C.I.A. Venture Capital, The Internet And You

In-Q-Tel's multiple investments spread across a wide range of technology companies.

Click below for the secret message!

I have a myspace page for music, a couple of photo site accounts and this blog, so my internet privacy is already hopelessly compromised. I made these choices knowing big-brother style monitoring - either for commercial/marketing gain or something more devious - was going on. But I’ve refrained from joining Facebook or any other social networking sites.

Aside from being basically anti-social, it's knowing that Congress - via the Patriot Act - gave up so many citizen privacy protections that tells me to keep a low profile. That doesn't seem to bother millions of Americans, though. That's why this recent press release was an attention-grabber.

Visible Technologies - a “social media monitoring” company - has joined up with In-Q-Tel to “listen” to consumers across a broad range of internet social networks. From the attached press release, highlights are mine:

“In-Q-Tel is the not-for-profit, strategic investment firm that works to identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the mission of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Launched by the CIA in 1999 as a private, independent organization, In-Q-Tel’s mission is to identify and partner with companies developing cutting-edge technologies that serve the national security interests of the United States.”
http://es-es.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=161002463047&comments&ref=mf

Our tax dollars at work – spying on us! If you've got a good surveillance idea, the C.I.A.'s In-Q-Tel has got the start-up dough! I know Facebook has a pretty wide-ranging “we can do what we want with your stuff for as long as we want, and give/sell your info to pretty much anybody - especially law enforcement” terms of service agreement – I don’t know much about any others. but all that fine print detail is just a few clicks away on the internet.

Myself, I think I’ll preserve whatever privacy I have left from the CIA’s investment firm as best I can. Although who's to say this blog entry isn't being read by deeply-hidden lurkers right now?

Here is the Visible Technologies website:
http://www.visibletechnologies.com/

Here is the In-Q-Tel website – I enjoyed the FAQ section on “Submitting A Business Plan” – hey, the CIA’s got unlimited venture capital:
http://www.iqt.org/

And two items in the “just for grins” department:

ISS: Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Criminal Investigations and Intelligence Gathering
Check out this online security company’s conference agenda from last month. Clicking into the specific program topics is an eye-opening experience. While much of what’s being discussed here is lawful – meaning we’ve allowed the creation of laws to enable this sort of electronic monitoring – the scale is troubling. Not to mention the ongoing revolving door of lawmaking, policing, and surveillance/security equipment private enterprise that financially enriches all its participants.
http://www.issworldtraining.com/ISS_WASH/

And here's an ISS tidbit that just dropped: Sprint fielded 8 million law enforcement information requests over the last year!
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/surveillance-shocker-sprint-received-8-million-law

And the Department of Defense is staging an internet treasure hunt! Only it’s not all fun and games :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/04/darpa-balloon-challenge

Letters To Washington

A copy of a letter sent to Representative Ed Perlmutter, my congressional district representative, on 12/2/09:

Representative Perlmutter:

I urge you to help stop this madness of ever-escalating war and empire in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more soldiers have to die before you and your Congressional colleagues begin to shut down these wars of occupation?

How many more soldier's families have to suffer the loss or injury of a loved one? How many more innocent civilians have to die in Afghanistan? How much more money has to be spent, lining the pockets of multi-million dollar private contractors as they build the infrastructure to house the US military for a long-term presence in the region?

How can a Democratic majority, elected in 2006 to both houses with a mandate to end the wars, continue to vote to expand them instead? How can our country absorb the incredible financial, physical and psychological costs that endless wars bring? How do you think we'll manage it - I'm interested in your view, since you have repeatedly voted to continue these wars.

And as soon as someone in the government can tell me how Al-Qaeda was responsible for the destruction of World Trade Center 7 on September 11, 2001 - well, then maybe the other flimsy rationales offered by the President for expanding the wars will make sense.

Stand up and be counted on the side of sanity and peace, Mr. Perlmutter. The President's twisting of words to explain this "surge" is as dumbfounding and insulting as any mangling of the language used by Mr. Bush. Do not blindly support the President because he is a Democrat.

There are resolutions before the House now to stop funding this war - H.R. 3699 from Representative Barbara Lee is one such measure and I hope you will co-sign and champion it. The House has the power to stop the killing - please use it!

