Ex-Agent: CIA Seed Money Helped Launch Google
Posted in the China Forum
#1 Mar 23, 2010
Ex-Agent: CIA Seed Money Helped Launch Google
Steele goes further than before in detailing ties, names Google's CIA liaison
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
An ex-CIA agent has gone further than ever before in detailing Google's relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, claiming sources told him that CIA seed money helped get the company off the ground and naming for the first time Google's CIA point man.
Robert David Steele, a 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer and a former clandestine services case officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, is the CEO of OSS.net .
Speaking to the Alex Jones Show, Steele elaborated on his previous revelations by making it known that the CIA helped bankroll Google at its very inception.
"I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up and unfortunately our system right now floods money into spying and other illegal and largely unethical activities, and it doesn't fund what I call the open source world," said Steele, citing "trusted individuals" as his sources for the claim.
"They've been together for quite a while," added Steele.
Asked to impart to what level Google is "in bed" with the CIA, Steele described the bond as a "small but significant relationship," adding, "it is by no means dominating Google in fact Google has been embarrassed because everything the CIA asked it to do they couldn't do."
"I also think it's very very wrong of Google to have this relationship," cautioned Steele.
The former agent went further than before in identifying by name Google's liaison at the CIA.
"Let me say very explicitly - their contact at the CIA is named Dr. Rick Steinheiser, he's in the Office of Research and Development," said Steele.
#2 Mar 23, 2010
You want to put up Alex Jones as a source?
Alex Jones and his output represent the greatest collection of conspiracy theorist paranoia and ridiculousness available.
He's not reliable - at all - as a source of information.
#3 Mar 23, 2010
all opinions deserve perusal...which is why i even read your posts.
#4 Mar 23, 2010
haha take your pick then...
From Times Online
March 31, 2008
CIA enlists Google's help for spy work
US intelligence agencies are using Google's technology to help its agents share information about their suspects
Google has been recruited by US intelligence agencies to help them better process and share information they gather about suspects.
Agencies such as the National Security Agency have bought servers on which Google-supplied search technology is used to process information gathered by networks of spies around the world.
Google is also providing the search features for a Wikipedia-style site, called Intellipedia, on which agents post information about their targets that can be accessed and appended by colleagues, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The contracts are just a number that have been entered into by Google's 'federal government sales team', that aims to expand the company's reach beyond its core consumer and enterprise operations.
Facebook tool turns your mobile into a snoop
A mobile phone service, already popular in Scandinavia, places friends, partners and children on an electronic map
* Mobile phone that wants to make you fit
* Coming soon: mobile phones on the plane
* Google Earth showed protesters way to conquer parliament
* Pentagon bans Google from US bases
In the most innovative service, for which Google equipment provides the core search technology, agents are encouraged to post intelligence information on a secure forum, which other spies are free to read, edit, and tag - like the online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
Depending on their clearance, agents can log on to Intellipedia and gain access to three levels of info - top secret, secret and sensitive, and sensitive but unclassified. So far 37,000 users have established accounts on the service, and the database now extends to 35,000 articles, according to Sean Dennehy, chief of Intellipedia development for the CIA.
"Each analyst, for lack of a better term, has a shoe box with their knowledge," Mr Dennehy was quoted as saying. "They maintained it in a shared drive or Word document, but we're encouraging them to move those platforms so that everyone can benefit."
The collection of articles is hosted by the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and is available only to the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency, and other intelligence agencies.
Google's search technology usually rates a website's importance by measuring the number of other sites that link to it - a method that is more problematic in a 'closed' network used by a limited numbr of people. In the case of Intellipedia, pages become more prominent depending on how they are tagged or added to by other contributors.
As well as working with the intelligence agencies, Google also provides services to other US public sector organisations, including the Coast Guard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Often, the contract is for something as simple as conducting earch within an organisation's own database, but in the case of the Coast Guard, Google also provides a more advanced version of its satellite mapping tool Google Earth, which ships use to navigate more safely.
There is no dedicated team promoting sales of Google products to the British Government, but a Google spokesperson said the company did target public sector organisations such as councils, schools and universities through the team that run AdWords, its internet advertising platform.
