A Web site operated by the Central Intelligence Agency is marking visitors with a unique identification tag or "cookie" that violates federal privacy guidelines and the agency's own privacy policy, according to Public Information Research, a non-profit group.
The CIA's Electronic Reading Room site, which provides online access to previously released CIA documents, places a "persistent" cookie on visitors' computers when they visit the site.
Designed to remain on the visitor's computer until December 2010, the cookie contains the user's Internet protocol address as well as a unique identification number, Newsbytes has confirmed.
A spokesperson for the CIA said the agency was still analyzing the report and had no immediate comment.
In a June 2000 memorandum to all government agencies, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget advised operators of government sites and their contractors that "the presumption should be that 'cookies' will not be used at Federal web sites."
"The keywords you put in for searching on FOIA documents can reveal a lot about you. The CIA can use these cookies to reconstruct who is interested in what. Even if you browse from several different ISPs, they can use your cookie's unique ID to tie all your searches together," said Daniel Brandt, founder of Public Information Research (PIR), who first discovered the use of persistent cookies at the site.
According to the privacy policy at the CIA's Electronic Reading Room, the site does not use persistent cookies and instead only uses temporary "session cookies" that expire when the user closes his browser.
A review of some federal sites today by Newsbytes revealed that several are placing session cookies on visitors' computers. Such sites include the FirstGov.gov portal, the FBI's jobs site, as well as the main sites operated by the Small Business Administration, the Department of Education and the Selective Service.
The privacy policy at the main CIA Web site, located at http://www.cia.gov, states that the CIA Web site "does not use the 'cookies' that some Web sites use to gather and store information about your visits to their sites."
Brandt said it is likely that the CIA Electronic Reading Room site was created by a contractor using a standard Web hosting package that included a Web traffic analysis program, and that the CIA may not even be aware of it.
News source: Newsbytes
View: CIA's Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) site - Electronic Reading Room
The CIA's Electronic Reading Room site, which provides online access to previously released CIA documents, places a "persistent" cookie on visitors' computers when they visit the site.
Designed to remain on the visitor's computer until December 2010, the cookie contains the user's Internet protocol address as well as a unique identification number, Newsbytes has confirmed.
A spokesperson for the CIA said the agency was still analyzing the report and had no immediate comment.
In a June 2000 memorandum to all government agencies, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget advised operators of government sites and their contractors that "the presumption should be that 'cookies' will not be used at Federal web sites."
"The keywords you put in for searching on FOIA documents can reveal a lot about you. The CIA can use these cookies to reconstruct who is interested in what. Even if you browse from several different ISPs, they can use your cookie's unique ID to tie all your searches together," said Daniel Brandt, founder of Public Information Research (PIR), who first discovered the use of persistent cookies at the site.
According to the privacy policy at the CIA's Electronic Reading Room, the site does not use persistent cookies and instead only uses temporary "session cookies" that expire when the user closes his browser.
A review of some federal sites today by Newsbytes revealed that several are placing session cookies on visitors' computers. Such sites include the FirstGov.gov portal, the FBI's jobs site, as well as the main sites operated by the Small Business Administration, the Department of Education and the Selective Service.
The privacy policy at the main CIA Web site, located at http://www.cia.gov, states that the CIA Web site "does not use the 'cookies' that some Web sites use to gather and store information about your visits to their sites."
Brandt said it is likely that the CIA Electronic Reading Room site was created by a contractor using a standard Web hosting package that included a Web traffic analysis program, and that the CIA may not even be aware of it.
News source: Newsbytes View: CIA's Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) site - Electronic Reading Room
"We have strong relationships with many of the state attorneys general," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler. "We work with them on various activities and initiatives. On this issue, we agree to disagree. While the states do have a role in antitrust enforcement, the non-settling states stepped outside the boundaries of that role when they chose to pursue a different course from the Justice Department, resulting in conflicting national competition policy."
In making the filing, the states are trying to protect their sovereignty over antitrust matters, something a dismissal could potentially undermine, said legal experts.
"There are a lot of us who, having done antitrust defense, would like to see this whole dual-sovereignty issue resolved," said Emmett Stanton, an antitrust lawyer with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto, Calif. "If there was a case to challenge this, this would be the one."
The "friends of court" briefs filed by the 25 states were not expected, but a third brief from the litigating states came as no surprise. The states rebutted Microsoft's request more in the context of the overall antitrust case than in regard to the sovereignty issue.
They argued that Microsoft's request is "effectively, a motion to set aside the Court of Appeals' mandate."
In June 2000, seven judges unanimously upheld eight separate antitrust violations against Microsoft.
The filings could give the litigating states important air cover as they return to court next week for what could be as much as eight weeks of testimony. They are looking for stiffer sanctions than those proposed by the Justice Department and the settling states. The settlement largely puts restrictions on Microsoft's business practices. The litigating states also want restrictions on how Microsoft develops and deploys software.
While overseeing the settlement proceeding, Kollar-Kotelly must weigh whether the settlement meets the standard demanded by the Nixon-era Tunney Act. That law requires that a settlement be in the public interest and that no backroom dealmaking influence the process. Kollar-Kotelly could reject or approve the proposed deal at any time.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.