It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The CIA linked to Internet Privacy Watchdog

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by AncientMy Enemy
The reason why the CIA would be interested in having leverage in an Internet Privacy watchdog is obvious.

Firstly, your evidence of any potential intelligence involvement in TRUSTe is exceptionally slim, and limited to one person (James Breyer) with professional-level connections to someone else involved in In-Q-Tel.

Four years ago, I once hired a senior expert with whom I worked with closely on technology for a major project for an online brokerage house. He eventually left to head up technology for a notorious "rewards" firm that tricks people into buying memberships when they purchase products from major online retailers. (you know the type, you buy airline tickets somewhere, and are inundated with faux-confirmation buttons that sign you up for membership in travel clubs and bill your credit card $10 a month) The firm began spamming via email and was eventually was hit with several federal indictments for a number of fraudulent practices and is now out of business. Does my connection with him, which was close and daily, make me a fraudulent spammer?

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.

TRUSTe has no ability to burry privacy complaints, they intermediate potential privacy violations and determine if a violation exists (from their point of view). They cannot prevent public airing of privacy concerns, and certainly have no ability to block criminal privacy policy violations (which are a serious matter in 42 US states). You seem to still misunderstand the role of TRUSTe in online privacy matters.

If the company involved was Trust Guard and not TRUSTe would you be defending them as vigourously?

I'm not defending, I'm correcting misconceptions about both TRUSTe, and typical professional connections within the upper-tiers of the technology industry. We reviewed Trust Guard, but determined that their programs were much more tailored to online retailers and transactional websites than TRUSTe. For the kind of site ATS is, TRUSTe provided the most comprehensive overall audit, privacy policy input, and ongoing review.

merely sharing knowledge regarding questionable alliances between technology firms and Venture capital firms and the CIA.

In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital arm, is like any tech-focused venture capital outfit, they fire their shotgun of money at a collection of companies (in the case of In-Q-Tel, a great many companies) in the hopes that a few pellets hit a good target.

The motivations for intelligence agency funding of technology firms will be as broad as the motivations for private sector investment...
--- make money
--- invest in interesting technology
--- ensure important technology survives
--- support technology that may not have a viable market sector
--- support technology that may provide benefit to national security
--- have influence into technology development for national security
--- have an inside track into important technology & communications

After decades of conspiracy theory speculation and research, we pragmatically know that the vast majority of people working for the intelligence agencies are good people believing their doing good work. And as such, we can surmise that a significant percentage of these types of agency-sponsored investments in public sector companies are with a benign intent.

However, that smaller percentage of intelligence people engaged in unconstitutional and illegal acts, and investments with improper intent are what gives us fuel for deep concern. Certainly we need to watch closely, but we also need to maintain a smart pragmatism that prevents misleading knee-jerk reactions before all data is apparent.

In the scheme of things... which is worse...

(1) A solid and multi-sourced CIA connection in the world's largest social network, which has indeed failed several privacy tests?


(2) A tenuous and difficult to confirm possible CIA connection to a firm that does nothing more (for now) than review and certify privacy policies?

meekly accepting intrusions into our rights is a step into dangerous territory imho.

Which intrusions are you referring to as part of this particular discussion?

posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Only access the web using anonymizing technologies, and when you can combine a few, TOR and a number of proxies/shells at the minimum, only post anonymously, never put anything at all that can identify you on any site, never join any site. These things can never be perfect, but the more people that do it, the harder it is for them to install their control grid.

And why would I be taking this advice from an anonymous user?

Do you have any credibility for your posts?

I mean you just post 'anonyously' using an ATS moniker that gives your IP address to ATS, and you call that anonymous surfing?

Why would I or anybody take your advice when you yourself are not doing what you preach?


posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by spacebagel

i think by "use anonymisers" they mean to use proxy servers which hide your real ip.

its kinda like regularly switching rego' plates on your car around so nobody ever see's your real rego plate number

[edit on 6/11/08 by Obliv_au]

<< 1  2   >>

log in