#5 Mar 23, 2010
#6 Mar 23, 2010
I always knew Google was Dirty.
#7 Mar 23, 2010
if a foreign search engine came to the US and colluded to provide their intelligence agency with all of our leaders' queries, how long do you think they would last?
#8 Mar 23, 2010
Google's Deep CIA Connections
By Eric Sommer
The western media is currently full of articles on Google's 'threat to quit China' over internet censorship issues, and the company's 'suspicion' that the Chinese government was behind attempts to 'break-in' to several Google email accounts used by 'Chinese dissidents'.
However, the media has almost completely failed to report that Google's surface concern over 'human rights' in China is belied by its their deep involvement with some of the worst human rights abuses on the planet:
Google is, in fact, is a key participant in U.S. military and CIA intelligence operations involving torture; subversion of foreign governments; illegal wars of aggression; and military occupations of countries which have never attacked the U.S. and which have cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and elsewhere.
To begin with, Google is the supplier of the core search technology for 'Intellipedia, a highly-secured online system where 37,000 U.S. spies and related personnel share information and collaborate on their devious errands.
Agencies such as the so-called 'National Security Agency' have also purchased servers using Google-supplied search technology which processes information gathered by U.S. spies operating all over the planet.
In addition, Google is linked to the U.S. spy and military systems through its Google Earth software venture. The technology behind this software was originally developed by Keyhole Inc., a company funded by Q-Tel http://www.iqt.org/ , a venture capital firm which is in turn openly funded and operated on behalf of the CIA.
Google acquired Keyhole Inc. in 2004. The same base technology is currently employed by U.S. military and intelligence systems in their quest, in their own words, for "full-spectrum dominance" of the planet.
Moreover, Googles' connection with the CIA and its venture capital firm extends to sharing at least one key member of personnel. In 2004, the Director of Technology Assessment at In-Q-Tel, Rob Painter, moved from his old job directly serving the CIA to become 'Senior Federal Manager' at Google.
As Robert Steele, a former CIA case officer has put it: Google is "in bed with" the CIA.
Googles Friends spy on millions of Internet Users
Given Google's supposed concern with 'break-in's to several of its email accounts, it's worth noting that Google's friends at In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA, are now investing in Visible Technologies, a software firm specialized in 'monitoring social media'.
The 'Visible' technology can automatically examine more than a million discussions and posts on blogs, online forums, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, Amazon, and so forth each day. The technology also 'scores' each online item, assigning it a positive, negative or mixed or neutral status, based on parameters and terms set by the technology operators. The information, thus boiled down, can then be more effectively scanned and read by human operators.
The CIA venture capitalists at In-Q-Tel say they will use the technology to monitor social media operating in other countries and give U.S. spies early-warning detection on how issues are playing internationally, according to spokesperson Donald Tighe. There is every possibility that the technology can also be used by the U.S. intelligence operatives to spy on domestic social movements and individuals inside the U.S.
Finally, there is a curious absence from the statements emanating from Google - and from U.S. media reports - of any substantive evidence linking the Chinese government with the alleged break-in attempts to several Google email accounts.
Words like 'sophisticated' and 'suspicion' have appeared in the media to suggest that the Chinese government is responsible for the break-ins. That may be so. But it is striking that the media has seemingly asked no questions as to what the evidence behind the 'suspicions' might be.
#9 Mar 23, 2010
Is Google Evil?
Internet privacy? Google already knows more about you than the National Security Agency ever will. And don?t assume for a minute it can keep a secret. YouTube fans -- and everybody else -- beware.
By Adam L. Penenberg
Tue Oct. 10, 2006 12:00 AM PDT
Google Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the two former Stanford geeks who founded the company that has become synonymous with Internet searching, and youll find more than a million entries each. But amid the inevitable dump of press clippings, corporate bios, and conference appearances, theres very little about Pages and Brins personal lives; its as if the pair had known all along that Google would change the way we acquire information, and had carefully insulated their livesputting their homes under other peoples names, choosing unlisted numbers, abstaining from posting anything personal on web pages.
