×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google and the CIA?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the bobbing-for-scandal dept.

234

snottgoblin writes "DailyTech has an article suggesting that Google might be involved in a partnership with the CIA. The article also quotes a former CIA officer that Google's refusal to comply with the DOJ over privacy issues was 'a little hypocritical [...] because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency.'" Because I'm sure no one would go on the air and try to drum up a scandal aimed at the biggest target they can find.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Google Earth? (1)

JDAustin (468180) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678371)

Wasnt the company that created the software Google bought for Google Earth originally funded by a CIA venture capital fund?

Re:Google Earth? (1)

uuilly (746301) | more than 7 years ago | (#16680053)

Yes, keyhole got its seed funding from In-Q-Tel. A venture cap company that works w/ the CIA.

Not surprising... (4, Funny)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678379)

I would not be surprised in such a relationship as there has been a collaborative arrangement at least going back to the Google Earth project. For instance, when Google Earth was demoed to the folks at the NRO and NIMA, there was a collective smacking of foreheads followed by a long silence as they all realized that this was an easy way to represent data using superimposable layers. Soon after, agreements were reached with Google for technology development in exchange for funding and a significant amount of space in the South Bay area.

The fact that Google is very good at their core market (search engines and relational databases) and is aggressively entering new markets in a variety of fields, should make them an attractive partner for many federal agencies that cannot seem to get their IT $#!^ together (I'm talking to you, Robert Mueller).

Re:Not surprising... (0, Troll)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678895)

The fact that Google is very good at their core market (search engines and relational databases) and is aggressively entering new markets in a variety of fields, should make them an attractive partner for many federal agencies that cannot seem to get their IT $#!^ together (I'm talking to you, Robert Mueller).


Probably the only way for him to get a medal.

Is anybody surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16678391)

Just wondered.

Google gathers more information about interests, demographics - things then most anything right now.

I would already have expected the gvt to be with them.

Re:Is anybody surprised? (1)

Incongruity (70416) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679135)

Yes, I'm very surprised -- I really expected that the CIA would be better at finding information than their recent track record indicates, if they were using google ;)

"Valuable Insight" (5, Insightful)

MLopat (848735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678431)

If something is worth posting, I don't see why anyone would immediately discredit the article with a comment like "Because I'm sure no one would go on the air and try to drum up a scandal aimed at the biggest target they can find. "

Let people RTFA and discuss it in the comments.

Re:"Valuable Insight" (1, Insightful)

MWoody (222806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679265)

*sigh* Why must this crap be posted in response to every single news article. Once again, say it with me:

SLASHDOT IS A BLOG.

It is not a news agency. It has no reporters. It is an opinionated blog where a small collection of people find articles that are interesting, comment on them, and allow other members to reply to the news and/or their comments. Slashdot has no requirement for journalistic neutrality, nor should it; if you despise the posters to the extent that their opinions compel you to comment every time they open their mouths, just go somewhere else. Google news, for example. What would be the point of this site if it just posted links to articles? That's been DONE, many times, elsewhere.

Now, if you disagree with the comments attached to the article, say so! Feel free to disagree with scuttlemonkey, at length and with much vitriol. But this "waaah waaah a slashdot editor has an opinion this site suxors it used to be better why don't they just post the news waaah waaah" shit is just getting old. Disagree with what he has said; don't claim he has no right to say it.

Re:"Valuable Insight" (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679405)

It's not a blog. It's not a news "agency" either. But it is a news-related discussion site. I'm not sure where you got the idea it is a blog from.

Re:"Valuable Insight" (1)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679601)

Slashdot is in fact a blog (i.e.: weblog) in the traditional sense of the word: a site that regularly signals pages and articles elsewhere on the web by linking to them and adding personal commentary. A weblog is a report of one or more persons' websurfing activity. In fact, I'd venture to guess that Slashdot is the original blog – started before the word even existed.

"Blog" only very recently became synonymous in the public mind with "online diary" (thanks to sites such as Blogger that allowed any bored teenager to open a blog), but that's something else altogether.

Re:"Valuable Insight" (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679829)

"blog" has been around long enough to have acquired a traditional sense?

Is the "web" now considered to be a mythical creature from prehistoric times?

No duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16678455)

Google *probably* works better than Echelon...

