Don't forget our computers!

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.

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

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.

He conned me, just like he conned those in Congress who voted for the war against Iraq. I believed him when he said Iraq was involved with 9/11, and I wholeheartedly supported his war against Iraq for the reasons he gave.

But he didn't lie about his personal sex life, so his lies don't count to some people.

Also don't forget that Bush's reckless failure to nail 150 Taliban members is really Clinton's fault.

his famous "signing statements," like when he signed the law against torture and then quietly came back later and basically added that he doesn't have to obey that law if he doesn't want to.

I also find it astonishing that some people really believe that Democrats run Congress. The House may have a Democratic majority, but the Republicans still have the majority in the Senate. The Senate needs 60 Democrats in order to avoid a Republican fillibuster, and to my knowledge, they still don't have that number, even though they picked up a few seats in this year's election, so the Republicans can still continue to control the "do-nothing Congress."

(I hope this post makes sense. Not feeling well and need to take meds and go to bed.

)

Or whatever name the woman was dubbed for going on TV and shouting that after he's in office her..."mortgage will be paid...gas in her car...bills paid...yada, yada, yada"...how soon we forget about that huh?

I am saddened that most people cannot see past the fact that Obama is a black man, period. To some, that's all the qualification he needs. He may very well be the perfect man for the job, be he black or white, or whatever, but I'm afraid he'll never be given the chance to prove that because so many are just fixated on the fact that he's black...so sad.

I do have to add that I did not vote for Obama, not because he's black, but because I disagree with his views. Even my 10 YO son said today that it doesn't matter what color his skin is, it matters what kind of a man he is, and he is so right. Obama is much more than that, but most just can't see past his ethnicity and that's so sad and surely not what he (or MLK) would have wanted.

lobbyists in which Obama stated that there would be no place for lobbyists in Washington. Then he later said lobbyists were okay but set up certain guidelines in regards to appointing them. Then when that kept him from appointing certain lobbyists.....he totally disregarded the guidelines that he himself stated.

Oh....and he didn't bow to the Saudi King......yeah right. That's like Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sex with THAT woman. LMAO!

Please....if anyone else can think of lies that I have missed....feel free to add.

James Carville who said he wanted Bush to fail. Funny how the liberal media didn't jump on that comment though. Once again....goes to show how one-sided the media is.

As someone who didn't vote for Barrack Obama, I want him to fail because I believe the road he wants to take us down is not the right road. I don't want him hurt or anything, but I don't want him to do everything he wants to do either because I think it will be bad for our country.

There is nothing wrong with saying that either. If James Carville didn't agree with what Bush was doing, he had every right to say he wished him to fail. The same goes for anyone who doesn't believe in what Obama is doing. We have a right to wish him to fail for the sake of our country. Just because a president fails in completing his own personal agenda does not mean that America fails as well and that is what you all fail to see. All you see is I said I want him to fail and therefore I want America to fail....which is so not the case.

It amazes me that one side hates Bush and gives the man no credit for anything he does and does nothing but call him names and say how dumb he is. Now that Obama is in office, you can't see anything he does wrong or refuse to see the lies that he blatantly tells and you give him credit for everything.

I am still waiting for the day when people hold all politicians accountable for their actions instead of blindly following someone based on their political party alone.

Will Obama make mistakes....yes...he is only human. But that doesn't mean he should get a free pass for everything wrong he does either. Every politican should be held accountable for the mistakes they make. If Obama makes a mistakes...fine.....but my biggest problem with him is the fact that he blatantly lies about things. Compare his campaign rhetoric to what he is actually doing.

Honestly, if I had voted for Obama and believed what he said during his campaign, I'd be thoroughly ticked off at him. However, there are so many people who continue to believe the rhetoric and refuse to see with their own eyes what he is doing....it is just shameful really.

Almost a year ago Bush reserved the right to declare martial law if/when the bird flu comes to the USA.

As for your other points, I'm sure there are home-grown terrorists in the USA. Will Bush limit his target to those people? That's the problem. Nobody knows for sure. All people can be certain of is how he feels about swiftboating and getting revenge on anyone who disagrees with him. And that's why this man should be forced to follow the law and use warrants when spying on Americans. He simply can't be trusted.

I do question which troops he will be using, though. They're too busy fighting Bush's war in Iraq (not to mention likely war in Iran) to be able to fight Bush's war against Americans who don't agree with him.

Lower the price of oil -- didn't happen. Reform healthcare -- didn't happen. Improve foreign relations -- sooo didn't happen. Education reform -- not even close. Increase domestic oil and gas production and exploration -- another swing and a miss. "Transition to a market economy" not dependent on federal supports. -- ROFL. That's just a few.

You seem to think it's okay for Bush to not come through on his promises (for 2 terms in a row), but you are just dying to jump all over Obama who hasn't even been sworn in yet.

What I want to know is why can't the government start something that would charge companies who outsource production to other countries?

The answer to that lies in Bush tax cuts to those corporations. Watch that stimulus plan. The pubs want to add more tax cuts for those very same companies instead of working on infrastructure which is what this stimulus is all about in the long run.

And since we're talking about the stimulus, here's what I think. I am in favor of it. However, Obama tried to compromise with the pubs and put in some of their tax cuts and cut out some of his programs in the hopes of getting some pub support. I say since they obviously aren't going to support it unless it looks like another pub trickle down tax cut (as evidenced by no pub votes in the house), the dems just need to go back to the original plan (maybe adding more for infrastructure) and just push the bill past the pubs. If they don't want to be part of the solution, then they can just sit on the side lines and whine like they always do. Maybe some of those midnight sessions like the pubs do to get stuff passed is in order.