Print 45 comment(s) - last by heulenwolf.. on Nov 7 at 8:07 PM

Could Google be a spook?
Is Google's quest to manage the world's information leading straight to the CIA?

Former CIA clandestine case officer Robert David Steele made some very hot comments on his appearance on the Alex Jones radio show. Steele cites his contacts within the agency with the information that Google and the CIA are involved with one another.

Steele said, "I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off."

In reference to Google's fight against the U.S. Department of Justice for the privacy of its users, Steele claims that it was an elaborate charade intended for the public eye.

"Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," concluded Steele.

From reports, Steele did not bring evidence to light in order to back up his claims, and neither Google nor the CIA are yet commenting on the matter.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who cares?
By montgom on 10/31/2006 5:58:04 PM , Rating: 5
Big deal, who cares? Anyone who thinks there time on the net is "private" is simply not using their entire brain.

RE: Who cares?
By creathir on 10/31/06, Rating: 0
RE: Who cares?
By UserDoesNotExist on 10/31/2006 6:45:44 PM , Rating: 3
I couldn't agree more with OP, both of them.

Although, anyone else a little suspicious of the source? And aren't the third and fourth paragraph contradictory? ("It was an elaborate ruse", followed by "Google was hypocritical by refusing to cooperate." If it was a ruse, how could they be hypocrites?)

RE: Who cares?
By OddTSi on 10/31/2006 6:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Unless the website you're at requires a log-in and uses HTTPS then you can't argue that you have an expectation of privacy.

RE: Who cares?
By hubajube on 10/31/2006 7:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Big deal, who cares?
I agree 100%. Who gives a rats ass!

RE: Who cares?
By Bonrock on 10/31/2006 11:16:24 PM , Rating: 5
Why should you care about your privacy on the Internet? Because one day in the not-so-distant future, you might be denied a job because the company you applied to talked to Google and found out that you did a lot of searches related to bestiality when you were 16.

RE: Who cares?
By cplusplus on 11/1/2006 2:18:22 AM , Rating: 4
Then do your bestiality searches in a public computer lab like a normal person.

RE: Who cares?
By dice1111 on 11/1/2006 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 5
He was making a hypothetical statement and I agree with it. I believe what happens in the home behind closed doors is no ones business but our own. As soon as we develop a callous attitude towards this subject we start allowing the government the freedom to snoop on us completely and we give up our freedom. I think some people need to read 1984 by George Orwell again.

RE: Who cares?
By OddTSi on 11/1/2006 12:33:51 PM , Rating: 1
I think this is where the confusion comes in for most people. They think that because they are most often inside their home when they are on the internet that what they're doing is private. But you have to realize that the internet, although virtual, is a public place and you have no expectation of privacy when you're in a public place.

As I said above, unless the website you're using requires a log-in and uses HTTPS then you have no expectation of privacy.

RE: Who cares?
By Wwhat on 11/2/2006 1:16:31 AM , Rating: 2
I see you don't mention privacy statements made on sites, how about expecting them to honor that?
And now about you stand on the street talking to a friend and a third person comes stand next to you and takes notes? would you not expect people to not do that? even in a public place.
And how about international agreements regarding privacy?

RE: Who cares?
By Thogek on 11/1/2006 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
"I believe what happens in the home behind closed doors is no ones business but our own."

A true enough statement by itself, but not applicable here, due to the simple reality of what happens when a person uses an Internet service such as Google.

When do sit at your computer at home and perform a Google search, you are sending messages from your computer and home, across the Internet, to Google, requesting that Google perform a search for you on the keywords that you send in the request. You may very well have stayed behind closed doors in your home, but your search request has not, as you sent it out to Google in hopes of getting a response.

This is part of a fundamental misunderstanding that many have about how the Internet works. Until it is clearer to most users of the Internet, we're going to get all sorts of nonsensicle assertations about people's absolute expectations of privacy of information that they've sent out over the unsecure Internet.

RE: Who cares?
By gordypordy on 11/1/2006 12:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
By cplusplus on 11/1/2006 2:18:22 AM , Rating: 2

Then do your bestiality searches in a public computer lab like a normal person.


Honestly, this is a hoot, rofl.... best advice ever.
Obviously an experienced internet user, and possibly one who works for the CIA, lol !!

RE: Who cares?
By azskys on 11/2/2006 2:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you - the future consequences are what some people fail to grasp. I use this site that is similar to Google:

They have a page that explains what they're attempting to provide for their users. And believe me - they are not big fans of Google!

RE: Who cares?
By someguy23 on 11/4/2006 2:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares? I do, and here's why:

People constantly go on about the glory of the free market and our wonderful capitalist economy while ignoring the blatant evidence to the contrary -- we have government institutions interacting at deep levels with our most lauded 'free market' corporate interests, we have DoD and In-Q-Tel money (i.e. tax revenue, people ... public funds) pouring into private outfits in the guise of 'investment' ... it's ridiculous to pretend anymore that this is the kind of thing Adam Smith wrote about, folks.

This phenomenon is getting to absurd levels. It is a serious issue for everyone to consider that we are losing, here and now, the delineation between these companies and government spies and institutional powers that be. When consumer choice shrinks and the remaining corporations are influenced by the officialdom and spies, how does this keep us free exactly?

RE: Who cares?
By shabazkilla on 11/7/2006 7:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
And if you're dumb enough to google "secret Al Qaeda meeting spots in november" than you deserve to get shit hammered by the CIA.

The CIA doesn't give a shit about you looking for a russian bride on Google, you're not that important.

Rampant Speculation
By ZmaxDP on 10/31/2006 10:53:19 PM , Rating: 5
I love the rampant speculation on this particular topic. Just so everyone knows, Alex Jones is the conspiracy theorist to put all others to shame. If a gnat farted in India he would assume that the New World Order had orchestrated it to cause global climate changes and re-shape the power structures of the entire universe. Pretty much anyone he asks on his show is of a similar ilk. So, unless you are also of a similar ilk, you can pretty much disregard everything that was said. Seriously. Everything.

That being said, even if it was true (that google had some involvement with the CIA) we have no clue from the "report" what that involvement is. The CIA might be asking Google to develop a search engine to help them hunt down terrorists, or track child pornographers, etc.. Or, they might be letting the CIA filter all their data searching for terrorists and child pornographers. The former would be perfectly fine with me. Who better to do it. The latter would be highly illegal and disturbing. Do we know? No. So what's with the jumping to conclusions and Google bashing? At least admit that the article is highly inconclusive and amazingly vague.

RE: Rampant Speculation
By guru on 11/1/2006 1:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
Still it was Robert Steele that made the statement. He used to be "the best CIA had" when he worked for the organization. And to be fair, he has revealed other things about the CIA.

If this were true it wouldn't exactly come as an surprise since the CIA has a well known history of similar (or much worse) things.

RE: Rampant Speculation
By gordypordy on 11/1/06, Rating: 0
RE: Rampant Speculation
By Wwhat on 11/2/2006 1:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
Funny you mention a movie in which the conspiracy theorist was right, and he was right to try do something about it too.

RE: Rampant Speculation
By someguy23 on 11/4/2006 2:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
The CIA would NOT be involved in child pornography investigation. That would be the FBI. Nice try though.

The CIA is an intelligence agency, not a law enforcement agency. Do some homework, Mr. "You Can Disregard Everything".

BASICS of Journalism
By crystal clear on 11/1/2006 2:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
"From reports, Steele did not bring evidence to light in order to back up his claims, "

Unquote- Then how do you(the author of this article) expect
us the readers to believe this story.
There is not a shred of evidence to back up his claims,no
journalist of repute would even bother to hear such a story,
let alone PUBLISH IT.
Google could drag you to court,for bringing them into disrepute for publishing such a story.

I am quite sure the CIA forbids its current & ex employees from speaking/writing/publishing anything about their years in
employment with the agency.Their work contract clearly
forbids them to reveal any information,that they had access
to.There is something called SECRECY.

RE: BASICS of Journalism
By KashGarinn on 11/1/2006 3:45:51 AM , Rating: 4
I think you confuse what you think is news with what is news.

The fact an ex-CIA agent of repute alerts the public of a covert cooperation between the CIA and Google is news in and of itself.

The fact he has no substantial evidence to back it up is irrelevant to the news itself.

Regarding the legitimacy of the claim, you can debate whether he is a liar.. or telling the truth as it concerns the greater good of the public, and how the 'do no evil' bullshit from google is just that.. bullshit.

So regarding the legitimacy of your claim against this CIA-agent, I'd tell you to shut up unless you have proof that he is lying.

RE: BASICS of Journalism
By crystal clear on 11/1/2006 9:42:53 AM , Rating: 1
"covert cooperation between the CIA and Google is news in and of itself."
My response-
This news first appeared in FEB 2006 ,8 months ago .
It’s NO big news now, when it wasn’t then.

"unless you have proof that he is lying."
My response-
You neither have proof that he is telling the TRUTH.
You neither have proof that there is a Google/CIA cooperation.
Infact NOBODY has proof/evidence to accuse Google of such


"The fact he has no substantial evidence to back it up is irrelevant to the news itself. "

My response-
You cannot ACCUSE somebody of doing something wrong without
evidence to back up-ITS ILLEGAL & THE NEWS ITSELF IS IRRELVANT worth its place in the garbage can.

I am not a google hater like you nor a Google fan.

RE: BASICS of Journalism
By Wwhat on 11/2/2006 1:22:18 AM , Rating: 3

Uhm, congress and bush say otherwise nowadays

The truth is simple
By rupaniii on 10/31/2006 7:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
You can measure the level of truth of the statement by how long after the event,within 9 months, that the person dies in a mysterious way or by vehicular wreck ( I say vehicular to cover anything that is a mode of transport, including tricycle).

RE: The truth is simple
By feelingshorter on 10/31/2006 8:15:37 PM , Rating: 3
If a person disappears, and so does everyone else that knows him, did he ever exist? If a tree... Look, they can make a mask, and have an actor pretend to be you. Then they quit your job and everything. Then you disappear. Who would know?

RE: The truth is simple
By Wwhat on 11/2/2006 1:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
Hell of a mask and actor that can convince co-workers and relatives.

Why would CIA bother?
By lennylim on 10/31/2006 5:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Why would CIA bother?
By nunya on 11/1/2006 2:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link, that was some interesting reading.

RE: Why would CIA bother?
By someguy23 on 11/4/2006 2:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
Because ECHELON is old, that's why.

By Xietsu on 10/31/2006 6:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Man I always held onto the surmising that Google was federally aligned. =/ Sadly, it's true. =O

RE: Suspicion
By hubajube on 10/31/2006 7:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T is "federally aligned" and so are a shitload of other companies. What are you going to do about that?

RE: Suspicion
By hiscross on 10/31/2006 8:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
They bought some Google search boxes...OOOOHHH I'm scared.

By heulenwolf on 11/1/2006 10:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see the issue here. If we know these two things:
1) Terrorists are using web pages to communicate propaganda and orchestrate attacks
2) Google stores an entire copy of the internet which is constantly updated on their servers
...why wouldn't we want the CIA to have access to Google's resources? Since the accuser didn't specify anything about the nature of the alleged alliance between Google and the CIA, I'd guess that the CIA is simply trying to find terrorists faster if the alliance actually exists. Sorry guys, but I doubt the CIA cares about whether you prefer sheep (unless you're applying for a job there;).

Imagine if the story had, instead, been reported that the CIA was duplicating Google's efforts by storing their own copy of the internet on hundreds of thousands of computers - as Google does - and attempting to redo all of Google's work in indexing it cleverly and optimizing code for fast searches and caching and reliability, everyone would be complaining that its a waste of our tax dollars: they should just get it from Google.

By Wwhat on 11/2/2006 1:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
Google's job is NOT being cop. the cops are the cops, companies are companies.
Also google is international, and they agreed to certain EU/international rules too.
Also one man's terrorist is another man's freedomfighter, even inside america.
The republicans are slowly starting to call anybody that is democrat terrorist right now, where will that end? the twerp in the whitehouse has a long time to go yet.

By heulenwolf on 11/7/2006 8:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
Google is a business which can define its job however it likes. If they would like to sell their services to the US government, that's their right.

In response to the American Freedomfighter comment, every American had their chance to make a difference today by casting their votes on a whole range of local, state, and national issues. If elections don't happen enough for you, call the private media. They will actively help you investigate and expose whatever injustice you have to point out, especially if it has to do with the CIA operating inside the US which is a violation of its charter.

Replace "Google" With MSN
By osalcido on 11/1/2006 1:45:16 AM , Rating: 5
and all the google fan boys here would be screaming at the top of their lungs and foaming at the mouth

By daftrok on 10/31/2006 5:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure other companies are involved. Frankly I detest this from happening but it is, in essence, unavoidable. Every time you go to a site you are giving information to some extent, so either don't use the internet ever or just deal with it and don't do naughty things.

By RogueSpear on 11/1/2006 8:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I always felt the possibility that there was some kind of working relationship between the spooks and several tech companies. The two that always come to mind first are Google and Cisco. They've each collaborated with China in order to stifle the Internet and enable easy monitoring. So I always figured that perhaps there were some backdoors thrown in the package.

Google no more...
By jonmcc33 on 10/31/2006 10:47:14 PM , Rating: 3
Do you Yahoo?

doesn't shock me.
By MightyAA on 10/31/2006 6:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you're looking to develop (CIA research and technology) an engine for searching the internet for threats... who better to consult than google?

Google's new motto
By InternetGeek on 11/1/2006 10:09:10 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be evil, unless it's necessary for the greater good.

Ohhh nos!!!!!
By Lazarus Dark on 11/1/2006 11:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
Not my googles! nevar! tehy are da angels and loves us and all the worlds and dont cares about money and tehy will brings world peace!!!!!!!!!

/end sarcastic fanboism

By Chris Peredun on 11/1/2006 3:54:36 PM , Rating: 2

I for one, welcome our bandwidth-eroding, server-melting overlords.

Don't be evil
By Rage187 on 10/31/2006 7:12:36 PM , Rating: 1
Why would you have to be evil when you have the CIA on your side.

"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki