Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA

by **dugoboy** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:54 pm

link to prisonplanet: <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/271006googlecia.htm" target="top">Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA</a> A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is "in bed with" the intelligence agency and the U.S. government. He has also gone public on his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11. Robert David Steele appeared on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show and began by voicing his deep doubts about the official 9/11 story. While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration. .... Steele raised eyebrows when he confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with "the agency," a claim made especially volatile by the fact that Google was recently caught censoring Alex Jones' Terror Storm and has targeted other websites for blackout in the past. "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," said the ex-CIA man. "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," said Steele. Steele called for more scrutiny to be placed on Google if it continues to engage in nefarious practices, saying, "If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I think it's important that be documented and publicized." ___________________________________________ "Fascism finds root best in unreality, dysfunction and irresponsibility." - Me "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act" -George Orwell "When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it - always." -Mahatma Gandhi

by **Gouda** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:13 pm

Steele, the golden candle open source intelligence guy? Hello again, sir. Former CIA R.Steele reviews Tarpleys 9/11"Synthetic Ter <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=6643.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...6643.topic</a> He's probably right about google. Even though we use it for so much of our open source intelligence. <img src="http://www.scroogle.org/gifs/gootech.gif" style="border:0;"/> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Matt Cutts, a software engineer at Google since January 2000, used to work for the National Security Agency. Keyhole, the satellite imaging company that Google acquired in October 2004, was funded by the CIA. "We are moving to a Google that knows more about you." — Google CEO Eric Schmidt, February 9, 2005 Since 2000, Google has recorded your search terms, the date-time of each search, the globally-unique ID in your cookie (it expires in 203<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> , and your IP address. This information is available to governments on request. If your favorite site features a Google search box, ask them to install their own local site search. They could also use our site search for webmasters, which shows the same results without the tracking.<hr></blockquote> Go <a href="http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm">Scroogle!</a>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:35 pm

There is more on this at Google-watch.org I've tried using a keyword tracking website called technorati.com which allows you to play NSA at home by seeing the frequency and location of discussed topics online. I noticed that Rigorous Intuition doesn't show up there in 'blog results.' When I did a search for 'Operation Mockingbird' which I had recently posted on there was nary a sign of RI produced by technorati.com. Hmm. I've also found that AOL and other email providers filter out 'subversive' info so that we can't get it through their spam filters which I suspect are intentionally sensitized to keywords and urls for plausibly deniable censorship. Using the lingo of the FBI's COINTELPRO tactics against social justice activists to cast suspicion on the effective leaders by 'badjacketing' them I termed this cyber-version 'spamjacketing.' <a href="http://www.google-watch.org/">www.google-watch.org/</a> <a href="http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html">www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html</a> (You really need to go to this link and see the interactive graphic linking the PTB and spooks to Google titled 'Data Mining the Ruling Class.' Very informative.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And then there were four Google is one of about four search engines that matter. There are many more than four engines, but only about four have the technology to crawl much of the web on a regular basis. As of July 2003, Yahoo owned Overture, Alltheweb, AltaVista, and Inktomi, and finally dumped Google in February 2004. Everything needed to turn Yahoo into a major search engine was now under Yahoo's roof. It is still possible that Yahoo will shoot themselves in the foot with all of this firepower -- their desire to monetize everything appears to be high on their agenda. But so far, after only a year, Yahoo has shown that their main index search results are on a par with Google's. This is true despite the fact that Yahoo has has infiltrated some pay-per-click links into the main index. One reason for Yahoo's success is that Google's main index, though free from paid results, has declined considerably since early 2003. Amazingly, there is on average only a 20 percent overlap between Yahoo's first 100 results and Google's first 100 results for the same search -- and still, Yahoo is just as good as Google. These days there is so little room at the top of the search results heap, that any combination of algorithms will produce acceptable results. The main difference now is in the depth of the crawl. Microsoft recently developed their own engine because they found themselves squeezed between the advertising engine of Overture and the search engine Inktomi -- both of which became Yahoo property. In 2003 Microsoft began experimenting with their own crawler. Their new engine was launched in early 2005. If Microsoft puts their greed on a back burner for a few years, by doing deep crawls and presenting a clean interface, they could do to Google what they did to Netscape. There is no "secret sauce" at Google -- we now believe it was all hype from the very beginning. (To the extent that there ever was a secret sauce, the recipe is now known by countless ecommerce spammers, which makes it a liability rather than an asset.) Thousands of engineers in hundreds of companies know how to design search engines. The only real questions are whether you can commit the resources for a deep, consistent crawl of the web, and how aggressively you want to use your search engine to make money. That gives us Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. The last one worth watching is Teoma/AskJeeves. Their search technology is good, and they seem serious about expanding their crawl. It remains to be seen how deeply and consistently they will be able to crawl websites with thousands of pages. Google is easily top dog. They provide about 75 percent of the external referrals for most websites. There is no point in putting up a website apart from Google. It's do or die with Google. If we're all very lucky, one of the other three will soon offer some serious competition. If we're not lucky, we will be uploading our websites to Google's servers by then, much like the bloggers do at blogger.com (which was bought by Google in 2003). It would mean the end of the web as we know it. It is worthwhile to understand the pressures that the average, independent webmaster is under. And given that Google is so dominant, it's important to understand the pressures that are being brought to bear on Google, Inc. It does not take too much imagination to recognize that there's a struggle going on for the soul of the web, and the focal point of this struggle is Google itself. At one level, it's a struggle for advertising revenue. The pundits look at only this level, and are unanimous that the only advertising model on the web with any sort of future is one where little ads appear after being triggered by keyword searches, or by the non-ad content of a web page. For example, a search for Google Watch may show some ads on the right side of the screen for wrist watches. While the technique doesn't work for this example, often it serves its purpose. There is only so much pixeled real estate that the average user can be expected to survey for a given search. Today up to half of each screen is dedicated to paid ads on Google, as compared to the ad-free original Google. Everyone wants a piece of this new wave in web advertising, and Google is making a lot of money. Unfortunately, early evidence suggests that Yahoo is less interested in pure search algorithms, than in acquiring market share in a pay-for-placement and/or pay-for-inclusion revenue stream. The same may be true for Microsoft. Even Google, dazzled by the sudden income from advertising, must be wondering why they go to all that trouble and expense to crawl the noncommercial sector. Those public-sector sites, such as the org, edu and gov domains, do not provide direct income, even though the web would be unattractive without them. All the excitement over a revived online ad market, pushed by pundits hoping for another dot-com gold rush, is beginning to look like the days when AltaVista decided that portals were the Next Big Thing. That notion caused AltaVista to lose interest in improving their crawling and searching -- which is how Google succeeded in the first place. There has been almost no interest in establishing search engines that specialize in public-sector websites. Where is the Library of Congress? Where are the millions of dollars doled out by the Ford Foundation? How about the United Nations? Why can't some enlightened European entity pick up the slack? Everyone is asleep, while the Internet is getting spammed to death. At another level, it's a struggle over who will have the predominant influence over the massive amounts of user data that Google collects. In the past, discussions about privacy issues and the web have been about consumer protection. That continues to be of interest, but since 9/11 there is a new threat to privacy -- the federal government. Google has not shown any inclination to declare for the rights of its users across the globe, as opposed to the rights of the spies in Washington who would love to have access to Google's user data. Much of the struggle at this new level is unarticulated. For one thing, the spies in Washington don't talk about it. Congress has given them new powers, without debating the issues. Google, Inc. itself never comments about things that matter. The struggle recognized by Google Watch has to do with the clash of real forces, but right now all we can say is that potentially this struggle could manifest itself in Google's boardroom. The privacy struggle, which includes both the old issue of consumer protection and this new issue of government surveillance, means that the question of how Google treats the data it collects from users becomes critical. Given that Google is so central to the web, whatever attitude it takes toward privacy has massive implications for the rest of the web in general, and for other search engines in particular. Call it class warfare, if you like. Because that brings up the other major gripe that Google Watch has with Google. That's the PageRank problem -- the fact that Google's primary ranking algorithm has less to do with the quality of web pages, than it has to do with the "power popularity" of web pages. Their approach to ranking is anti-democratic, in that already-powerful pages are mathematically granted extra power to anoint other pages as powerful. It's not that we believe Google is evil. What we believe is that Google, Inc. is at a fork in the road, and they have some big decisions to make. This Google Watch site is trying to articulate and publicize the situation at Google, and encourage more scrutiny of their operations. By doing this, we hope to play a small part in maintaining the web as an information tool that is more useful for the masses, than it is for the elites. That's why we and over 500 others nominated Google for a Big Brother award in 2003. The nine points we raised in connection with this nomination necessarily focused on privacy issues: 1. Google's immortal cookie: Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number. 2. Google records everything they can: For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation." 3. Google retains all data indefinitely: Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save. 4. Google won't say why they need this data: Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment. 5. Google hires spooks: Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington. 6. Google's toolbar is spyware: With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk. 7. Google's cache copy is illegal: Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don't. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google's cache. The cache copy should be "opt-in" for webmasters, not "opt-out." 8. Google is not your friend: By now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Webmasters cannot avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming they want to increase traffic to their site. If they try to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, they may find themselves penalized by Google, and their traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time Google doesn't even answer email from webmasters. 9. Google is a privacy time bomb: With 200 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved. <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/27/06 1:42 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:55 pm

<a href="http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3544">educationforum.ipbhost.co...topic=3544</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>John Simkin post Mar 27 2005, 03:39 PM Post #1 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 8534 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 When I produce a page on any aspect of history, within a few days it is ranked in the first five at Google and other second-generation search-engines (this is because of the large number of websites - 136,000 - that link to my website). This includes people like J. Edgar Hoover (that one gives me a lot of pleasure). This is also true of most of the characters I have written about concerning the JFK assassination. However, if my views on the CIA are correct, I would expect they must be involved in manipulating search-results. This is only logical. After all, they have been doing this in other forms of media since the late 1940s. I told you about how my page on Bernardo De Torres was removed from the Google database. After making a fuss it was returned to the database. Over the last couple of days I have been carrying out some research into the rankings of suspects in the JFK assassination. In most cases they appear in the top five. This is true of all search-engines except of MSN Search. They seem to be running a complete boycott of my pages on the JFK assassination (although I still score highly on other topics). However, all of the major search-engines, except AltaVista, are keeping certain of my pages off the first page of search-results. It would seem that the CIA don’t want people to find out about what I have discovered about certain characters. This obviously gives us a clue to the characters the CIA are protecting. The following list of suspects appear near the top of searches (the vast majority being ranked in the top 3): David Morales, David Atlee Phillips, Richard Bissell, Gerry Hemming, William Seymour, Bobby Baker, J. Edgar Hoover, Fred Black, Tracy Barnes, Lucien Conein, Roy Hargraves, William Harvey, Howard K. Davis, Eugenio Martinez, John Martino, Roland Masferrer, Clint Murchison, Gordon Novel, William (Rip) Robertson, Johnny Roselli, Felipe Vidal Santiago, Manuel Artime, Ted Shackley, George Smathers, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Eladio del Valle, Santo Trafficante, Antonio Veciana, Malcolm (Mac) Wallace, Mitchell WerBell, Jake Esterline, Dennis Harber, Loran Hall, Charles Willoughby, Dave Yarras, Chauncey Holt, Tony Varona, Virgilio Gonzalez, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Charles Harrelson, James Files, Tony Cuesta, Billie Sol Estes, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Loy Factor, Rolando Cubela, Clifton Carter, Bernard L. Barker and Desmond FitzGerald. That leaves us with the interesting question: Who is the CIA protecting? Here is the list: Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer, Mary Pinchot Meyer, E. Howard Hunt, Edward Bennett Williams, Philip Graham and Katharine Graham. Why should they be protecting these people? The thing they all have in common is Operation Mockingbird (this is another page of mine that does not appear in the search-rankings). Operation Mockingbird was of course the CIA operation to control the media. It is still clearly in operation. Now it is concentrating on controlling the web pages people visit.  It would seem that only AltaVista is not under CIA control.<hr></blockquote> ...and the thread continues... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>John Simkin post Mar 28 2005, 07:47 AM Post #3 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 8534 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 QUOTE(Andy Walker @ Mar 27 2005, 08:59 PM) Either that or the others haven't spidered your site yet, or you have neglected to submit some pages to certain search engines, or you have missed out meta tags on some pages. :lol: :lol: :lol: * Google’s spider arrives at my website every two days. (Other search-engines come on average every four days). This is based on the size of your site and your Google rankings. Every time it visits, he puts every page on my site into its database. I have a facility on my website to check this. This is why I complained to Google about the removal of the Bernardo de Torres page from the database (it had originally been ranked number one). I brought this to their attention. They could not explain it and restored it to the database. As I have said, the reason why I am ranked so high is that I have so many sites linked to mine. The BBC have more links than I have and so when they have a “named” page they usually rank higher than me. However, there are other factors involved. One includes the amount of internal and external links that your page has. The quality of these links are also taken into consideration. For example, on my key pages, I link to other high-ranking pages. Most people do not do that as they are reluctant to promote the competition. However, it is a factor in the ranking system. You are being thanked for your generosity, or in other words, you are improving the service you are providing for your visitors. Therefore, if you type in “First World War” into Google my site comes 2nd out of 42,080,000 pages. First World War.Com comes 1st (it is because of its domain name). The BBC comes fourth. The same is true when you type in Queen Victoria (2nd 4,080,000). It is also true of any other historical character or topic I have written about: Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Second World War, Spanish Civil War, etc. Now if you type in “Frank Wisner” you only get 177,000 pages but my page does not appear on the first page. Those that do, are small sites that do not have large numbers of websites linked to it (this can be checked out here: <a href="http://www.marketleap.com/publinkpop/default.htm">www.marketleap.com/publin...efault.htm</a> Unlike with the Bernardo de Torres case, they have not removed from the database. What they have done is to find a way to rank it lower than would normally be the case with one of my pages. The way they do this is to look for the phrase “Operation Mockingbird” on the page. That is the thing that Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer, Mary Pinchot Meyer, E. Howard Hunt, Edward Bennett Williams, Philip Graham and Katharine Graham all have in common. Operation Mockingbird was the highly secret CIA program started by Frank Wisner in 1948. The program was identified by Frank Church in the 1976 Senate report: “Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. As a result of this report, George Bush, the Director of the CIA at the time announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” This did not bring Operation Mockingbird to an end. It still goes on. In the past it concentrated on newspaper and book publishing. Today it concentrates on modern methods of information gathering. It cannot be seen to ban websites. For example, there are 86,000 web pages that includes the phrase “Operation Mockingbird”. Instead it concentrates on ensuring that certain pages do not appear at the top of the list. Therefore, despite my high ranking with searches like the First World War with its 42 million pages, I do not appear on the first few pages of searches on Operation Mockingbird (if you do not appear on the first few pages you are unlikely to be seen. However, I have found a way round this. I have posted about Operation Mockingbird on this forum and JFK Lancer. Those pages are ranked on the second page of Google. Clearly, these forums have yet to come to the attention of the CIA. <hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/27/06 3:27 pm

by **orz** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:36 pm

He should search + replace with "0p3rati0n M0c<in9b1rd" or something and see if the results change.

by **lvx93** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:04 am

Google and YouTube both have one thing in common: They seek to centralize access to to the Internet, and eradicate peer to peer sharing of information. They seek to have one central spot everybody has to go through to get all information.

by **StuntPope** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:04 pm

Robert Steele says some very curious things.

At the Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE) conference in NYC in 2000 he made a passing reference in his talk that the Russians had planted a trojan inside the source code of the international version of PGP (pgpi). This pronouncement went pretty well unnoticed or unremarked upon by the attendees (I was there, one guy later called his entire talk "nonsense" but nobody specifically addressed the pgpi assertion)

It struck me as far-fetched, I've never heard another thing about it.

Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA

Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA

Re: Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA

Re: Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA

Re: Google censors results>JFK murder and Mockingbird.

EXPERIMENT

Who is online