Robert Siciliano and Judge Andrew Napolitano warn that a White House proposal to enable tracking cookies on federal websites would record browsing behavior, usernames, and passwords. Siciliano compares the cookies to spyware and suggests the Obama administration may be seeking data similar to Google's. Napolitano argues the plan violates the Privacy Act and constitutional protections.
Chapters
First the snitch site, now the White House wants to track how you are using government internet sites. Should you worry? The White House changing the rules a little bit to try to make it easier for the government to track you when you visit federal websites. The government is saying it's committed to protecting privacy. My next guest is not so sure. He's security expert Robert Siciliano. Siciliano. Robert, what are they doing exactly here?
Well, the White House, Neil, they want to give us cookies.
Cookies.
Cookies are—
I'm for that. I'm for that. But I trust these are different cookies.
These are different cookies. I thought you'd be for that. But these types of cookies, they actually track the computer user's behaviors, what they like, what they dislike, what they buy, websites they visit. And these types of cookies, they can record usernames and passwords. They store this information via their their websites from your browser, from your web browser. Now, since 2000, privacy advocates have squashed the— you know, government has agreed not to implant cookies on our browsers via their federal websites. But now they're changing their tune, and they want us to have cookies now.
All right, so, uh, this only happens if you visit a government website, but once you're on, they've got their, their little claws into you. Right?
Well, that's it. And so the problem is, is that cookies' closest cousin is spyware. Now, cookies aren't spyware, but they're very close. And spyware, as we know, can be malicious. It tracks everything we do, every username, password, website we visit, you know, and that's a close cousin to cookies. And the problem here is privacy advocates are concerned that if government enables cookies in federal websites, then they could now merge into spyware. What's next?
So what is the argument for doing this, or going to search people who go to government sites, just to search out bad guys? Is that it?
Well, good question. I think that what they're trying to accomplish here is that maybe the Obama administration wants to know— wants to get to know the public a little bit better, that they want to know, when they get to a website, what pages they visit, what their behavior is, what they like, what they don't like. It seems that they have a relationship now with Google, and Google being, you know, a huge data aggregator and search engine. That there might be some relationship here. There's some payback going on that, you know, Obama administration sees some opportunity in. And from there, you know, Google tracks us. I mean, they know what's going on. And I think Obama administration wants a piece of that.
All right, but there's no way to prove that they're in cahoots with Google on this. That's just your suspicion, right?
Well, if you look at the history of what's going on, the, you know, Google certainly has a lot of influence in Washington. They've thrown a lot of money around, and they're on whitehouse.gov. So what's next?
All right, Robert, thank you. Weird stuff.
Thank you.
Well, you know, my next guest says regardless of the particulars here, this does raise some serious constitutional issues. Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.
What do you think?
Well, I think that Mr. Siciliano's concerns are correct, and here's why. Uh, when President Nixon used the FBI and the CIA and civilian-clad military to take pictures of people during antiwar protests in the '70s. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional. And after Nixon left office, the Congress enacted the Privacy Act, which specifically prohibits any branch of government from copying the faces or the words that people use and from storing those in records. It also prohibits the government from watching you while you browse a book in a library or getting copies of the books you take out of a library. What is the internet? It's a modern-day library. It's the gateway to knowledge. Just as the government can't be over your shoulder with a camera when you're browsing through books in the library, the government cannot watch you as you browse, uh, through a website or browse the internet. It's equally as prohibited by the Privacy Act.
And you've been arguing it's the drip, drip, drip of this stuff lately out of the administration. This has worried you. The president responded to this outcry over a separate issue, this snitching issue. Here's what he had to say today.
If you get an email from somebody that says, for example, "Obamacare is creating a death panel," forward us the email, and we will answer the question that's raised in the email. Suddenly, On some of these news outlets, this is being portrayed as Obama collecting an enemies list. Now, come on, guys. You know, here I am trying to be responsive. All we're trying to do is answer questions.
He should read the laws that he's taken an oath to uphold, because one of those is the Privacy Act, which was especially written to prevent the President of the United States or anyone acting in his name from gathering the names, faces, images, voices, or words of people who disagree with them. The president.
So even if you want to take him at face value that he would have just— this is just an innocent gathering of information, then, then you got to make the leap that everyone with whom he serves is of the same mind. And as we know from history, that's not always the case.
No, of course that's not always the case. Look, there's a lot of problems here. The, the Patriot Act, which you've heard me rail against, allows federal agents to write their own search warrants to capture keystrokes. Now, they can't use that information against you to prosecute you, because it was unlawfully obtained and you don't even know they're obtaining it. The Privacy Act prohibits them from doing so. The Archives Act requires the White House to keep all communications it gets. The Privacy Act prohibits them from keeping the names of people who disagree with them. So there's a lot of statutes that are inconsistent. But what is clear is that the government cannot monitor your thoughts or your words or your ideas. Where are they expressed? When you browse the internet. Every single one of those cookies that he proposed—
So then asking others to send them along is just the same thing?
Absolutely. It's equally as prohibited under the Privacy Act.
And, Judge, scary stuff.
It is scary.
Anyone in the White House is invited to come on and chat with me. You know, the gardener, the chef. If you guys are upset, please.