If not, I'd like to know how you sleep at night, knowing you have a direct hand in meting out unnecessary death and destruction that will affect - and haunt - generations of Americans, Afghans and Iraqis.

Same Old Story: But Now It's The Nobel Peace Prize Winner Who's Expanding The Wars

I would like to think I'll be able to retire this picture someday...but someday is not today.

I'm getting really tired of writing about the wars, but they keep going on, keep getting bigger, keep getting more and more of our tax dollars to pound down a Middle Eastern sinkhole. Except for the dollars that enrich the hundreds of thousands of private contractors and energy company operators.

That's why these wars will never end - too many people making too much money at the expense of soldiers and their families lives, and citizen tax dollars fuel the enterprise.

President Obama's speech on December 1st outlined his new plan to "surge" 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Yes, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is fulfilling his campaign promise to expand the US military presence in Afghanistan and continue the wars. Will Congress fight back this time?

They did not fight back against the Bush Administration war machine, even though by 2006 the Congressional Democrats could have severely hindered if not outright stopped the free-flowing money spigot required for endless war. So if they wouldn't stop their Republican political opponents, does anyone think they will stop their own party's leader?

A colleague at work told me of a Thanksgiving holiday encounter with a military officer relative just returned from a lengthy tour of duty in Iraq. "He says it's a joke over there" was the quote, and he recounted several examples related to him of excessive resource waste, luxury building materials, and unrestricted budgets available for the officer's duties. I urged him to watch Robert Greenwald's movie "Iraq For Sale" to get even more details. (http://iraqforsale.org/)

I think most people have the idea things in Iraq and Afghanistan are much different than they are portrayed in the American media. More folks need to understand that, and start hounding their congressional representatives to stop this fiscal/military madness. It's the only way this particular folly of empire can be halted.

Some other notable reactions:

From Cindy Sheehan, pointedly dead-on in her analysis, as usual - "You Get What You Vote For": http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24089.htm

Blogger Arthur Silber expertly analyzes between the lines of the President's speech, pointing out that Obama has effectively gutted the anti-war movement, leaving an open field to continue the Bush Adminstration's war machine:

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html

And Representative Dennis Kucinich uses just a few words to skewer the President's war plan - "What part of 'get out' do we not understand?"
http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=157597

Free "Continental" Breakfast

So I'm checking out various web sites to procure a hotel room in Middle America. I've done this dozens of times over the years. A pretty standard added-value incentive at these establishments is a free continental breakfast.

This time I thought to ask the question: Which continent?

I understand that the term originated in the U.K. and referred to a menu that might be found on the "continent", meaning Europe.

But there are other continents, right? Am I getting an Australian breakfast, or an African one? Asia or South America? Lots of different cultures, with wildly varying menus, reside on these large islands jutting out of our ocean-dominated planet.

Maybe American hotel chains should experiment with breakfast and tie it in with other current corporate crazes like "outsourcing" jobs to other countries and the "global market." How about if a Holiday Inn in Topeka, Kansas served an Egyptian-flavored "continental" breakfast? Surprised travelers would enter that cozy little counter top kitchen/dining room and take in the pleasant aroma of slow-cooked fava beans, accented with lemons, olive oil and garlic. Just the thing to get you St. Louis by lunch!

Or how about a Ramada Inn in Boise, Idaho surprising guests with a top-of-the-morning meal from Ecuador: strong black coffee, hard cheese and fried plantains. Elvis Presley had a weak spot for deep fried anything, so he'd be happy.

Anyway, just wondering...

Obama Says "More Transparency" - While Gates Says "Except When It Comes To Torture Evidence"

You cannot make this stuff up.

On the one hand, you've got the President, traveling to foreign lands and sounding that all-American call for transparency and open government. On the other hand, you've got the President's Department of Defense fighting for just the opposite - less visibility and blocking open government.

President Obama is visiting China and telling folks there that open communication and freedom of speech is a good thing. Meanwhile, back home in Washington, D.C., his administration is filing Supreme Court motions to block the publication of photos sought under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

President Obama's remarks at a "town hall" meeting in China, according to an Associated Press report, included a statement that said unfettered access to information "should be available to all people."