Re:No duh (1)

NerveGas (168686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678765)

I doubt it, Google isn't listening to your phone calls, at least not yet. :)

steve

It *used* to... on Google Labs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16679015)

Google used to listen to your phone calls, but I believe that is long gone from Google Labs.

Alex Jones! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16678457)

If it was on Alex Jones, it must be absolutely 100% true...

Good luck (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678481)

From TFA: "I'm hoping they'll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off."

Good luck. Nobody ever really leaves The Company.

Re:Good luck (3, Funny)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678567)

Good luck. Nobody ever really leaves The Company.

Agency.... It is "The Agency", and yes, you can leave the Agency. People do it all the time. The thing you have to remember is that the CIA is a huge organization with most folks being support personnel for the large numbers of analysts. There is a small group in R&D, and an even smaller group in direct operations.

Re:Good luck (0, Flamebait)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678747)

Nice of you to correct someone when you have no idea what you're talking about.

The CIA is often referred to as "The Company". You're simply wrong. And dumb.

Re:Good luck (5, Funny)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679041)

The CIA is often referred to as "The Company". You're simply wrong.

OK Geoff, you have stumbled into the long raging debate in some circles as to why it is referred to as The Agency or The Company. Each group has its preferences and the usage is based upon where you place your allegiances.

You're simply wrong. And dumb.

Watch who you call dumb. The face [flickr.com] you put up on your Flicker stream does not look that smart to me.

Re:Good luck (-1, Flamebait)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679267)

You're a "Retinal neurophysiology scientist" and you think that intelligence comes from the face? Wow, America's education system really is doomed. Or maybe it's just the inbred retards in higher education in Utah.

Re:Good luck (1)

Incongruity (70416) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679287)

OK Geoff, you have stumbled into the long raging debate in some circles as to why it is referred to as The Agency or The Company. Each group has its preferences and the usage is based upon where you place your allegiances.
Actually, you brought that debate here, trying to correct someone else even though you knew exactly what he meant and your bringing up of "the debate" was rather inane and really quite pointless in the current discussion.
Watch who you call dumb. The face [flickr.com] you put up on your Flicker stream does not look that smart to me.
LAME. If you can't win outright, insult the other person right? Get better at this game. You went to the low-brow tactics way too quickly.

Re:Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16679381)


Watch who you call dumb. The face you put up on your Flicker stream does not look that smart to me.

Fantastic detective skills! :) This kind of funny post-counterpost is exactly why I read slashdot.

Re:Good luck (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679585)

I dunno, but 'The Company' always reminds me of the Central Intelligence Company from Snow Crash.

Re:Good luck (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679655)

Watch who you call dumb. The face you put up on your Flicker stream does not look that smart to me.

OMG!!! He knows who you are!!!

Re:Good luck (3, Funny)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678755)

....and yes, you can leave the Agency. People do it all the time.

Yeah, but you gotta live in a weird village, drive around in golf carts, and wear a big "#6"-type pin on your lapel.

Re:Good luck (2, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678717)

Sure, you can leave The Company. Oh, you meant alive . (cue Three Days of the Condor theme)

Re:Good luck (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678749)

OK, so I pressed the submit button without previewing.

The original point was this: if the CIA wants a relationship with Google, then they're going to have one, whether or not Google wants it. Google is hiring people by the busload, people who are young, smart, independent, perhaps idealistic, and like cool toys. How hard would it be to find a few that could be co-opted?

Besides, nobody really leaves The Company.

Re:Good luck (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678911)

How hard would it be to find a few that could be co-opted?

If, by "co-opted," you mean, "smart enough to realize that better in-house search tech helping analysts at the agency is actually a very important thing," then no doubt, yes, they'll find some. The ones that are idealogically opposed to that agency improving its ability to render accurate intel for policy makers will avoid that sort of work - even though doing so is sort of self-destructive. If they'd rather work on better code to more accurately target AdSense ads to the remaining three slashdot users that aren't blocking that bit of javascript, then no doubt they'll have that option, even if they're given the chance to work on the wildly more interesting spooky stuff.

Re:Good luck (1)

buswolley (591500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678983)

I think you mean: The CIA as sent in agents to infiltrate Google as new hires. You know, like they do with news papers and magazines like Time.

"Partnership" ? (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678487)

Certainly I wouldn't be surpised if the CIA is buying technology from Google -- be it search technology, information presentation technology (Google Earth), etc. What's wrong with that? The article contained no indications that the Google was providing the CIA with information about users!

Re:"Partnership" ? (2, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678643)

This is from the article -

From reports, Steele did not bring evidence to light in order to back up his claims,...

This article is just rumor and speculation. It is quite likely that Google is selling technology to the CIA, and that isn't a problem. Anyone with the cash can buy a Google Search Appliance.

how long until? (1, Redundant)

fredistheking (464407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678497)

How long until Google is as hated as Microsoft and 'do no evil' becomes a slogan of doublespeak?

Re:how long until? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678587)

Perhaps they think they are doing good. There is, however, a difference between doing no evil and doing good.

The vast majority of evil in the world has been perpetrated by people who thought they were doing good.

KFG

Re:how long until? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16679511)

Perhaps it's not so much that they think any one of their "evil" actions are good, but rather that they think they can overlook a smaller ideal for the sake of the larger. Think of the censorship in China - they thought that the ideal of getting a whole lot of information to them was more important than the smaller issue of censorship. (Yes, it might have been for the money too, but let's assume that their intentions were good.) They are understandably being pragmatic, which I suppose is better than not caring about any ideals at all. However, like you said, that doesn't mean that they will be any better than a MS or whatever Evil Corporation you can think of.

Re:how long until? (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679239)

About as long as it takes them to actually, you know, become an abusive monopoly that buries innovative companies and stifles progress worldwide.

I enjoy riding on bandwagons too, but some schmoe making idle accusations isn't really enough to get me up onto the wagon.

Re:how long until? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16679533)

They have a monopoly. They have a monopoly on Search Engine Advertising. When you have over 60% of WORLD marketshare and climbing, you have a monopoly. The "you can't have a monopoly on search" crowd needs to get a dictionary. You can, they do, and you fools love them for it.

Judging by names (1)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678501)

snottgoblin writes ...
ScuttleMonkey writes ... Because I'm sure no one would go on the air and try to drum up a scandal aimed at the biggest target they can find.

I'm one to talk, but do screen names like that instill confidence in readers that more than just shit disturbing is going on by the writer?

Details? (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678507)

TFA does not give any details as to what Google and the CIA are doing, if anything. It could be that Google is helping them filter information (not necessarily providing it) or build a new IT infastructure. We simply don't know what's going on.

The article certainly seems to have it's own opinion on it, though.
=Smidge=

Re:Details? (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678621)

maybe it was just an informational seminar instructing the old timers on how to use google to find info on people. who wants to bet it is better than whatever system they are using..

Not surprised at all (2, Interesting)

Mariner28 (814350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678513)

Google has posted openings requiring US govt. secret and SCI clearances for several years. This issue was raised back in 2001 or so...

The Partnership is Called... (1)

jalvear (610723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678517)

GoogleCIA. If you add YouTube, it is now GoogTubeCIA. Can't get much scarier than that.

empty article (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678523)

the article has no real content; anyone have any more info on this? it seems like it's pure speculation with reference to an unverifiable source.. hang on.. yeah, that's CIA involvement all right.

Re:empty article (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679423)

Of course it is an empty article. The CIA will not allow anyone to print the truth about their relationship with Google and when the govenment is asked they reply with "it does not exist" and when you put in the fredome of information request it always comes back , No data found. Obviously they, the CIA and the government, is hiding something.

Oh, Wow... (0)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678571)

Google bought out the CIA?! "Google CIA" doesn't seem right.

It was in beta. (4, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678729)

> Google bought out the CIA?! "Google CIA" doesn't seem right.

Explains a few things though.

Consider the whole Iraq/WMD thing. Maybe CIA punched in a few keywords into intel.google.com/beta/search?q=WMD+iraq and ignored the fact that it was still in Beta.

Of course with this administration, we're talking about a bunch of people who wouldn't have noticed that the beta of intel.google.com was launched alongside amd.google.com...

Re:It was in beta. (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678789)

With this administration, all the Reader Digest version of the search results have to be read out aloud to the president. As a bumper sticker on a car in my apartment complex says, "If you're reading this, you're not the president."

as a Google employee (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16678583)

As a slightly annoyed Google employee (with a good knowledge of proxies!) I can confirm that, although the higher-ups try to keep the question unanswered either way, certain TLAs do pretty much have free run of our various tracking databases.

Note that this applies to national security level stuff, not regular ol' crime and random cases that are actually relatively unimportant despite attracting publicity, but for which it's good PR to make an ostensible public refusal.

Or, to put it in a Google-favorable light, you guys all know what this government is like - you think we could get away with refusing to give them something they really wanted?

Re:as a Google employee (1)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678861)

Um.... Not really. But if they made them go through a bunch of unfavorable publicity every time they wanted something, well, that would make me feel a little better. Funnily enough, I would personally rather Google quit storing the data they have picked up on me without my asking them.

Re:as a Google employee (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679259)

"I would personally rather Google quit storing the data they have picked up on me without my asking them."

Their excuse is that you "ask them" by agreeing to their obscure privacy agreement/etc that nobody ever seeks or our reads. Great point you made anyway. This contradicts "do no evil."

Where do I signup ? (1)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678607)

To repeat the brilliant Illiad - where do I sign up ? [userfriendly.org]. Don't panic it is only beta [userfriendly.org].

Jokes aside, it is a company sitting on american soil, why would it be wrong if they actually had a partnership with NSA or CIA. It is their patriotic duty, No ?

Re:Where do I signup ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16678957)

Those were jokes? Aren't jokes intended to amuse people?

Re:Where do I signup ? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679285)

No.
Doing something for an agency does not automatically make it patriotic.

But it makes business sense.

I know what their plan is! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16678619)

Google is working with the CIA to overthrow Yahoo and install a puppet regime in South MSN to counter potential communist forces in the north.

hard to believe? not really. (1)

Toasty16 (586358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678657)

Why is ScuttleMonkey so skeptical of this story, it seems very likely considering how attractive the raw data-mining power of Google must be to the CIA, especially after the 9/11 Commission Report exposed the incredibly outdated technology [72.14.203.104] they had been using prior to the current WAR ON TERROR (be afraid, be very afraid!).

Baseless conjecture... (1)

SoapBox17 (1020345) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678661)

TFA provides absolutely no useful information. Its basically "We know a guy and he totally says Google is helping the CIA do something."

Completely useless.

Osama, anyone? (1)

Desert_Scarecrow (998677) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678721)

The merger of a huge intelligence agency and a powerful search engine begets only one question: Where in the world is Osama bin Laden? With google, you won't even have to touch that crusty old "almanac..."

In-con-CEIVE-able! (3, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678763)

Gee - no chance that one of the largest and smartest pattern-searching, data-mining, quicky-quicky-lightening-fast-search technology operations on the planet might be asked to provide some expertise or operational help to one of the agencies that needs exactly that kind of horsepower to help keep people from being killed?

Of course Google has contact with the CIA. And NRO, and NSA, and DIA, and the FBI, and probably most state-level agencies, as well. It would be shocking, really, if they did not.

And how does Google taking a stand on privacy in any way contradict the vested interest they have in the CIA more effectively sorting through unthinkable amounts of data and drawing better, more useful conclusions? Google is based in the US. When the economy takes a hard hit (as it did following 9/11), Google is hit hard, too. It's perfectly reasonable for them to be both "no evil(tm)" corporate citizens and also help a vital government agency better do what they're supposed to do. You know, the agency that so many people have complained about being unable to effectively sort through lots of information, communicate across agencies, and draw more workable conclusions? How can input from, and influence by Google-type people possibly be a bad thing, in the grand scheme of things?

The people at the CIA are just people. Google can afford very, very smart people that the agency can only get as consultants, or as hires that aren't worried about what they make. Farming out some high-end IT expertise to an entity that has an enormous profit incentive - in other venues - to be very good at it and competitively innovative is simply good policy.

Don't forget their records of voter affiliations (3, Interesting)

Petey_Alchemist (711672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678781)

Darnit! I submitted this a few minutes ago, but with this addendum. See what you can make of it. I'm not sure.

___________

That's old news. But this image [waffleimages.com], discovered by a Something Awful forum user [somethingawful.com] in a time of election uncertainty, is new.

From the post: [somethingawful.com]

"I was browsing google maps today and came across something a little creepy. I moused over something on the map, and a preview page came up. (This is with a firefox extension that loads a URL you mouseover in a preview box.) It had people's legal names, familiar names, precinct, and political affilations. It seems to have had a lot more information than that, but I didn't scroll.

Thankfully I took a screenshot when it first happened, becuase I couldn't make it happen again. It's weird how codey the whole thing looks, isn't it? It obviously wasn't meant to be seen by people like me--it looks like it was meant to be parsed by a computer. What kind of database is Google hiding behind its maps? (I don't mean to sound tinfoil here, as this probably isn't some joint Google/NSA operation. I just wonder how they got this information and what they're using it for.)"

What is Google doing?

Re:Don't forget their records of voter affiliation (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678935)

Either you posted the link wrong or the government just took it down.

Re:Don't forget their records of voter affiliation (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678989)

the link is correct and working, it just doesn't except it from slashdot.

Open a new window and past the link into that, it should work fine.

The data is extremely interesting.

Re:Don't forget their records of voter affiliation (1)

Petey_Alchemist (711672) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679153)

This [imagesocket.com] might work, then.

The thread notes that this may just be a list from the County's website [marion.or.us]. That said...I am beginning to understand what Mason was talking about in terms of the dangers of consolidated databases.

What's going on.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16678791)

Google has teamed up with the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency cia.gov/ [slashdot.org]) to give the CIA funationality to aid in their duties. For example, with the Google CIA functionality, a CIA agent can log into the CIA portal and Google for:

"Threats to the USA"

Upon which, a bunch of links will show up of the websites of countries and or people who are threats to the USA.

Another functionality is that the CIA can Google people's names. The CIA Google will only turn up the "bad" things they've done - this maybe needed for blackmail purposes.

Of course, they can always Google a country to see what they'r up to. For example:

"North Korea"

Will return all of their clandestine operations, thereats to the US and any Nuclear activities.

it's a great system and it'll keep the American People safe from terrorists.

Sincerely,

CIA Informant.

Sharing of Technology? (1)

Ruvim (889012) | more than 7 years ago | (#16678839)

TFA didn't specify whether any actual search data has been shared with CIA. This could be just sharing of data mining and analysis algorithms, which Google seems to excel at. On the other hand... whom am I kidding?

Google already is evil. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679055)

Why else would they actually archive personally-identifiable information about searches?

Good! (1)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679099)


This is great. I would love to see my country's intelligence agency use some great technology to filter through intelligence streams and all the data they need to mine. What's the problem here?

Don't be evil... (1)

aapold (753705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679157)

Just partner with it. Somehow the "need to know search" seems to be a classic oxymoron...

nutcase! (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679171)

The website that this information comes from was featured on Ars the other day [arstechnica.com]. As many people pointed out in that discussion. The person making this claim, Alex Jones, also claims 9/11 was a conspiracy and a missile hit the pentagon. Is this really a credible source? sounds about as valid as a random AC troll on slashdot.

Re:nutcase! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16679823)

Is it? Alex Jones gathers some interesting people and most of his news comes from what you would call "credible" sources from mainstream media, so arguing on that point is pretty lame. And yes, there are questions about the 9/11 attack, many people want answers, and this is a world-wide phenomenon happening not just in the US, but in the EU as well (and growing dramatically in other nations). There's a huge majority that doesn't believe the official story, simply because there are serious flaws with the official story. Sure there are insane people with their own theories, I agree, but when you have over 50% of the US population simply not believing the government about the 9/11 attacks, from scholars to rednecks, on every political spectrum, I say that's something to worry about.

People like you calling these people nutcases are pretty much starting to become the minority, really...

An important thank you (4, Insightful)

DysenteryInTheRanks (902824) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679197)

I just want to say "thanks" to whoever added the "fud" tag.

THANKS DUDE!

I love it when people remember to put this tag on appropriate articles.

I have often been hard at work in the office some afternoon, or at home on a sunny Saturday morning, thinking to myself, "I'd really like to read some Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And where better to do so than on Slashdot? If only there were a convient way to browse this FUD all on one easy screen. After all, there is not enough FUD on the Slashdot front page, you really have to look for it."

But thanks to the "fud" tag in the super-useful Slashdot InfoTagging SystemTM, I don't have to struggle any more to find this FUD!

What I like even better than the FUD tag is when someone tags an article notfud or "!fud". Because sometimes I want to read stuff that's just not FUD. (Thankfully, I've never seen an article with both the FUD and notfud tags at once.)

The only thing I like better than the notfud tag are the "yes" and "no" tags. Very useful, for when I need to come up with questions the answer to which is very clearly "yes" or "no."

Re:An important thank you (1)

LMacG (118321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679633)

> Thankfully, I've never seen an article with both the FUD and notfud tags at once

At the risk of having missed all the invisible sarcasm tags in your post -- Go back to the front page, three or four articles down, regarding alleged voting problems in Florida.

This is not surprising (1)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679215)



The CIA certainly knows how important the search engines are for
internet data mining. Back in 1998, Zapata Petroleum (the company
started by George H. Bush in 1953 which has been thought by some to be
a CIA front) tried to purchase the 'Excite' search engine website but
was turned [internetnews.com]
down.

WTF (2, Insightful)

lewp (95638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679399)

I'm a big Google fanboy. I think their services are great, and I trust them with my personal email. But the summary for this item is really a load of horseshit. If this had been about Microsoft or any other company that draws the Slashdot hivemind's ire the story would have been immediately accepted as gospel.

But since it's Google the claims are dismissed immediately as a publicity stunt.

Fuck you, editors.

Where's the Cancer Man? (1)

betelgeuse68 (230611) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679411)

Government spooks collaborating with industry titan to subterfuge... sounds like a plot from the X-Files... conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen.

Human psychology likes gossip, which is why this site even exists...

Our government is largely incompetent when it comes to tech savviness. Furthermore, I don't buy that any US agency involved with national (in)security is covertly leveraging a US tech company like Google. Overtly is another matter. If it was an old DoD contractor that's another story, but Google, doubt it.

Spare me the X-File,
-M

Does this mean that (1)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679497)

there will be free Ben & Jerry for CIA analysts and that overseas operatives will carry lava lamps?

Not the NSA? (1)

tygt (792974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679691)

Back in '98 when I first started using Google, one of the first things I thought of was - "These guys have to be funded by the NSA", especially as there was no indication of any sort of business model, company structure (or much of an existence at all) or financial backing, and the obvious application of seeing what people are looking for.

Maybe I got the wrong agency.

CIA controls Google now (1)

Chemkook (915402) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679723)


LOL!

That explains why Google took down an infrared video I posted

from space shuttle mission STS-75 that shows

hundreds of UFOs swarming the broken tether.

Something is missing here... (1)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679755)

Someone forgot to explain, why such a partnership is a bad thing... Or is that simply on of the Slashdot's of axioms?

Don't jump to conclusions (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679863)

The DOJ request was very broad, and as we've seen from another company-not-to-be-named, such data does allow the identification of search habits for many regular citizens.

However, a CIA request could have been for searches by specific suspects (read: known terrorists) or maybe a run of a datamining program that could catch relations between terrorist sites in Google's database, thus having nothing to do with actual searches by people.

I have a problem with any search engine complying with the former, but not necessarily the latter.

Government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16679877)

Google certainly has a track record of working with Governments. (China, US, etc.)

IF any US or other governments agencys had the ability to data mine emails, calendars, spread sheets, word processing documents, credit card data and of course web sites, blogs and community networks (e.g., Orkut), and other net based data for 1000's or millions of people, it would certainly be an AID to that government.

Even if the data was not comprehensive to the given population, if it provided enough so that they could create "target profiles" that would be of value assuming they had access to other non public data. By profiles, I mean an enough data to prime an expert system or AI system or other system with who or what to "look for" and/or "who to ignore".

So... (1)

TheGreatHegemon (956058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16679899)

They're streamlining the CIA's organiziation and searching? It's a far cry from RELEASING private search results to the CIA - I fail to see the hypocrisy...

All I want to know is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16679989)

how long it will take the agents to show up at my door, after I google "two part liquid explosive" ?

In other news, Baidu.com linked to Chinese gov't (1)

tygt (792974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16680107)

Stunning allegations today have surfaced linking Baidu.com, a Beijing-based company which currently runs China's most popular search engine, with elements of the Chinese government and military.

I would be more inclined to believe this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16680209)

If there was more information in the article. All I see is some ex-CIA agent claiming the world's largest search engine is giving information to the world's most powerful country's intelligence service. For all we know, this ex CIA guy could be an ex CIA guy and not a current CIA guy for a reason, and could just be trying to get back at his boss. Who knows.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...