we do a pretty good job, but nobody's perfect. If I forget to put an "alt" tag on an image on a page linked seven deep that gets three hits a year, not only am I not doing my job correctly, but I'm in violation of 29 U.S.C. 794d [cornell.edu]. Don't think that that's the only law telling me how to do the job, either.
I'm not complaining. I signed up for the job knowing full well how it works, and I'm proud of what I do. Your vigilance is commendable, but I'm not sure that putting big nasty penalties on cookies is the right way to go about solving this one. If you and a majority of Members of Congress agree that placing persistent cookies is worth going to prison over, so be it. God knows there aren't any killers who couldn't use that cell more than me.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:2)
Why not? Anything can be (and often is) justified by stupidity these days.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no story and who cares if a site leaves a persistent cookie?
Much more can be obtained by perusing the logfiles on the hosted server.
Double Shenanigans (Score:5, Insightful)
If NSA needs a cookie to figure that out (and if Abdul is visiting nsa.gov from Afghanistan and DC), then neither Abdul nor NSA are doing their respective jobs.
I'm going with neglect on the part of the website administrator here. Stupid default settings in applications, plus benign neglect in the brains of users, equals embarassment. Always has, always will. Unless...
~adjusts phase coil on tinfoil hat~ /dev/null /dev/null, and where NSA complied with my orders only under protest.
If, however, I was trying to divert attention from a serious abuse I'd performed, I'd release a story exactly like this. It's got the word "cookie", which is about as high-tech as Joe Sixpack ever gets about security, so he can get all upset -- and it's simultaneously a non-issue, which means everyone from the Blogosphere to Dan Rather can trot out an "expert" to tell Joe Sixpack that if this is the NSA at its most dastardly, then he has nothing to fear even if he's got something to hide
~readjusts phase coils~
and the story I'd release would be the same, whether or not I was NSA, looking to divert attention from the fact that I wanted to trawl through the set of data originally destined for
~tweaks fnord emitter~
or whether I was the Party official who ordered NSA to do stop dumping all that good stuff into
They don't call it the puzzle palace for nothing.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:5, Funny)
What, cant it be both?
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, does that quote from the 2002 case seem humorous to anyone else now with the recent revelation of what was keeping them so busy
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:2)
From that comment, you must have never worked for a govt agency. If you had, you never would have asked.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Informative)
This is just a mistake.
And then there's the White House (Score:2)
You've obviously never worked in government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! The fact that you're even asking this is a clear indication that you have never worked in any government entity. All levels of government - federal, state, and local - are loaded with incompetency and attempt to lie to the public whenever such lying is "in the public interest" or covers their asses.
You also seem to have some notion that as soon as you become a government employee that you are going to somehow assume and retain all legal ramifications based on all existing laws just by being hired. Management changes happen. Staff changes happen. The notion that all government employees of all levels will be aware of all rules and regulations regarding all functions is highly naive. For all we know, the installation of this supposed "off-the-shelf" software was the first task of a new, NSA intern in the IT department.
I know that you dislike (hate?) the current administration, but this is absolutely a "mountain out of molehill" scenario in the grand scheme of things.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
So either one or both agencies in question are simply incompetent, or lying to us. Which do you think is more plausible?
You're kidding, right? NSA and CIA are separate Federal agencies with tens of thousands of employees. Their web masters and IT departments probably pay about as much attention to what the other does as Ford Motor Company [ford.com] & Dodge [dodge.com]. And t
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it should. These are huge, independent agencies. (DHS is a mess, there is *no* meaningful interaction, even now). Why would they "learn" from each other? Especially about something so minor. Seriously, I'd much rather the NSA and CIA compare notes about terrorist plots, than constantly coordinate to make sure that they synch up on minor bits of policy
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Insightful)
So either one or both agencies in question are simply incompetent, or lying to us.
I noticed you made a grammatical error above with an unnecessary comma. So are you incompetent or are you just lying to us? False dilemmas [nizkor.org] suck... try to avoid their use.
Re:I call shenanigans. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So, did we find.... (Score:2)
Actually the Brooklyn Bridge terror plot was discoverd by one of the NSA wiretaps of Iyman Faris. [nytimes.com]