(The article also reports the President as saying "We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation." I'm wondering how the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan are reacting to that statement?)http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD9C0GJ400

Unfortunately, unfettered access to information is just what the Defense Department does not want. Thanks to a compliant Congress and President Obama's signature - which passed a law circumventing the FOIA for just this circumstance - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has barred the release of 21 photos showing American soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi detainees.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/15/scotus.detainee.photos/index.html

According to press reports, the Obama administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court late Friday supporting Gates' blocking the release of the photos. The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking publication of the photos, and promises to keep working towards that end.

President Obama had initially indicated he would not stop the release of the photos, many taken at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison by soldiers in charge of prisoners. But he later reversed course and supported suppression of the documents.

So Mr. President, which is it? Freedom of information for all citizens is good for the Chinese, but not so much for Americans? How can you urge other countries to practice transparency and open dissemination of information while simultaneously shielding documents proving evidence of government law-breaking from publication at home?

How do these guys stand up on the world stage and say this stuff with a straight face?

Read The Fine Print

An Associated Press story this morning says that President Obama is dissatisfied with the options given him for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and wants changes. But there's some fine print that didn't make the headlines.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20091109/US.US.Afghanistan/

As usual, "the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations."

Unfortunately, these same officials were also the source of these remarks (the highlights are mine):

"Obama is still expected to send in more troops to bolster a deteriorating war effort."

"The sense that he was being rushed and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options...though a substantial troop increase is still likely."

"The White House says Obama has not made a final (plan) choice...(but) he appears near to approving a slightly smaller increase than (General) McChrystal wants at the outset."

Make no mistake, it's a good thing to talk about dissatisfaction with the Afghan War, and it's good to have that story coming out of the White House. It would really be something to draw down troops and leave. That is obviously not happening. Read the fine print.

President Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises to expand the war in Afghanistan. Even as unnamed administration sources seek to paint a different picture.

Yes, the president is saying, we'll send more troops. But I will complain grumpily while signing the authorization. And yes, I'm in charge.

And finally, this statement:

"He remains close to announcing his revamped war strategy - troops are just one component..."

The troops are also the component that is on the ground, shooting and returning fire, killing and dying. How many more Afghans and Americans will die as the USA "revamps" its destructive strategy? That fine print is deadly.

Talk is cheap. Scarring and ending thousands of lives carry the highest costs imaginable.

Kucinich Votes "No" On Health Care Reform

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the sponsor of HR 676, the Single-Payer health care reform measure that was roundly ignored or denigrated by the mainstream media and corporate lobbyists.

Kucinich is one of the Democrats who voted against the recently passed House health care reform bill (H.R. 3962), and not because of the silly, ignorant reasons given by many legislators who also voted "no" - rationales like "government takeover", "socialism", "bureaucrats making decisions instead of individuals", etc. He voted "no" because H.R. 3962 does little to help citizens while further entrenching and enriching the insurance companies who want to continue the uniquely American system of health-care-for-profit.

Essential reading: here's Mr. Kucinich's reasons for voting against this "reform."

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995

And while you're there, take in Mr. Kucinich's excellent short article pondering the question "Why do we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war?" As he says in the article: "...a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

http://www.kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153461

ACTA - More Control Over The Internet?

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an international treaty proposing global regulations on internet content, with a specific emphasis on new enforcement mechanisms pertaining to copyrighted materials. This has been a little under the radar for many (including myself), but there are lots of documents available on the web with info.

This is a news flash coming out of the latest round of apparently closed-door negotiations taking place in Seoul, South Korea this week. Was it just the opening salvo when music conglomerates started suing moms and college students for downloading? According to this article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it’s the punitive model of “three strikes and you’re out” for copyright infringement - to be enforced by internet providers:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/11/leaked-acta-internet-provisions-three-strikes-and

EFF filed suit against the government, asking for release of papers/documents pertaining to US participation in ACTA – the Obama Administration cited “national security” concerns as the reason to deny public distribution, the judge ruled in the government’s favor and the lawsuit died:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/06/17

This May 2008 article from Intellectual Property Watch details some of the criticism of ACTA provisions from other countries:
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/05/30/embattled-acta-negotiations-next-week-in-geneva-us-sees-signing-this-year/

From the Wiki article on ACTA: “Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies.”

