CIA enlists Google's help for spy work

[housewolf]

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
Jonathan Richards

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.

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.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3652494.ece

[Duke Newcombe]

1. This <edit> ARTICLE (not the post) has some level of FUD

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Google is doing nothing different than the company that sells desktops and laptops to the CIA, or the company that sells them fleet vehicles.

Just a bit tin-foil-y...

Duke

(edited to remove accusation that the OP was responsible for this silly story)

[wtmusic]

3. Yes, it is different

Google has information on millions of Americans that the CIA would love access to. Now the CIA has become a big client.
You don't see a conflict?

[Duke Newcombe]

4. No.

Google makes a superior search technology that the end customer can use to search and categorize myriad types of structured and unstructured data. It would seem that the Government needs Google, not the other way around. Not a good leveraging position. That, and the little fact that the original article hasn't proven that Google is doing anything other than pursuing a normal opportunity to meet the market needs of a large end customer.

If anyone has any proof of Google's wrongdoing or collusion with the intelligence organs (other than selling them stuff), I'm all ears.

Duke

[wtmusic]

5. Google needs money, which the government has lots of.

I don't know what leverage has to do with it -- it's just good business.

Proof of wrongdoing is not necessary for the presence of a conflict of interest.

[Duke Newcombe]

6. You assumption that this "conflict of interest" hangs on...

...is that Google is some public trustee, that "owes" something to you. In spite of the "don't be Evil" mantra that the original founders have, at the end of the day, it is a corporation, beholden to stockholders, and responsible to return value. This doesn't come from passing customers by, unless it's proven (not in an "I sense a disturbance in the force" way) that having customer X will be detrimental to the company.

And what I meant by leverage. Right now, Google holds the whip handle, so to speak. It has something (not our data...their technology) that the CIA wants and needs very badly (and are probably paying through the nose with our tax $$$ to obtain). Google has the best in the market. If say, DukeTech came up with an even more effective product, then the CIA would dump Google like a hot rock, and go with, say, my company.

If the barista at Starbucks wanted dirt on you, and I had information on you, is it conflict of interest for me to trade money with him in order to get my MochaJavaLatte from that Starbucks? I think that's a pretty high (and impractical) bar.

Right now, I'm perceiving you're not liking this because of what you perceive they <might> do. I personally require evidence (either of wrongdoing or proclivity to wrongdoing). I've yet to be presented with either (though, at the end of the day, you owe me nothing).

Duke

[wtmusic]

7. Google has plenty they owe their customers

Read their Privacy policy. They have millions of gmail accounts and access to personal information on every one of them.

So if they are interested in protecting their customers privacy (as they claim), and one of their biggest clients is interested in removing that privacy...voila!

Conflict.

[Duke Newcombe]

8. Sorry, but that train left the station...

...many moons ago.

I think perhaps you need to study up on the nature of privacy in the Internet Age. Why invent a malicious CIA boogeyman, when you have already been compromised.

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs18-cyb.htm

http://www.canton.elegal.ca/archives/2006/02/index.html#a000583

Again, Google hasn't done a damned thing except conduct business. If you have a problem with the way our security organs <might> in some time as yet unspecified, put the lean on <insert name of company here> for "information they'd really like", do what I do...vote Democratic.

However, don't live in ignorance. If they wanted it, it would already be theirs.

Duke

[wtmusic]

10. Since I may have been compromised I shouldn't mind it again?

How do you know Google hasn't "done a damned thing except conduct business"? Are the illegal wiretaps ATT is providing to the NSA just "conducting business" in your book too? I don't need to point out the fallacy of an argument like this, and I shouldn't have to point out that providing multiple page links with comments like "you need to study up" is lazy and makes an easy target -- especially when they contain material which refutes your own argument.

[Duke Newcombe]

13. Rhetoric 101: You cannot prove a negative

Most of the assertions came from you about the alleged "conflict of interest". I simply think seeing the big bad boogeyman of <insert intelligence agency here> around every corner is "swallowing the spaghetti and choking on the rice" with regards to the very REAL AND PRESENT violations of your privacy occurring, RIGHT NOW.

Look, obviously, you wish to see the CIA the way you wish-and so our little waltz ends.

Duke

[Duke Newcombe]

9. And I'd be interested to see what your answer was...

...to my hypothetical:

If the barista at Starbucks wanted dirt on you, knew we were close friends, and I had information on you, is it conflict of interest for me to trade my money (consideration or thing of value) with him in order to get my MochaJavaLatte from that Starbucks?

Again, you don't owe me an answer, but I'd be interested in one.

Quick edit for spelling


Duke

[wtmusic]

11. You've got it backwards

Starbucks would have to be giving you the money, and you would be providing the information. The holder of the cash has the prerogative. And yes, it would be a conflict albeit a very minor one. Small enough to qualify as a straw man compared to the scale we're discussing.

[Duke Newcombe]

14. Wow....just, "wow"...is all I can say about that "conflict of interest"...

:crazy:

Duke

[gateley]

2. Is this saying that

Google's technology is more advanced than the government's? The technology we spend BILLIONS of tax dollars on?

I'm not sure I'm "getting" the point of this article.

Thanks.

[santamargarita]

12. The truth is: we simply don't trust THIS Government!

The Bush Fascists have given us no reason to trust them to do anything for the people - just corporations!