4 ms·

I thought FB _is_ indirectly a CIA funded company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel

by cies 12y ago

CPLX 12y ago
The sourcing for that Wikipedia citation seems very thin: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10456534 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5... It's hardly implausible, but is there any better, clearer source of this assertion?
- falcolas 12y ago
  How about their own web page? > We identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and broader U.S. Intelligence Community. https://www.iqt.org/ https://www.iqt.org/
  - guava 12y ago
    I think the user was questioning the link between In-Q-Tel and Facebook (rather than In-Q-Tel and the CIA).
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - CPLX 12y ago
    I checked and don't see any reference to Facebook on their portfolio page. Is there a mention on this site that I missed? https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/ https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/
  - ctrl_freak 12y ago
    The question isn't whether In-Q-Tel supports the CIA. It's whether Facebook was funded by In-Q-Tel, and even the article that Wikipedia uses as a citation doesn't seem too sure how strong of a connection there is: > The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".
    - falcolas 12y ago
      Aah, yes, that's my mistake in reading. The connection does seem tenuous.
- eternalban 12y ago
  Common sense?
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    You mean the ingrained, often illogical set of biases everyone has as a matter of living? Nah. Objective, verifiable info, please.
    - eternalban 12y ago
      Common sense would indicate that it would be highly improbable for the military-industrial complex of USA to hand over something like the internet to the plebes without first thinking it through very carefully. I would not be surprised one bit if SRI had not gamed this panopticon to the n-th degree in the 70s before Al Gore "invented" it for us. [p.s. I can not reply to a follow-up so for the record, ARPANET was not an 'academic' exercise.]
      - c22 12y ago
        If anything, corporations co-opted the internet from (government funded) academia. Then the corporations handed the internet over to us plebes.
        psykovsky 12y ago
        Or that's what they want you to believe. Take your pick.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        (for future reference, you can reply to followups by following the link directly to the comment - click on the post time like "2 hours ago")
- pera 12y ago
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
  - sgustard 12y ago
    Article starts with "I despise Facebook." Aside from that possible bias, the best it asserts is that a partner at one of Facebook's VC investors is on the board of In-Q-Tel.
    - pera 12y ago
      Yes, exactly. The Guardian article talks about Howard Cox; from In-Q-Tel (https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/ https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/): > Howard Cox is an Advisory Partner of Greylock, a national venture capital firm. Greylock with committed capital of over $2 billion under management has been an active investor in enterprise software, consumer internet and healthcare. This is the closest connection I know between In-Q-Tel and Facebook, that's why I posted that link. (note that OP said "indirectly")
      - CPLX 12y ago
        > note that OP said "indirectly" The indirectly comment is referring to the CIA itself. Funding by IQT would thus be indirect versus funding by the CIA. The problem is there's no credible evidence of either, just fairly weak circumstantial stuff at best.
Bellyache5 12y ago
I remember someone from In-Q-Tel giving a presentation to one of my college classes. He explained that the company's name came from the desire to bring industry innovation to the US intelligence agencies; they are literally putting "Q" (the innovator/gadget guy in James Bond [1]) in "Intel". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28James_Bond%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28James_Bond%29
chatmasta 12y ago
Some more In-Q-Tel companies: - Connectify: virtual router to broadcast wifi. Sees all traffic. Positioned perfectly for MITM SSL stripping. Closed source. - FireEye (enterprise security) - Palantir Full list: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel (This also seems like a fun time to note that Witopia, a VPN provider lists its office address in a building occupied by multiple CIA subdivisions.) An apparent theme of In-Q-Tel investments is targeting security-related markets. Most consumers and small businesses cannot implement their own security, so they need to leverage the services of a security company, like one of In-Q-Tel's many investments. In-Q-Tel understands this need, and so do other investors. Security is hot right now. When consumers evaluate security companies, trust is becoming an increasingly important factor. After all, why purchase security services from someone you cannot trust? In-Q-Tel is a CIA fund. The "post-Snowden era" has damaged American's trust in government intelligence agencies like the CIA. With more Snowden/Greenwald leaks pending, trust will likely continue to erode. If Americans do not trust US intelligence agencies, why would they choose a security company funded by a US intelligence agency? One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to agree with the logic for purchasing a security product not funded by the CIA. Given this fact, it also seems natural to assume security companies will no longer seek investment from In-Q-Tel, given the presumably negative customer reception. For security companies, In-Q-Tel investment could become a negative signal to consumers, and therefore also to other investors. Will Intelligence agencies have trouble investing in winning security companies? What will be the repercussions for CIA investment strategy?
- Canada 12y ago
  I'm not sure it's always wise to trust or refuse to trust software based on its funding sources. Something not funded by In-Q-Tel can be bad, and another thing produced with In-Q-Tel investment might serve your needs well. We need more independent verification of actual software behavior, and better ways to manage it's behavior.
  - chatmasta 12y ago
    Yes, agreed. However it seems more likely a company funded by In-Q-Tel would cave to government pressure sooner than another. If a government entity directly funds you, then you do what it says or you may lose the funding. If I'm a security conscious consumer I would opt to skip the unnecessary risk of signing up for a security company on government payroll.
Kalium 12y ago
It's not widely known, but In-Q-Tel is a generic vehicle for government investment. It's run by the CIA, but used by parties all over government.

I thought FB _is_ indirectly a CIA funded company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel

by cies 12y ago

I thought FB _is_ indirectly a CIA funded company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel

CPLX 12y ago

The sourcing for that Wikipedia citation seems very thin: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10456534 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5... It's hardly implausible, but is there any better, clearer source of this assertion?

falcolas 12y ago
How about their own web page? > We identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and broader U.S. Intelligence Community. https://www.iqt.org/ https://www.iqt.org/
- guava 12y ago
  I think the user was questioning the link between In-Q-Tel and Facebook (rather than In-Q-Tel and the CIA).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- CPLX 12y ago
  I checked and don't see any reference to Facebook on their portfolio page. Is there a mention on this site that I missed? https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/ https://www.iqt.org/portfolio/
- ctrl_freak 12y ago
  The question isn't whether In-Q-Tel supports the CIA. It's whether Facebook was funded by In-Q-Tel, and even the article that Wikipedia uses as a citation doesn't seem too sure how strong of a connection there is: > The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".
  - falcolas 12y ago
    Aah, yes, that's my mistake in reading. The connection does seem tenuous.
eternalban 12y ago
Common sense?
- Karunamon 12y ago
  You mean the ingrained, often illogical set of biases everyone has as a matter of living? Nah. Objective, verifiable info, please.
  - eternalban 12y ago
    Common sense would indicate that it would be highly improbable for the military-industrial complex of USA to hand over something like the internet to the plebes without first thinking it through very carefully. I would not be surprised one bit if SRI had not gamed this panopticon to the n-th degree in the 70s before Al Gore "invented" it for us. [p.s. I can not reply to a follow-up so for the record, ARPANET was not an 'academic' exercise.]
    - c22 12y ago
      If anything, corporations co-opted the internet from (government funded) academia. Then the corporations handed the internet over to us plebes.
      - psykovsky 12y ago
        Or that's what they want you to believe. Take your pick.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      (for future reference, you can reply to followups by following the link directly to the comment - click on the post time like "2 hours ago")
pera 12y ago
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
- sgustard 12y ago
  Article starts with "I despise Facebook." Aside from that possible bias, the best it asserts is that a partner at one of Facebook's VC investors is on the board of In-Q-Tel.
  - pera 12y ago
    Yes, exactly. The Guardian article talks about Howard Cox; from In-Q-Tel (https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/ https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/): > Howard Cox is an Advisory Partner of Greylock, a national venture capital firm. Greylock with committed capital of over $2 billion under management has been an active investor in enterprise software, consumer internet and healthcare. This is the closest connection I know between In-Q-Tel and Facebook, that's why I posted that link. (note that OP said "indirectly")
    - CPLX 12y ago
      > note that OP said "indirectly" The indirectly comment is referring to the CIA itself. Funding by IQT would thus be indirect versus funding by the CIA. The problem is there's no credible evidence of either, just fairly weak circumstantial stuff at best.

Bellyache5 12y ago

I remember someone from In-Q-Tel giving a presentation to one of my college classes. He explained that the company's name came from the desire to bring industry innovation to the US intelligence agencies; they are literally putting "Q" (the innovator/gadget guy in James Bond [1]) in "Intel". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28James_Bond%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_%28James_Bond%29

chatmasta 12y ago

Some more In-Q-Tel companies: - Connectify: virtual router to broadcast wifi. Sees all traffic. Positioned perfectly for MITM SSL stripping. Closed source. - FireEye (enterprise security) - Palantir Full list: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel (This also seems like a fun time to note that Witopia, a VPN provider lists its office address in a building occupied by multiple CIA subdivisions.) An apparent theme of In-Q-Tel investments is targeting security-related markets. Most consumers and small businesses cannot implement their own security, so they need to leverage the services of a security company, like one of In-Q-Tel's many investments. In-Q-Tel understands this need, and so do other investors. Security is hot right now. When consumers evaluate security companies, trust is becoming an increasingly important factor. After all, why purchase security services from someone you cannot trust? In-Q-Tel is a CIA fund. The "post-Snowden era" has damaged American's trust in government intelligence agencies like the CIA. With more Snowden/Greenwald leaks pending, trust will likely continue to erode. If Americans do not trust US intelligence agencies, why would they choose a security company funded by a US intelligence agency? One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to agree with the logic for purchasing a security product not funded by the CIA. Given this fact, it also seems natural to assume security companies will no longer seek investment from In-Q-Tel, given the presumably negative customer reception. For security companies, In-Q-Tel investment could become a negative signal to consumers, and therefore also to other investors. Will Intelligence agencies have trouble investing in winning security companies? What will be the repercussions for CIA investment strategy?

Canada 12y ago
I'm not sure it's always wise to trust or refuse to trust software based on its funding sources. Something not funded by In-Q-Tel can be bad, and another thing produced with In-Q-Tel investment might serve your needs well. We need more independent verification of actual software behavior, and better ways to manage it's behavior.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  Yes, agreed. However it seems more likely a company funded by In-Q-Tel would cave to government pressure sooner than another. If a government entity directly funds you, then you do what it says or you may lose the funding. If I'm a security conscious consumer I would opt to skip the unnecessary risk of signing up for a security company on government payroll.

Kalium 12y ago

It's not widely known, but In-Q-Tel is a generic vehicle for government investment. It's run by the CIA, but used by parties all over government.