"National security" and seeking out ways to circumvent legislators - what a world. I cannot predict how the U.S. Senate might vote on an ACTA treaty as outlined today. But given that august body's history on bowing down to corporate money, rest assured that it will take a concerted public effort to make sure any fairness in analysis is achieved.

President Obama: Trying To Make The Future Safe For More Guys Like This! Guys Who Can't Remember Things!

(Insert name of your favorite villain/evil-doer/boogeyman here)

While on the campaign trail, Senator Obama spoke eloquently and vigorously about the Bush Administration's use of dubious legal standards - including a wide-ranging "state secrets" blanket - to shield its activities from the press and public.

Unfortunately, President Obama's Department Of Justice has picked up defending these constitutional violations right where the Bush Administration left off. Various legal cases seeking to eliminate the veils of secrecy are being battled in court, and the current DOJ keeps fighting to maintain the Bush-era stances. You can read Glen Greenwald's cogent summation of the current situation here:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/01/state_secrets/index.html

Okay, so using Dick Cheney's photo is a cheap way to sell this post - after all, Dick, W and their pals were the enemy many could agree on and hiss continually without fear.

Fortunately, verification that Cheney is indeed a bad guy keeps coming out. Apparently the memory portion of his brain contains holes like swiss cheese - he cannot remember things. Important things, like who was in a position to manipulate the press with fake Iraqi WMD claims, or who might have known the identity of a certain undercover CIA agent.

But now that a previously secret FBI interview summation has been made public - via court order - we can see that Mr. Cheney's memory lapses coincide remarkably with grand jury testimony from his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby. Libby verifies orders from his boss to divulge classified intelligence documents to a New York Times reporter; the then-Vice President cannot recollect any such discussion. Libby, under oath, recalls the time when Cheney told him the identity of a CIA agent who happened to be married to a man the VP characterized as "an aggravation"; Dick, pausing for a moment, tapping his fingers on a desk while his eyes scan the ceiling - sorry, he has no recollection. Okay, I used a little dramatic license there, but it's easy to imagine!

There's a lot more, and you can read it here: http://www.truthout.org/1031099.

Make sure and check out a scan of the actual FBI document, where you can see the numerous variations of "I cannot recall":
http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/20091030%20-%20Cheney%20302%20(redacted).pdf.

It's a chilling read, understanding that this is but one episode in the lawless, power-hungry, and ultimately bloody actions of the Bush Administration.

These are the guys that the Obama Department of Justice is shielding in court today. It is the "legal" interpretations and precedents that these guys set in motion that the Obama Department of Justice is fighting to preserve.

Wonder why?

State Department Adventures In The War Zone

The State Department has been making headlines lately in the Middle East, and not in a good way for the current caretakers of the American Empire.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - the Empire's top diplomat - spent three days in Pakistan, much of it with Pakistani television, radio and other journalists. U.S. news media readers/talkers should take note: tough questions were asked about the ongoing war on "terror." Questions about drone bombers, American interference in Pakistani government, and "daily 9/11s". Questions you are almost guaranteed to never hear from American journalists.

Check out these articles about her trip, and try to imagine any network or cable news personality in this country with the gumption to ask questions similar to those posed by Pakistani reporters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8784194

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/asia/31clinton.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=pakistan%20hillary%20clinton%20trip&st=cse

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/10/31/Clinton-finds-Pakistani-mistrust-and-anger/UPI-59211257023194/

One of Secretary Clinton's colleagues has quit his job in Afghanistan as a protest against the Empire's actions in that country. Matthew Hoh - a former Marine captain who served in Iraq before joining the State Department - is a principled man. Thanks go out to him for making a statement, with this action, in favor of common sense and decency.

Mr. Hoh says he cannot understand America's purposes in Afghanistan. If a State Department operative, actively working on the ground in the country, cannot articulate the mission...my guess is it's not because he's stupid. It's because his bosses, somewhere up the line, count on him to do his job and not ask questions. We need more people like Matthew Hoh - here's the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews