I thought FB _is_ indirectly a CIA funded company.
- 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
(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?
This seems the appropriate time to interject that this may not be particularly meaningful. I once worked in a building that contained offices of the IRS CI and Secret Service. The IRS were actually on my floor - seeing an armed accountant in the bathroom is a bit of a surprise.
It doesn't always mean a lot. In my case, it meant we were in a building conveniently close to highways and the local airport.
Office space could be cheap, or in this case datacenter space as well.
I am not accusing Witopia of being a CIA-funded VPN provider, but it seems reasonable to argue that sharing an address with the CIA is not a rational business decision for a VPN company.
We need more independent verification of actual software behavior, and better ways to manage it's behavior.
It's hardly implausible, but is there any better, clearer source of this assertion?
> We identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and broader U.S. Intelligence Community.
> 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".
Nah. Objective, verifiable info, please.
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.]
> 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")
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.