Cookiegate Explained 131
Pete writes " EPIC reports that privacy advocates call for investigation of "Cookiegate". Privacy advocates wrote to congressional leaders urging an investigation of the privacy practices of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy Web site. The site has been using DoubleClick advertisements which placed cookies on users' computers, possibly violating federal laws on government collection of data from citizens. See the press release."
Re:War on Drugs-- a UK development (Score:2)
... in respect of which the world's press remains eerily silent. Go here [parliament.uk] (it's one of the documents linked from the UK legislature's pending bills page, and is entirely official) and marvel at what the media will ignore.
And yes, it does exactly what it looks like: makes it legal, but not a hundred per cent legal.
(It is, however, like all Private Members' Bills - ones not supported by a government department - almost certainly doomed.)
Help make doubleclick.net disappear (Score:2)
...and doubleclick will simply disappear for you and all of your fellow users.
Obvious solution (Score:1)
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
Re:Rights of the father? (Score:1)
Slavery. WE are as enslaved here by the corps as they are from their gvt.
And, NO. It is not impossible to get in/out. Just go thru Mexico. Or any other country, since the US is the only dunbfuck cuntry still boycotting.
Get yer nose out of UnKKKle sam's ass.
/rant
Re:Doubleclick. (Score:1)
Re:consequences of the drug war (Score:1)
<br><br>
My own feelings? Legalize and do not regulate. Being a pessimist, and knowing that this will never happen in my lifetime, then I feel that we need to wage the war where it can actually be effective. In Treatment. Yes, I know it sounds just like welfare, giving away gov't money for other people's problems. Since that cash is already appropriated, it's better to use it on something that has a chance of working, rather than wasting it on more bullets and boats for this ineffective war that has been going on.
<br><br>
<b><i>...But it's a problem for THEM, not the government.</b></i><br><br>
I disagree slightly here. Simply because there is a cause and effect for the communities that surround heavy users. I lived in a not-so good neighborhood until November. Huge place, extremely low rent. The upstanding citizens (majority) were being victimized by crackheads frequenting the local crackhouse. Crackhouse 'mysteriously' burns down, no more crime. Drugs weren't the problem, it was the effects of those drugs that are the problem. In a vaccum, I would agree with you on this point, thin out the gene pool a little more, without wasting [My] money.<br><br>
Your points are exactly what I have been writing about and protesting for a while now. Lost Freedom in the interest of the Greater Good, which isn't so good.
Re:consequences of the drug war (Score:1)
Screw you if you think I cant smoke.
I think . (Score:1)
Doubleclick is part of the alien takeover.
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:2)
Read: "who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody"
Recollect: some illegal drugs are: heroin and pcp.
Interpret:
therefore, we can interpret the above as:
heroin addiction is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody.
pcp is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody.
Recall: Jimi Hendrix choking on his own vomit. The end of Sublime. Trainspotting. My brother.
React: It's about the death toll. It's about people DYING. It's about watching people you love die, slowly. It's about pain, and suffering, and loss.
Ponder...
Re:War on Drugs--A Rant (Score:1)
I hope this isn't offtopic...
Gee... I wonder how many billions of dollors have been spent fighting the 'war against drugs' for the past 50 or so years. Funny, because People could still buy drugs then, and they can still buy drugs now. But billions have been spent on the various program(s) (All I remember was when the police officer at my school told me not to do drugs when i was 9), and has it really done anything?
Who cares who corrupt our leaders are as long as they're tough on crime?
Maybe we should just legalize the stuff so that everyone can get really messed up, but then the few people who didn't become druggies can see how screwed up people get, so they will be less prone to using it. Not to mention the fact that it would get rid of 90% of all organized crime.
Re:War on Drugs-- a UK development (Score:1)
Wow, that's so... reasonable... so there's not a chance it'll pass. Which is a pity, because the government could save a hell of a lot of money and make more from licensing out of this. Damn you, Middle England!
---
Jon E. Erikson
Re:Why are there ads? (Score:2)
I'd love to see ads on ALL government websites -- let's see the government cut costs by taking a page out of the book of private industry.
Personally, I think that an ad for condoms (or Cigars?) would go real nicely on the presidential websites at www.whitehouse.gov.
But all joking aside, why not require government websites to have a banner ad on their websites? The extra income could allow for either increased services or lower national debt, whichever the ever-changing mood of Congress desires.
Re:Worse Than Drugs (Score:1)
<lapclapclapclapclapclap> Hear, hear! Couldn't have said it better m'self.
The "official" line: "Drugs aren't fun! People who do them aren't having more fun than you! Marijuana doesn't make you feel good! LSD doesn't lead to a strange sort of philosophical enlightenment! We only talk about bad things! We will lie to you, use underhanded and shady techniques, take away your personal property, and put you in jail if you disagree with us and act on that disagreement!
"You are free to do what we tell you. You are free to do what we tell you."
- Rev.Re:War on Drugs-- a UK development (Score:1)
Personally, i think a lot of people are getting very fed up with the whole "War on drugs" thing, especially when it comes to drugs such as Cannabis (and even Ecstasy.) Maybe one day we will see sensible laws for them in the UK.
Re:Why are there ads? (Score:1)
My hosts file (Score:2)
...is available at here. [swbell.net] This has a crapload of doubclick type sites that are all redirected to a blank domain. I did not put the work into this, someone else did, but I don't remember who.
Yes, this will filter out 90% of all banner ads.
- Rev.So fix it. (Score:3)
JHK
http://www.cascap.org because you care. [cascap.org]
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
Why does an agency whose purpose is to regulate arms and tobacco have their own police force? Can't they call the local cops or FBI when they find something?
I expect they could, but either of those might want something called 'evidence'...
Re:War on Drugs-- a UK development (Score:1)
Yeah, the whole drugs issue over here is a lot less fanatical than it is in the US - of course a lot of things are a lot less fanatical over here :) But I think there aren't that many people who really have very strong opinions on the issue of cannabis by itself, and you can feel free to speak out about the issue without being labelled some kind of monster. As for how it'll turn out? Even if it doesn't pass, which seems likely, it's worth proposing just to get the debate going again :)
---
Jon E. Erikson
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
Recollect: some illegal drugs are: heroin and pcp.
Interpret: therefore, we can interpret the above as: heroin addiction is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody.
pcp is enjoyed in a way that harms nobody.
Recall: Jimi Hendrix choking on his own vomit. The end of Sublime. Trainspotting. My brother.
React: It's about the death toll. It's about people DYING. It's about watching people you love die, slowly. It's about pain, and suffering, and loss.
The plain fact of the matter is that both PCP and heroin can be used by people and not harm anyone. Certainly drugs can cause casualties, but so do many other things that we are perfectly willing to allow adults to use - cars, airplanes, boats, trains, perscription drugs, electrical appliances, garbage disposals, electrical outlets, electricity by it's self, baseball bats, hockey sticks, hockey pucks, blunt objects, throwable objects, etc.. etc.. etc..
The list goes on and on. We don't outlaw these things just because they have a potential to cause damage.
We outlaw acts which cause damage to others, not inanimate objects. By this logic not only should we outlaw all of the above, but in the same line of outlawing herbs and chemicals we should outlaw poison ivy (which incidently no one ever tries to get).
Finally, if this is about the death toll, and "pain, and suffering, and loss" is prison a better solution to this? Is it better to lose your loved one to a drug than to lose them to the U.S. Prison system? Isn't this a health problem, that needs to be dealt with by medical professionals, and not a legal problem? Do we lock up people who slip on ice and break their leg (Sorry son, but you know it was dangerous to be walking when it was snowing outside. Now we're going to have to put you in jain ontop of your broken leg).
Re:consequences of the drug war (Score:2)
As far as what "realistic" policy goals I favor, I really couldn't say. Things like the Meth bill and the profiling pullovers really make me think there's no hope whatsoever for this country. For a while, I've been shopping around for countries to move to once I'm rich and the US turns totally fascist. I'm only slightly kidding.
I suppose some things are simple. Cut taxes. Liberalize issuance of concealed carry permits. Legalize marijuana. Privatize social security. School vouchers. But aside from vouchers, which I'm rather iffy on, I doubt many of these things will actually happen, especially what with Al Gore wandering around taking credit for economic well-being that is really attributable to Reagan. Oh well. In the meantime I suppose I'll hoard guns and gold.
MoNsTeR
And... (Score:1)
ONDCP Master propagandists? (Score:1)
The war on drugs sickens me, but at these approaches are clever. Misguided, corrosive, and illegal, yes, but also clever.
You don't see many things come out of government that indicate a level of creativity, but at least the folks at the White House Office on Drug Control Policy continue to surprise.
Is this the same group that gave us "This is your brain on drugs" or did they get a better crop of talent?
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
About Time (Score:4)
The information may not ever actually exist on Federal Servers.
Of course I don't like anybody, government, organization, or indivuals collecting the info either.
Of course I am well aware that the information is out there already, that doesn't make it right.
Re:And... (Score:1)
Big Brother is watching, it just doesn't care.
Big Buisness is also watching and it does care, it wants to sell that data.
Nuff Said
Way to go... (Score:1)
I think it's great that something is being done about the data collecting that some banner advertising companies are doing.
Why are there ads? (Score:4)
hmmm (Score:3)
Now could you tie this in with area 51 and aliens? most likely not, but dammit! mulder would find a way.
Re:Look back over the Internet 'revolution' (Score:1)
>buddy Al Gore, to subvert the rights of the American people through the new technology.
You're mistaking the figureheads for the problem. Changing the names of the people who hold these positions will not affect the problem. Changing the name of the party which holds these positions will likewise, not affect the problem (indeed, could conceivably even exacerbate it).
Regarding this crap, it doesn't matter very much who wins the elections, because it's only a two-horse race, and both horses are heavily indebted to the same interest groups. Democracy does not really exist in any useful form when votes decide the name on the desk plaque, while finanical contributors (and others) decide the policies that eventually eminate from the office.
A big asset to maintaining the status quo of this system is that the vast majority of really important policy is either the sort of boring policy that the public is not interested in, or (like DMCA), the sting is in ramifactions that are not obvious to someone not intimately aquainted with it.
Something has to give, and it probably won't give soon. Which means hold on to your privacy, because there is a rough ride ahead.
Not the first offence (Score:1)
-Mr. Macx
Moof!
Yeah! And them feminazis suck, too! (Score:1)
<begin blatant ad hominem attack>>Man I tell you what, and them queers just keep wantin people to not kill 'em, too. K-K-K-linton has just been a whorin for the UN, workin on gettin those chips in our hayds so that they c'n knows where whur at ALL DA TIME. It's just like da Bible sez, mayne. And we get Algore in office and man Satan's gonna be walkin down dis here street, knowwhatImean? lt;end>
Look mon: The fact that you're too dumb to use PGP isn't Clinton's fault. And I just keep re-reading that article and NO WHERE does it say that they were using cookies as a "positive show of technology at work", like you claimed.
The ONDBC should be abolished, there's no doubt of that. BUT if you're gonna critisize someone or something, get your facts straight. You just sound like yet another mindless sheep of a dittohead when you don't.
wa1t, this msg is flamebait, but it's insightful, too! What do I do!
- Rev.Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
Yeah, over here in the UK the Customs & Excise people have a lot more powers than the police do - they can enter your house without a warrant or you being present for instance. Funny really how much governments want to control what goes into and out of their countries... or maybe not.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Re:My hosts file (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot uses double click (Score:1)
Re:DoubleClick a US Gov. department now? (Score:1)
As we are discovering, the lines of responsibility in this crazy, mixed-up, hyperlinked world are blurry indeed.
I don't think so. The lines of responsibility are clear-cut. These actions by DoubleClick and all these other privacy invading companies are a violation of my 23rd Amendment [house.gov] rights.
Maybe this sort of thing would fly in the 60's, but it's high time we started interpreting the Constitution like it was meant to be interpreted.
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
DoubleStandard... (Score:2)
Let me get this straight. You say,
Now... replace advertising companies with any other concept.
The average Slashdotter would scream bloody murder if somebody else made blacklists, unilateral decisions, and "protect the users" arguments. This is what they rally against, when Mattel/CyberPatrol does things like this. This is what gets people up-in-arms when governments like China do things like this.
Get a clue. If you have the power to make decisions for other people, repeat the mantra: Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Teach the government how to lead you, by setting a good example.
Witchhunts (Score:1)
"The entire program of systematic persecution of a large section of society who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody is a true testament to the methods by which even Constiutional "protection" can be subverted in the name of the "greater good"."
More generally this practice is known as a "witchhunt", and I can't think of a time in man's history where people have not conducted them against some arbitrary group of people, and I'm not sure there will ever come a time when people don't. If such a moment ever arrives, I will consider "the dark ages" over.
Re:New govt. anit-drug slogan [OT] (Score:1)
You do realise that Prozac has nearly no uplifting effect on people who aren't already clinically depressed? Just a little noradrenaline, but it's the SSRI's (serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) that do the actual treatment of depression, and they have absolutely no helpful effect whatsoever on people who aren't depressed. In fact chances are you will merely have to suffer some of the negative side effects, like flattened sex driver, dizziness, headaches, nausea, blah de blah blah, that current SSRI's cause.
Anyway, I'm not a humorless fart, I do get the humour in your post - I just want to prevent misinformation thats all.
Re:Why are americans suprised at acts like this? (Score:1)
"Otherwise, take responsibility for your own lives, or give up the facade and give the state what they want, a "camera in every house", not a "chicken in every pot". What, you're not doing anything _deviant_ or _sinful_ are you?"
Keep in mind that in probably about half of the states, gay sex is illegal .. "deviant" is in the eye of the beholder.
