The CIA linked to Internet Privacy Watchdog

Originally posted by DocMoreau
Does it mean that the Privacy of ATS users are being 'certified' by a shell of the CIA?

First, to be clear, there are no connections between Trust-e and ATS except that we've paid them to certify our privacy policy, corporate privacy standards, and intermediate privacy complaints. They are, at best, a vendor that has reviewed our policies. There is no code from Trust-E running on ATS, nor any other relationaship than what we've already indicated.

I'm really busy on a few items of importance today, but will respond in more detail tomorrow.

reply to post by DocMoreau


we're not fooling anyone, ATS, Facebook, Myspace and every other website is under intense scrutiny by programs no one ever heard about, run by people dead for years. This is how it works. Once some serious crap happens, the provisory government will be provided every suspicious activity and take decisions depending on what we think or do.
Live with it

There is no real privacy on the web, but it don't hurt to make the watchers earn their pay. Surf Google for free encrypted proxies. Some are great, some not so great.

Or create your own with a hosting account, SSL key and the free php script "glype". A glype proxy probably bedevils your ISP's data mining efforts more than big brother, but still may be worth it. Mine runs like lightning. Of course, I'm the only person who uses it.

Lol, I've been waiting for something like this personally, they have been doing it for decades illegally, now they're just trying to make it legal, allowing them to use the information in court, or as ammo.

The minute I read TrustE I thought it was the same logo I'd seen on ATS, looked around, but I couldn't see it. From what I could see, TrustE basically vouches for it's websites? and has no access to people's information?

I'm not too bothered, as I'm pretty sure they've got as much as they need on everyone, but still nice to know. Despite not having access to information, is ATS going to keep giving this company business?

Great research, alot of good connections and evidence. I found it particuarly interesting that the CIA had bought a company primarily for inventing web technologies, a new, 'Government friendly' internet in the works? Where's the ufn in that?!?

EMM

reply to post by AncientMy Enemy


I have never trusted Trust-E and was disappointed when ATS associated them self with that organization. ATS stands alone as an organization more trusted than Trust-E to most of us. I think Trust-E needs a cert. from ATS, not vice-versa. Trust needs to be earned, and Trust-E has done nothing I know of to earn it. Granted I'd trust they wouldn't sign and seal a complete scam site, that is about the most they would do IMO.

PS- The BBB is a total joke, and I the only thing they are good for is potentially negotiating with a company as a consumer. If I were a company I would just delete/ignore any BBB threats. At the company I currently work for, they are handled specially. Yet the BBB in the end is a junk organization that will certify anyone, even a scammer for at least a period of years before pulling them from their for-profit whitelist.

[edit on 3-11-2008 by truthquest]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
we've paid them to certify our privacy policy

Certify your privacy policy? What does that certification get you guys in return? Sounds like a potential kosher-like internet protection racket to me. Did these guys approach you or did you guys seek them out? What's involved with getting a privacy certifcation from truste for a website and what made you guys make you think you needed some kind of certification from them in the first place? Kind of creepy especially in light of the information presented in this thread. Would you guys pay me to certify say the Artistic Quality of Avatars or maybe my highly coveted 'Grammatical Continuity Certification'?
Fascinating thread OP...

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

I found it particuarly interesting that the CIA had bought a company primarily for inventing web technologies, a new, 'Government friendly' internet in the works? Where's the ufn in that?!?

Funny you should say that EMM, I just read this article today, and it seems to fit with what you are thinking.

blog.wired.com...

Wow, thats an eye opener...

Apparently if you participate in Truste, they will routinely scan your site using Maxamine "to identify implementation problems that penalize performance, compromise customer experience, increase costs and introduce risks."

That means that this site is scanned on a regular basis...

Great find!

Skeptic Overlord isn't going to be happy about this find... But it does prove a point he's been trying to make for a while now: Privacy on the internet is an illusion...

The absolute best analysis I have ever seen here!!!!

You have only scratched the surface........Hope you are protecting yourself....

The risk isn't that TRUSTe can mine your data on sites that they certify, there are a multitude of other sites that Accel and In-Q-Tel have invested in that can do that, imo the greater risk is the fact that one of the largest Internet Privacy Watchdogs has been compromised.
What are your chances of a successful complaint against a company for breaching your privacy that just so happens to also be owned by either Accel or In-Q-Tel?
Not much i wouldn't think.
Even more concerning is the the way i believe the CIA has managed to sneak through the backdoor something which looked at in its totality resembles the IAO, which was shutdown by congress.
This is just the pointy end of the stick my friends, there are a number of other connections which i hope to be able to share with you.

Thank you for your interest.

AM E.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I hope you were not offended by my inquiry. Thanks for clearing some of it up ASAP regarding code implementation and such.

It just freaks me out at the possibility of ATS being compromised so easily.
It would be the ultimate trojan horse...
DocMoreau

I want to hear more about why ATS uses it. Why not put it to rest and just NOT use it.

You can't complain about the CIA using the internet. If you do then you seriously are a paranoid person. If another 9/11 happens the government will be scrutinized by the public. They are merely taking as much precaution as needed to keep America safe. They are trying to crack child molestation rings, and terrorist cells in the US. If they don't do it then the internet would be over-run with terrorist communications.

As much as I hate the CIA, FBI, etc. It is their job to try and protect their people. You may not see it but I do.

Of course the CIA looks at the internet.

How do you think they get their intel?

lol haha

My feeling is that the CIA is full of guys that love America and "watch" the net for chatter with very powerful computers, software and guys (gals) who think they are smarter then the bad guys! That remains to be seen. ha!


Hey guys!! (and gals)

edit

We need more HUMINT!


[edit on 4-11-2008 by whiteraven]

Originally posted by Equinox99
You can't complain about the CIA using the internet. If you do then you seriously are a paranoid person. If another 9/11 happens the government will be scrutinized by the public. They are merely taking as much precaution as needed to keep America safe. They are trying to crack child molestation rings, and terrorist cells in the US. If they don't do it then the internet would be over-run with terrorist communications.

As much as I hate the CIA, FBI, etc. It is their job to try and protect their people. You may not see it but I do.

It is pretty great that you are able to plainly see and believe a well told lie. The CIA has no mandate for operating inside the United States. Even the paranoid people who started the CIA knew that having an intelligence agency active against her own people wasn't anything but a path to tyranny.

To save us from the big bad boogy-man that is terrorism, why don't we all just submit to annual polygraph tests designed by a panel of appointed "experts" and administered by the CIA? "Oh sorry comrade, your test shows that you have hidden anti-government sentiments. Please head through that door to the waiting train for reeducation at a special Patriot's Camp."

Once the government made the decision to spy on the American people, they became, both in their minds and ours, our chosen rulers instead of our elected servants. This country has effectively become a revolving dictatorship chosen via a rigged popularity contest from within a well-connected oligarchy.

Jon

It doesn't take a lot of "mojo" to find interesting connections between different companies with boards of directors... there is a finite number of people with impressive credentials to serve on the boards of upper-tier tech-focused companies... and many serve on multiple boards.

Now... I'm certainly not a "TRUSTe apologist" and always appreciate when concerning issues are brought to light, especially regarding firms with which we've done business (in the past, we've canceled relationships with ad providers who have not operated ethically). But I think these concerns represent a significant stretch in an apparent effort to cast aspersions on ATS.

Originally posted by AncientMy Enemy
At first glance TRUSTe seems to be just another privacy protection agency without any links to the CIA.

The first issue is the misunderstanding of what TRUSTe is... they are not a "privacy protection agency" as they have no services or tools to actually protect your privacy online or offline. NetDuster is an example of a company that sells tools to manage your privacy online.

www.wired.com...

But Yahoo's recent announcement of sweeping changes in the way it will use customer data collected under previous policies has many calling Truste's seal as meaningless as an Andersen audit.

That's a six year old story. Much has happened since then.

That being said, the New York Times story came out after we initiated our first-contact and audit with TRUSTe, and is indeed a concern. Our rep did not disclose their intent to transition to "for-profit" at the time we initiated the near three-month long audit, nor did they disclose the information when the final approval and seal was completed. I discovered this on my own and expressed our extreme dissatisfaction with this surprise.


As for the interrelationships of companies and board members... not of this is a surprise as a result of the typical acquisitions and consolidation in the technology and Internet industries. And being on the board of a company doesn't necessarily mean an automatic deep connection. For example, Al Gore is a partner in the venture firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, spearheading green investments, while also on the Board of Apple Computer for a few years... but Apple has recently taken a lot of flack for not being green (and in some cases, terribly "un-green")... clearly Gore has not been able to influence Apple's environmental policies (until very recently as a result of the criticism).

However, it should be noted that In-Q-Tel is indeed a direct investor in many, many technology firms (including Facebook), and is a list too long for this post.


We've consistently been clear and forthright that we take the privacy of our members and visitors exceptionally seriously. The following things have always been part of our privacy-centric strategies:

(1) No server logs -- there are no logs to correlate a user's IP with the ATS content they visit.

(2) No data sharing -- we never have and never will share anything other than top-line demographics and traffic data with any company.

(3) Banner ads are served in iFrames -- this prevents a third party from attempting to log your IP to the content you visit without our knowledge (and this actually costs us some money as we could sell higher-paying ads if we allowed contextual targeting).

(4) No behavior monitoring -- even though, at our traffic level, we could significantly increase our advertising revenue potential by integrating with a "behavior monitoring & targeting firm," we've stayed far away from that. While their data collection is typically not personally identifying (now), it would involve installing third-party code on our pages that has the potential for intrusiveness.



About eighteen months ago, we decided that third-party certification of our privacy policies would be an appropriate step for a site such as us. We actually fielded several queries via our contact form over the years that suggested to us this would be a very-good idea. While it is rare that a non-e-commerce site would seek certification, we felt it would be important to allow our users to see confirmation that we not only have an excellent privacy policy, but that we're also serious about walking-the-walk.

At the time (and now) TRUSTe is the most widely accepted and recognized "seal of approval," and also has the most intensive and detailed audit. At no time did the audit involve monitoring ATS traffic, users, or server data of any kind... and no such activity is happening now as that's not what they do.

You can be assured that we've been monitoring the for-profit evolution of TRUSTe since it first came to light, and will factor heavily in our decision should we consider renewing our certification.

Originally posted by AncientMy Enemy
The risk isn't that TRUSTe can mine your data on sites that they certify,

That's a completely false statement with no basis in fact. And in reality, contradicts the very privacy policies they certify.

As has been stated previously (and apparently ignored), we share no data with anyone, and there is no code from TRUSTe installed on ATS.

Originally posted by nj2day
Apparently if you participate in Truste, they will routinely scan your site using Maxamine "to identify implementation problems that penalize performance, compromise customer experience, increase costs and introduce risks."

You misunderstand what this is, and the intent of it.

The scanning is purely a content scan no different than a search engine spider (we get near 75 of those every day). Their scan is looking for wording on our pages that would indicate our operational policies may be in non-compliance with our Privacy Policy. Also, they regularly scan our posted privacy policy for changes, and require re-certification if we make a change.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

That being said, the New York Times story came out after we initiated our first-contact and audit with TRUSTe, and is indeed a concern. Our rep did not disclose their intent to transition to "for-profit" at the time we initiated the near three-month long audit, nor did they disclose the information when the final approval and seal was completed. I discovered this on my own and expressed our extreme dissatisfaction with this surprise.

-------------

We've consistently been clear and forthright that we take the privacy of our members and visitors exceptionally seriously. The following things have always been part of our privacy-centric strategies:

1) you should have kicked them to the curb then and there for failing to disclose basic, relevant info which was about very important changes to their own ways ( for financial gain is in direct conflict with not for profit that you signed into)

then again maybe i am a bit of a jerk at times who doesnt take that sort of crapola' on the chin either.

2) i dont think anyone doubts your integrity or ATS's, and thats specifically why i think many are in doubt as to the need of such a seal in the first place.

Originally posted by Obliv_au
2) i dont think anyone doubts your integrity or ATS's, and thats specifically why i think many are in doubt as to the need of such a seal in the first place.

I appreciate that our members feel that way, but depending on what's happening in the news, each day we get between 50,000 and 80,000 people coming to ATS who have never been here before. Making the extra effort and expense to certify our privacy policies and practices shows an earnest intent to those potential new members.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by AncientMy Enemy
The risk isn't that TRUSTe can mine your data on sites that they certify,

That's a completely false statement with no basis in fact. And in reality, contradicts the very privacy policies they certify.

As has been stated previously (and apparently ignored), we share no data with anyone, and there is no code from TRUSTe installed on ATS.

You have taken my comment out of context, i was replying to nj2day who suggested that TRUSTe was data mining, i replied that the risk is not TRUSTe data mining but the fact that they are possibly certifying as safe companies owned by Accel or In-Q-Tel who no matter how you spin it do have connections to one another through various other companies and board members.
The reason why the CIA would be interested in having leverage in an Internet Privacy watchdog is obvious. They don.t need it for datamining, they need it to ensure that privacy invasion complaints regarding their operations are not processed or aired publically.
If the company involved was Trust Guard and not TRUSTe would you be defending them as vigourously?
I do understand your position and i am not suggesting any complicity by ATS at all, merely sharing knowledge regarding questionable alliances between technology firms and Venture capital firms and the CIA.
It is a concern that deserves to be discussed and debated by concerned individuals, meekly accepting intrusions into our rights is a step into dangerous territory imho.