That obsession with privacy may explain Googles puzzling reaction last year, when Elinor Mills, a reporter with the tech news service cnet, ran a search on Google CEO Eric Schmidt and published the results: Schmidt lived with his wife in Atherton, California, was worth about $1.5 billion, had dumped about $140 million in Google shares that year, was an amateur pilot, and had been to the Burning Man festival. Google threw a fit, claimed that the information was a security threat, and announced it was blacklisting cnets reporters for a year.(The company eventually backed down.) It was a peculiar response, especially given that the information Mills published was far less intimate than the details easily found online on every one of us. But then, this is something of a pattern with Google: When it comes to information, it knows whats best.
From the start, Googles informal motto has been Dont Be Evil, and the company earned cred early on by going toe-to-toe with Microsoft over desktop software and other issues. But make no mistake. Faced with doing the right thing or doing what is in its best interests, Google has almost always chosen expediency. In 2002, it removed links to an anti-Scientology site after the Church of Scientology claimed copyright infringement. Scores of website operators have complained that Google pulls ads if it discovers words on a page that it apparently has flagged, although it will not say what those words are. In September, Google handed over the records of some users of its social-networking service, Orkut, to the Brazilian government, which was investigating alleged racist, homophobic, and pornographic content.
Googles stated mission may be to provide unbiased, accurate, and free access to information, but that didnt stop it from censoring its Chinese search engine to gain access to a lucrative market (prompting Bill Gates to crack that perhaps the motto should be Do Less Evil). Now that the company is publicly traded, it has a legal responsibility to its shareholders and bottom line that overrides any higher calling.
So the question is not whether Google will always do the right thingit hasnt, and it wont. Its whether Google, with its insatiable thirst for your personal data, has become the greatest threat to privacy ever known, a vast informational honey pot that attracts hackers, crackers, online thieves, andperhaps most worrisome of alla government intent on finding convenient ways to spy on its own citizenry.
#10 Mar 23, 2010
It doesnt take a conspiracy theorist to worry about such a threat.I always thought it was fertile ground for the government to snoop, CEO Schmidt told a search engine conference in San Jose, California, in August. While Google earned praise from civil libertarians earlier this year when it resisted a Justice Department subpoena for millions of search queries in connection with a child pornography case, dont expect it will stand up to the government every time: On its website, Google asserts that it does comply with valid legal process, such as search warrants, court orders, or subpoenas seeking personal information.
Whats at stake? Over the years, Google has collected a staggering amount of data, and the company cheerfully admits that in nine years of operation, it has never knowingly erased a single search query. Its the biggest data pack rat west of the NSA, and for good reason: 99 percent of its revenue comes from selling ads that are specifically targeted to a users interests.Googles entire value proposition is to figure out what people want, says Eric Goldman, a professor at Silicon Valleys Santa Clara School of Law and director of the High Tech Law Institute.But to read our minds, they need to know a lot about us.
Every search engine gathers information about its usersprimarily by sending us cookies, or text files that track our online movements. Most cookies expire within a few months or years. Googles, though, dont expire until 2038. Until then, when you use the companys search engine or visit any of myriad affiliated sites, it will record what you search for and when, which links you click on, which ads you access. Googles cookies cant identify you by name, but they log your computers IP address; by way of metaphor, Google doesnt have your drivers license number, but it knows the license plate number of the car you are driving. And search queries are windows into our souls, as 658,000 AOL users learned when their search profiles were mistakenly posted on the Internet: Would user 1997374 have searched for information on better erections or cunnilingus if hed known that AOL was recording every keystroke? Would user 22155378 have keyed in marijuana detox over and over knowing someone could play it all back for the world to see? If youve ever been seized by a morbid curiosity after a night of hard drinking, a search engine knowsand chances are its Google, which owns roughly half of the entire search market and processes more than 3 billion queries a month.