Could it be the.. (Score:1)
Re:Could it be the.. (Score:1)
this is (Score:1)
Re:Zardoz (Score:1)
Re:There is no War on Drugs (Score:1)
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
In addition to what this did for their careers, it eventually provided the same unique financial opportunities for urban blacks and Colombians that the Mafia had discovered waiting to be exploited in Prohibition, which creates a new criminal threat to escalate against, which means even more opportunities on the law enforcement side of the equation.
By the most amazing co-incidence it was at about that same time that that "Marijuana: Assassin of Youth" movie appeared. One wonders if they knew the etymology of "assassin" (comes from "hashish").
Re:Why are there ads? (Score:1)
"Cui bono" doesn't really mean "follow the money", but sometimes that's a fair translation.
Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act & You (Score:2)
Is this FUD? (Score:3)
Who in their right mind would go to the ONDCP or other federal web site for tips on growing pot?
I actually went there (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/ [whitehousedrugpolicy.gov]) and tried it, but didn't find any information. In fact, there is simply nothing on this site that reading would mark you as a "black hat". This isn't some government conspiracy -- at best it is a half baked attempt to characterize an anti-drug market segment. Any conspirator with half a brain would plant pages at independent ISPS under assumed names.
The doubleclick ads are gone, so perhaps they were removed. If the doubleclick cookies were there, it was wrong of ONDCP to put them there; however, banging the police state drum is way overstating the case.
These guys have a bee in their bonnet over the P3P thing. Fair enough, but FUD is a reprehensible tactic for opposing it.
Doubleclick. (Score:5)
http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N668.SlashDot/B2020 1;sz=468x60;ord=961771260961771260?
This is the one featuring the boxer. There's at least one other, featuring characters from User Friendly advertising the latest version of SuSE. Isn't this interesting?
Re:Worse Than Drugs (Score:1)
More federal and state wiretaps are for drug offenses than murder, kidnapping, extortion, and such like combined.
1 in 4 black males will spend some portion of their lives behind bars, usually for drug-related offenses. Only 1 in 17 white males will.
Possession of crack is a federal crime with a mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment. Crack is the only drug that has such a mandatory sentence.
Blacks make up about 13% of the United States population; whites are about 85% of the population. Whites are more likely to use crack than blacks, but blacks are more likely to go to jail for crack.
New govt. anit-drug slogan (Score:1)
I'd settle for (Score:1)
Re:Outlaw Poison Ivy (Score:1)
Perhaps I could persuade you to get the ball rolling by making "Outlaw Poison Ivy" your sig and light the torch to lead this holy crusade (see how easy bandwagon jumping can be?).
Re:kidnapping children at gunpoint, (Score:1)
Re:The Cookie Hype is back. (Score:1)
Concerning the users that don't know how to protect themselves, they could either change for a new provider or just stop browsing the web so that Nerds can rule it like in the Good'ole times when the Internet wasa library, not a supermaket nor a sex shop. (Remember the Platinum Ribbon Campaign ?)
Tschüess!
--
screening out doubleclick ads (Score:1)
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
Always save a copy of the original file before making any edits 8^)
Important all of a sudden... (Score:1)
Posted by CmdrTaco on 14:20 23 June 2000
but:2000-06-22 09:46:10 Users looking for drug information online being se (yro,Privacy) (rejected)
--
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:2)
That's mighty pessimistic, since the decade ends in less than 6 months.
--
Re:Is this FUD? (Score:2)
As a sidenote: the family of plants that hemp is in (Cannabiceae) contains 2 species, that are both used in drugs: Hop for making beer, and hemp for smoking. Yes I'm calling beer a drug. And I drink the stuff too. At this moment.
//rdj
Re:DoubleClick a US Gov. department now? (Score:1)
How about "NewbieGate" (Score:1)
The thing with "saber rattling" is there is always the fear the other person may actually do something. Nothing is going to happen here. It's like Los Alamos, everyone wanted investigations, until they realized both parties had been in power through the time secrets were being sold. Write congress today, if they cannot load a piece of software on their computer without help, they should stay out of this.
Finally, I should not have to pay to put a lock on my door. It is inconvenient, costly, and frankly it just indicates the police are not doing their job. Get real, if I want to be protected, self protection is the only certain way.
Re:About Time (Score:1)
Re:Why are there ads? (Score:1)
Where is the representation now?!?
I have some pretty serious anti-drug-war ideals, and until recently, I felt comfortable using government resourses to research their freaking drug-war.
I still can't believe that my tax dollars pay for this crap!
I'll tell ya what's worse than Drugs.... (Score:1)
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
After all, you don't see too many people burgling steroes to buy cigarettes. I bet you that as soon as tobacco becomes illegal, you'll see a sharp increase in property crimes related to obtaining expensive and illegal cigarettes. Or maybe nicotine inhalers will finally come into their own.
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
Just in response to that bit about taking drugs harming no-one but the taker...
I don't know what kind of drug-use the US war on drugs targets. But recently in the news here in the UK was the research finding that 80% of property crime here is driven by Heroin addiction. We are mainly talking burglary here. Which is a truly shattering experience for the victim, as it shakes one's confidence upon being able to go out of your house and come back again without losing all your stuff.
So I would have to say that not all drug use is a victimless crime. Of course, if the DEA (is that right?) is mainly targeting people smoking Marijuana, that is a different matter.
Re:My hosts file (Score:1)
Crackers (Score:1)
The open-air drug markets where crack is sold are run mostly by blacks. The upper crust rich white folk wanting to buy an 8ball of powder do their business behind closed doors.
This, of course, completely ignores a lot of other contributing factors:
If it weren't for the black market, cocaine wouldn't be so expensive and the flow of crack through the gutters of the metropolii would dry up really fast.
The Driving While Black stop-n-search routines along major highways.
Drug tests that use hair are more likely to incriminate a black person (something about the structure of their hair binds cocaine better than white people's hair).
"Crack is the fast food item of the drug trade." -Drug Crazy, by Mike Gray - www.stopthedrugwar.org
--Threed
The Slashdot Sig Virus was foiled before it could spread.
Re:War on Drugs--A Rant (Score:1)
Here's a fun fact for you all...During the reign of the Clinton administration, there have more marijuana possession arrests on record than any other time in the history of the United States.
Its time that we end this so called "war on drugs". Write your represenative or senator. Tell him or her how you feel.
(not that I have an opinion or anything)
Re:About Time (Score:2)
Only with a court order. Otherwise it would be illegal, in which case it would have no real advantage over just doing it from the government servers--and disadvantages, because they'd have to jump through a few more hoops to get it this way.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Re:Big Government (Score:1)
Re:Why are there ads? (Score:1)
You mean like that "Winners Don't Use Drugs" screen that shows up on every freaking arcade machine?
And why couldn't they just put these graphics on their own site--why get DoubleClick involved?
I don't smell conspiracy. I smell stupidity.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Re:Worse Than Drugs (Score:2)
And don't forget about those who make their living smuggling or selling drugs, whose business depends on having enough heat to make the drugs valuable but not enough to keep them from selling them.
Re:Is this FUD? (Score:1)
As opposed to a very baked market segment? ;)
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Re:Worse Than Drugs (Score:2)
Damn. I uhhh..voted for Bill Clinton twice, and I even voted for Dukakis! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket.
Hysteria (Score:3)
As I understand it, the Office participated in an ad network to market its site. If you searched Altavista for "grow pot" [altavista.com] , a Doubleclick banner would be served for the Drug Control office Web site and, of course, you'd be cookied (unless you filter). The paranoia is that the cookie potentially represents a personally identifiable piece of information that is understandable disconcerting if you believe the government is using the cookie to surreptitiously track you personally and determine what other sites you are visiting.
But "cookie" does not automatically equal "privacy invasion". I consider it to be a disservice to the education of the Web public for Jason Catlett (Junkbusters.Com [junkbusters.com]), Mark Rotenberg (EPIC [epic.org], and even Richard Smith (his expose' here [tiac.net]) to contribute to this hysteria. I think it makes for good sensationalism to further the advocacy for electronic privacy. The Whitehouse's withering before the criticism is disappointing but understandable considering that any defense would have only powered the conspiracy theory. But in terms of the threat to privacy this represents, I think it only extends the broad and irrational fear of an incredibly useful and pervasive Web technology.
If you think I'm wrong, email me or post here so I can exercise the debate. I consider myself a pragmatic privacy advocate and am willing to listen to logic.
Re:Worse Than Drugs (Score:1)
Single Standard (Score:1)
I separately think that we should take the recent court decisions to treat domain names as "registrations" and not trademarks or property. Thus, why not have multiple registrations? You choose your ISP, I'll choose mine, and partially on the basis of the registry they provide me. I don't see a double standard in that. It's called freedom of choice.
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:1)
Heroin is a drug with relatively minor impact in the US. It is, however, sufficiently demonic that when Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey wanted to scare people about pot, he said it was as addictive as heroin.
It's also worth noting that:
Marijuana is the basis for most of the drug-related convictions in the US, IIRC, but I don't have stats on that.
phil
You misunderstand the hack. (Score:5)
You misunderstand what the government is accused of doing.
What the government agency did was buy "targeted" adds on several of the big search-engine sites. Then, when anyone made a keyword search that included drug-related keywords (example: "grow pot") they were likely to get an "anti drug" banner add from the government along with their results.
The banner add was served from a government computer, with a name that sounded kinda druggy and not AT ALL government. The government computer got the user's IP address, the contents of the query (encoded into the URL for the convenience of the advertiser's add-targeting software), and all the other information about the user that the browser hands out. And it placed a cookie on the user's computer, to label him from then on. They admit to tracking the users' email addresses "to gauge the effectiveness of the (alleged anti-drug propaganda) campaign".
Browsers hand out a LOT of information, and some of it can be used by other tools (such as finger,
reverse domain number lookup, and domain registration data bases) to identify the user and/or his employer (if he's browsing from work).
The potential for abuse is astronomical. For instance: If they trace some drug-related queries back to a company domain, they might contact the employer, insinuate that the employee is a druggie, and tell the employer to look in the user's cookie file for proof.
I could easily compose a dozen other nightmare scenarios.
(I tried to submit this info a couple days ago, with a reference, when it first came to light, but slashdot rejected the article.)
Time for a Reality Check (Score:4)
Time out. Did anyone notice that EPIC's press release does not include the URL of the offending site? I went back a few levels and found their link to Freevibe.com [freevibe.com]. But a strange thing happened -- I went to Freevibe, and it did not try to place any cookies on me, and did not have any links to Doubleclick. Just to be sure, I sent an automated spider to index their site, and doing GREPs for doubleclick or cookie turned up Zero hits.
Some further background info: Freevibe is registered with NetworkSolutions. It is not owned by the federal government [whitehousedrugpolicy.gov], but instead by:SHS is apparently one of the numerous "Beltway Bandits" -- subcontractors in the DC area who do federal outsourcing. Freevibe is part of the Anti-Drug Media Campaign [mediacampaign.org] -- "hey kids, this KEWL web site says don't do drugs!" It's certainly ineffective, uses sloppy DHTML, and is a waste of money, but I don't see it violating any privacy laws.
consequences of the drug war (Score:5)
1. No-Knock Warrants. Any idiot can see that the police breaking down your door and charging in with guns drawn, with a warrant issued on the basis of an ANONYMOUS TIP, is a violation of our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and siezures. The whole point of "probable cause" is to protect against stuff like anonymous tips.
Here in Denver, a Mr. Ismael Mena was gunned down by police executing a no-knock raid (issued on an anonymous tip) ON THE WRONG HOUSE. Unacceptable.
2. Asset Forfeiture. Do you know that if the police SUSPECT you've violated drug laws, or worse yet if they actually arrest you, THEY CAN SIEZE YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS, EVERYTHING YOU OWN. And what if you're found not guilty? Or released without even a trial? Do you get it back? Nope. You essentially have to prove your innocence to get it back. Even beginning the process can take more than 6 months, during which time you have to pay for your lawyer(s).
You might want to read that again. These aren't paranoid ramblings, this happens, every day. They can confiscate everything you own, and keep it forever. Intolerable.
3. Roadsite searches. Two kinds, legal and, er, "extra-legal". If a cop pulls you over for speeding or running a red light, he can frisk you and search your car for drugs with no probable cause. It's unconstitutional already! But there's more. You might think "searching" you car amounts to looking under the seats, in the trunk and other storage compartments, maybe even under the hood. But it doesn't stop there, the cop can practically destroy your car in the search process. He can slash open your upholstery, your roof liner, cut open your tires, do ANYTHING to get to any part of your car that could conceivably be used to hide drugs, and more that couldn't. Again, this is not some urban legend, it happens every day.
Then there's the "extra-legal" roadside search. This actually happened to a friend of mine, and is not only happening but happening right here in my own city of Denver. You're driving along, not breaking any laws, and you see flashing lights and hear sirens. You pull over. You're asked to step out of the car, you're frisked, your car is searched (thankfully not in the above way), and you're sent on your way. They're looking for drugs, and they pulled you over because you fit the profile. Apparently, while I wasn't watching, simply being a teenaged male driving at night is probable cause for drug posession. But the best part is that these searches are not explicitly authorized by law, city, state, or federal. The cops are simply doing this as a "trial run" to see if it's effective, so they can get a law passed if they like it. So now they can do ANYTHING they want, as long as they plan on legalizing it later.
4. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. This is HB2987 in the House, but I've forgotten the senate version's number. It has two major provisions. One, it becomes illegal to disseminate information about the use and manufacture of meth (as if it'll only apply to meth, it'll apply to all drugs). That's right, it's illegal to SAY things. So much for freedom of speech. I cannot possibly see how this red-flags the "clear and present danger" test. Two, police are empowered to search your home while you are not home (again, anonymous tips are OK), copy your documents, copy files off your computer, seize "evidence", and NOT TELL YOU ABOUT IT FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS. So, they don't have probable cause, their warrant is not specific, they don't even have to inform you, and you receive no compensation for seizures. This breaks just about every clause in the 4th Amendment.
But you know what? It passed the Senate UNANIMOUSLY. That's right, not a single senator voted against this piece of trash. The only thing I can imagine is that they just read the title, figured it'd look good to their constituents, like they were "tough on drugs" or something, and voted yes without reading the damned thing. At any rate, it's sitting in the House Judiciary Committee right now, and though it's house sponsor is considering a re-write due to the volume of correspondence opposing it, I very much doubt that it will be stopped unless it receives major mainstream media coverage, or everyone who actually cares about their rights calls their reps and senators and expresses in no uncertain terms how much they love their rights and how quickly they will vote for other people come re-election time.
These are just hilights. The story of the drug war is a story of impossibility, yet of brutality, ruthlessness, and unmitigated sacrifice of our constitutional rights. It mirrors alcohol prohibition in almost every way:
1. drug use has increased, not decreased, just as alcohol use did
2. it has brought about immeasurable amounts of organized crime
3. enforcement is extremely costly and horribly ineffective
The only difference is that drug dealers are rarely considered heroes like bootleggers were (except maybe pot hook-ups
It's time to end the war on drugs. Not just because it's doomed to fail, but because we have no business waging it in the first place. Use of drugs is not a violent act. You have a right to put whatever you want into your own body, don't you? Under current law, you don't. Drug use can, in and of itself, harm no one but the user, who engages in the act of his own volition. Prohibition of a peaceful act can never be justified.
http://www.lp.org
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
MoNsTeR
DoubleClick a US Gov. department now? (Score:5)
So, who was it who was collecting the data again? DoubleClick, or the US government? Did DoubleClick pass the details back to the government, or just used it to target further adverts? Did the website in question illegally attempt to access the DoubleClick cookies?
What's that? The government wasn't collecting the data? Thought so. Next hysterical reaction please.
Worse Than Drugs (Score:5)
Using Doubleclick ads does not surprise me one little itty bit.
War on Drugs--A Rant (Score:3)
Both presidential candidates have not denied that they have used drugs in the past. Yet, they both advocate harsher sentences for convicted drug offenders. Since possession of a large enough quantity of drugs is considered a felony in many jurisdictions, if they were arrested, they would be convicted felons and unable to vote, let alone hold public office.
Go figure.
Re:Why are there ads? (Score:3)
But where could this concept of government ads lead? "This IRS audit brought to you by H&R Block... If you had used us you would not have been audited." "This speeding ticket is sponsored by Allstate.. Your rates just went up." "The 'Howard Stern' Voting Booth."
Oh, the humanity.
Devil Ducky
Re:consequences of the drug war (Score:2)
If you are going to knock Nixon, do it for something he was actually guilty of, there is plenty to choose from. Nixon, surprisingly, had the BEST drug policy that has ever been in place in this country. It was laid by the side of the road during the Ford and Carter administrations, and totally trampled during the Reagan/Bush years (Mostly due to Nancy) which Clinton was perfectly happy to accept as-is. It has only gotten worse since then. Nixon approached the problem logically. Soldiers were returning from Vietnam with addictions, and Nixon saw this as a serious problem.
The simplest and most logical solution to the problems with soldiers, and addicts in society at large, is treatment. Nixon's policy called for most of the budget for his drug initiative to go to treatment and treatment facilities, not military action, not police action, not misleading or false marketing campaigns. In fact, 85% of the policies budget was for treatment alone.
Nixon's policy is the only drug policy the US has ever seen which actually proved a significant decrease in drug addiction.
The Reagan era brought us "Just say No!", which was a direct result of pressure from suburban parents being afraid that drugs were going to affect their children, so we allowed a very effective drug policy to be rewritten and dumbed down to allow for all the scared parents frightened that little Johnny was going to get high. Despite overwhelming proof that this was not the real problem, nor is it now.
This brought the campaign of lies. Where we suddenly saw an influx of advertising and PSAs that did not correctly portray drugs, drug usage, or drug users, all designed with little Johnny Stoner in mind, not the real root of the problem which is, and was the adult addicts. We started seeing military action against dealers and growers in other countries, increased penalties for possession and disribution, questionable (at best) search and seizure of property, and we still don't see any decrease in drug usage. In fact, we have seen a steady increase in casual drug usage since '82, while habitual drug use remains fairly steady.
The problem with DoubleClick's involvement in this site is a little overblown. Anyone looking for 'Drugs: Tips and Tricks!' on a government drug policy site has problems outside of being tracked by a DoubleClick cookie. If anything, the use of DoubleClick was simply another stupid governmental oversight.
And this is a suprise how? (Score:5)
Out of all of the various agencies and bodies that comprise the American system of "justice", those that deal with the "War on Drugs" are the most dangerous of the lot. The entire program of systematic persecution of a large section of society who choose to enjoy themselves in a way that harms nobody is a true testament to the methods by which even Constiutional "protection" can be subverted in the name of the "greater good".
The fact that the Office of National Drug Control Policy is spying upon the web browsing habits of people viewing its site should really come as no suprise. After all, the whole war on drugs has provided a succession of American governments with a ready-made excuse to violate freedom left, right and centre and thanks to the educational brainwashing that occurs in American schools and homes Americans are only too willing to give up freedom for safety from the drugs "menace".
And despite the war on drugs having failed miserably, this in itself is a bonus for those in power. Citing this failure as being the fault of the "drug barons", they can get more measures into law, so that things like this will become legal, even mandatory. After all, the internet is already known as a haven for pedarats, terrorists and nazis, add drug dealers to that and the American government has all the "moral" justification in the world to impose a Stalinistic regime on the net.
At this rate freedom on the net in America will become a myth by the end of the decade.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Re:DoubleClick a US Gov. department now? (Score:3)
As we are discovering, the lines of responsibility in this crazy, mixed-up, hyperlinked world are blurry indeed.
DoubleClick = cookie whore (Score:3)
Cookies can, and often do, store very personal information and can be a breach of security in some cases, but they're not all evil. For the casual browser, cookies can be useful to say the least.
I know for sure though, I don't want to be caught on Double Click's bad side. (1 [cnet.com] 2 [lawnewsnetwork.com] 3 [tilj.com])
Re:About Time (Score:2)
Re:DoubleClick a US Gov. department now? (Score:3)
Re:consequences of the drug war (Score:2)
Of course, you're obviously trolling, so why am I bothering?
MoNsTeR
Re:consequences of the drug war (Score:4)
I very much doubt that it will be stopped unless it receives major mainstream media coverage
snip
But it WON'T. There are a lot more people out there than you'd think who are against the drug war, but you never hear of them (other than as a much of hippies) in mainstream media. In fact, if you think you'll EVER hear a pro-drug statement out of a major television network or newspaper, you're just wrong. Why?
Because the major networks and newspapers receive advertising revenue from the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. (read: the DEA) When a news outlet deals with a government bureaucracy, if it does anything to anger that agency, it can kiss the advertising revenue goodbye along with any interviews with or information from that bureau's personnel. You can read about that and a lot of other stuff here. [cato.org] No television station or newspaper will cross the DEA. It's up to us.
Re:And this is a suprise how? (Score:2)
Re:consequences of the drug war (Score:2)
You've missed the point entirely. The only acceptable drug policy I can think of would be age restrictions, like exist for alcohol and tobacco. I'm not saying even those are a good idea, just that they wouldn't drive me crazy like our current laws do.
People becoming addicted to various substances might be a problem, yes. But it's a problem for THEM, not the government. Remember, as I said, drug use is a non-violent act, and as such it cannot be legitimately prohibited.
And at any rate, though even Nixon didn't start drug prohibition (blame William Randolph Hearst and DuPont corp. for that), he does deserve blame for starting the official "war on drugs". Why? The life cycle of a government program doesn't include death. When ANY program starts, it has a simple goal. When that goal is acheived, or acheivement draws near, the scope of the program is expanded. This continues forever in a positive feedback loop. Did you know your Social Security Number was originally for "tax purposes only"? People with 50 or 60 year old plus SS cards will have this printed on them. Now what do you use your SSN for? Everything. The FDA was originally created to ensure that drugs had the quantities and purities advertised, now it has its fingers in every aspect of the food and drug industries. The 16th Amendment was originally created to allow the Feds to tax *unearned income* such as interest and dividends, not wages or salaries. Every dollar the IRS deducts from your paycheck is fraud (particularly because the 16th was never properly ratified). So even though Nixon may have had the best intentions (HAHAHA) when starting the drug war, he, like any politician cannot be excused from failing to predict its eventualities.
MoNsTeR
Doubleclick Doublestandard? (Score:2)
Let me get this straight: when Doubleclick tracks your browsing habits without your knowledge on commercial sites it's ok, but when the government is involved, it's illegal?
Um...why is the government running advertisements anyways? Isn't that a conflict of interest?--
Simple solution (Score:2)