Okay, smartie, because computers and phones are not people

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I received an intrusion alarm when I booted mine up this morning. Don't know if a hacker is after some personal information or if it's my friendly government stalking me because I disagree with Bush's policies.

FBI Examines Computers in Cheney's Office

(10-06) 23:36 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

FBI agents examined computers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and talked to former and current White House aides Thursday as they investigated an FBI intelligence analyst accused of passing classified information to Filipino officials.

Meantime, former Philippine President Joseph Estrada acknowledged receiving an internal U.S. government report on the Philippines from the analyst, Leandro Aragoncillo, but played down the importance of the information, comparing it to material aired in his country's media.

The FBI is looking at whether Aragoncillo, a former Marine, took classified information about the Philippines from the White House when he worked for Vice Presidents Al Gore and Cheney from 1999 to 2002.

The type of information has not been disclosed. Though Aragoncillo had top-secret clearance, that status would not have made him privy to highly sensitive intelligence.

Aragoncillo, a U.S. citizen originally from the Philippines, was charged last month with providing classified information from his FBI posting at Fort Monmouth, N.J., to former and current Philippine officials who oppose President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Philippine Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales said the criminal complaint against Aragoncillo suggests the information could have been intended to destabilize the Philippine government.

Michael Ray Aquino, a former top Philippine police official who acted as Aragoncillo's alleged go-between, was indicted by a Newark, N.J., federal grand jury Thursday on charges of conspiracy and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Aragoncillo, 46, of Woodbury, N.J., and Aquino, 39, living in Queens, N.Y., have been jailed since their arrests last month.

Federal prosecutors in Newark did not seek an indictment against Aragoncillo because he is negotiating a plea, court records show.

Aquino lawyer Mark A. Berman said his client rejected a plea deal.

There's a fundamental difference between Aragoncillo and Aquino, Berman said. Aquino is not an FBI agent and had no reason to know that the information the government laid out in the indictment was classified.

While the criminal complaint is limited to Aragoncillo's time at Fort Monmouth the investigation has widened to include his stint, while a Marine, in the vice president's office. Agents examined computers and interviewed current and former vice presidential aides Thursday, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

FBI spokesman Rich Kolko would not confirm details of the investigation, but he said, In the course of a logical investigation, the FBI will research the subject's entire career for whenever he had access to classified or sensitive information to see whether any illegal or improper activity took place.

Meantime, Estrada said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press in the Philippines that he received documents from Aragoncillo but that he did not think they contained classified information.

He was just describing how America sees the Philippines, Estrada said. I don't think that is classified. It pertains to graft and corruption, the first gentleman (Arroyo's husband).

Estrada said he met Aragoncillo during his state visit to Washington in 2000 and received about six reports from him.

He compared what Aragoncillo did with reports diplomats send back home. I don't think that's espionage, he said.

He's a kind person, the former president said of Aragoncillo. He's a good family man. He has two children.

Estrada said Aragoncillo communicated with him by mail and also spoke with him on his birthday, but he didn't say when. Estrada was toppled in massive street protests in 2001 on charges of corruption and is under house arrests while on trial.

A Philippine opposition senator has acknowledged receiving information from Aquino. Sen. Panfilo Lacson, a former national police chief under whom Aquino served, said he and many others received information passed by Aquino, but he played down the value of the reports, describing them as shallow information.

White House and Justice Department officials declined to comment on the investigation.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a former federal prosecutor who handled an FBI spy case, said the Aragoncillo case raises questions about easy access to classified materials and how long the naturalized U.S. citizen was able to pass on sensitive information before he was stopped.

If the complaint is accurate, there is a wealth of evidence which makes it all the more surprising he went undiscovered as long as he did, because it was not a very sophisticated operation, Schiff said.

Aragoncillo was hired to work at Fort Monmouth in July 2004 and began sending classified information and documents in January, often via e-mail, according to an FBI complaint made public last month. The documents' contents have not been made public.

From May to Aug. 15 of this year, he printed or downloaded 101 classified documents relating to the Philippines, of which 37 were classified secret, according to the criminal complaint.

He sent some of the material to Aquino, the complaint said.

Aragoncillo's public defender, Chester M. Keller, declined to say if his client was cooperating with investigators. It's just too sensitive right now, Keller said.

___

Associated Press reporter Jim Gomez in Manila and Jeffrey Gold in Newark, N.J., contributed to this report.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5105027.ece

My husband heard on the news this morning that Obama is asking again for 900 Billon to add to our deficit for his tax plan. I want to see more jobs like McCain wanted, not more unemployment and more deficit.

The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on
visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict
federal rules banning most of them.

These files, known as cookies, disappeared after a privacy activist
complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency
officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue
raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid
reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.

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. But it does show a
general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even
following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.

Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until
2035 � likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.

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.

Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet
browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For
instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that
require them.

But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even
if no personal information is actually collected.

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.

Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier
version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague
assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not
sufficient.

Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said
mistakes happen, but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say
anything about doing it accidentally.

The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it
authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court
orders.

Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this
month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the
eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.

But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from
American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of
domestic and international communications.

The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve
the surfing experience and not to collect personal user data.

Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions
whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great
for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does
not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional
visits.

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 agencies.

In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its
sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.

Pretty sad. At least the consevatives here weather the storms and stay. That pretty much says a lot about you and them, too. It's sure not like you guys never took pot shots over there. Of course, I am sure it wasn't YOU. Right.

She just got announced. I am not saying that there is anything in her background, but it is early and I am sure if there is one iota of a person in her background then we will here about it. For this whole experience thing, what have we got in the past 8 years and the past 8 before that with all of the so-called experience the Rep. think we need.

Why are we still bring up Rev. Wright? Can't we just move past that? We've heard it all.

focused on outward appearances? It is a person's heart that shows true beauty......not their face. A face can change over time, but a pure heart remains and that is what is important.

is the line Hannity uses to introduce such wild statements without accepting responsibility for stating them. The post says the GROUP endosed McCain -- did not libel McCain. Simply an example of how people are willing to run with any statement that supports their beliefs against a candidate.

Slice and dice in the womb - 2.1 million babies murdered.....fanatical ravings indeed

I'm cutting and pasting from an email my friend sent me. Thought it was interesting enough to post here. I really hope the spacing is okay. The title of the email was "how to become a former columnist"

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.

The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, nine Supreme Court justices = 545 human beings out of the 300 million who are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.   In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.
They have no legal authority.   They have no authority to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.   I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.   The politician has the power to accept or reject it.   No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.   They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.   No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.   The president can only propose a budget.   He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, (supposedly) the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving
appropriations and taxes.   Who is the speaker of the House?   She or he is the leader of the majority party.   She or he and fellow House members, not the
president, can approve any budget they want.   If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and
irresponsibility.   I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.   When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ .

If they do not receive Social Security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's be cause they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they
can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.   Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses, provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

with others mooching off of the government and supporting themselves by the hard work of others. These government programs that provide this are liberal ideas. I've mentioned before that I have no problem helping people who really need the help. However, I do have a problem with my money going to people who refuse to help themselves. In that case we are enablers and not helping anyone at all. The problem with welfare is that the regulation is seriously lacking in that area. At least Clinton did reform it when he was in office but now Obama is undoing what little reform Clinton had done. To me....this is just opening up Pandora's box.

The problem with strict regulations is that it will be harder for people who truly need help to get help. The dishonest and greedy people always ruin things for the honest people who truly need help. So what is the answer here? Either way you go you are screwing honest people and lazy bums are receiving handouts when they shouldn't.

I once went to college with a lady who had 2 kids. She was trying to get a college degree so she could get a better job. Her and her boyfriend were living together and he was trying to start his own business. Needless to say....they were not doing well financially. They were receiving food stamps and government assistance. This lady decided that she could get a part-time job to help them out, but was told that if she did get that job, they would take away her food stamps. Here she was....going to college and was going to get a job to help them out but was told the food stamps would be taken away. This lady did not take the job because it wouldn't have gotten them ahead at all. To me....this is government kicking people down instead of helping them up. These people were really trying and the moment one tried to get a job to help them get ahead, government knocked them down.

Then on the other side of the spectrum, you have single mom's pushing out kid after kid with no intention of working while they receive government assistance. How is that fair? How is that helping?

The reason democrats are stereotyped is because government programs are usually liberal ideas. Instead of actually helping though.....we are now rewarding irresponsible people instead of truly helping the people that need help and that is what is sad and frustrating whether you are a dem, pub, or independent.

We cannot provide housing, health, clothes, food, etc. for everybody. We cannot afford it and the more people work to pay for others, the more people will stop working to allow others to pay for them. This is why socialism doesn't work. It is nice in theory to think that we are helping others by spreading the wealth around but when you have more people mooching and less people working.......there isn't enough wealth to spread around.

it would definitely make an impression. However, it won't change anything. As you can tell from the pro-choice people on this board.....nothing you say or show them will change their mind. Abortion is not something that we can obviously talk civilized about on this board.

You can't stop abortions. If you try, more women will end up taking harmful substances into their body to try and force an abortion or they will go to some quack who will hack them up to get the procedure done.

I do not agree with abortions, but I can't stop them so I just look at it like population control and one less possible welfare recipient that I have to pay for.

so defensive here. Sending red envelopes to the president to represent an aborted child is a protest that will cause no harm. It won't change how Obama feels about abortion or any other pro-choicer for that matter. This isn't a violent thing. This isn't like PETA people throwing paint on people with fur coats. This is just something polite and simple to represent our opinions. It isn't like the gay rights people who are spray painting messages on the sides of churches or kissing each other in the middle of a congregation.

Pro-life people are entitled to their opinion as well. To call us names is very childish. We are allowed to state our opinions and protest in a non-violent way. That is a right and our freedom of speech. If you disagree with our point of view....fine. We both know that nothing we do will change abortion laws so don't worry about your uterus because I'm sure you can continue to abort as many babies as you choose to and we cannot stop you.

It amazes me that people just cannot talk and debate about things without being rude and childish.