#11 Mar 23, 2010
And Google knows far more than that. If you are a Gmail user, Google stashes copies of every email you send and receive. If you use any of its other productsGoogle Maps, Froogle, Google Book Search, Google Earth, Google Scholar, Talk, Images, Video, and Newsit will keep track of which directions you seek, which products you shop for, which phrases you research in a book, which satellite photos and news stories you view, and on and on. Served up à la carte, this is probably no big deal. Many websites stow snippets of your data. The problem is that theres nothing to prevent Google from combining all of this information to create detailed dossiers on its customers, something the company admits is possible in principle. Soon Google may even be able to keep track of users in the real world: Its latest move is into free wifi, which will require it to know your whereabouts (i.e., which router you are closest to).
Google insists that it uses individual data only to provide targeted advertising. But history shows that information seldom remains limited to the purpose for which it was collected. Accordingly, some privacy advocates suggest that Google and other search companies should stop hoarding user queries altogether: Internet searches, argues Lillie Coney of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, are part of your protected personal space just like your physical home. In February, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced legislation to this effect, but Republicans have kept it stalled in committee. Google, which only recently retained a lobbying firm in Washington, is among the tech companies fighting the measure.
When I first contacted Google for this story, a company publicist insisted I provide a list of detailed questions, in writing; when I said that I had a problem with a source dictating the terms for an interview, he claimed that everyone who covers Googleincluding the New York Times and the Wall Street Journalsubmits advance questions.(A Times spokeswoman told me the paper sees no ethical problems with such a procedure, though individual reporters decisions may vary; an editor in charge of editorial standards at the Journal said the same thing.) The Google flack assured me that this was so he could find the best person for me to talk tomore information for Google, so that Google could better serve me.
Eventually he agreed to put me in touch, sans scripted questions, with Nicole Wong, Googles associate corporate counsel. I asked her if the company had ever been subpoenaed for user records, and whether it had complied. She said yes, but wouldnt comment on how many times. Googles website says that as a matter of policy the company does not publicly discuss the nature, number or specifics of law enforcement requests.
So can you trust Google only as far as you can trust the Bush administration?I dont know, Wong replied.Ive never been asked that question before.
#12 Mar 23, 2010
and finally, something from the mainstream....
New York Daily News-:Is Google Evil?
#13 Mar 23, 2010
dude...this is a man that thinks call of duty modern warfare 2 is preparing people for a new world order and that video game companies are an unofficial arm of the government....
#14 Mar 23, 2010
the internet is freedom of speechs greatest triumph....and its greatest failure...
#15 Mar 23, 2010
True enough - but at least it will eventually educate more and more people about the value of information, and (hopefully) to be discerning about how they consume it.
In the end the benefit will be worth it - but for now some are facing a steep learning curve.
#16 Mar 23, 2010
dude, i wouldn't be surprised...
#17 Mar 23, 2010
its clear you haven't read Mill's On Liberty, a requirement for most freshman college students
#18 Mar 23, 2010
And how does what I say lead you to that conclusion?
#19 Mar 23, 2010
well my friend, first you commit the fallacy of 'poisoning the well'--X must be wrong because X is usually wrong. this leads to self-censorship in that you will only savor information from 'reliable sources'--whatever that means. this is because you are either too lazy or not confident enough in your own ability to reason to sift through all information and come to your own conclusions. you then open yourself to what is called 'tyranny of the majority,' which is not even rooted in the indoctrination coming from the government but instead it's the popular opinion of whatever community you find fashionable and tolerable.
#20 Mar 24, 2010
It's Alex Jones.
He consistently lies, and misrepresents situations to conform to his own preconceptions. His tone is hysterical and sensationalist and his logic utterly flawed.
I've seen enough of his programming and read enough of his output to come the conclusion he's not worth my time.
He should be free to offer his ideas - and people should be free to listen - but no-one with any sense will believe it.
Add your comments below
|South China Sea dispute: G7 nations warned agai...||1 hr||Ainu||7|
|Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump....||1 hr||WasteWater||35|
|Retail Wal-Mart struggles with growth in China||2 hr||yes||1|
|Old map shows the Philippines' claim over South...||4 hr||SeanOsorioLee||1|
|Chinese transgender man fights for job equality||5 hr||St Rick Saintpornum||1|
|Chinese allies VS American Allies (Nov '09)||Sat||Jerk||173|
|China warns people to shun practise of Islam, s...||May 28||wiser||8|
Find what you want!
Search China Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC