DHS May Partner with Outside Firms to Surveil Americans’ Online Activity Without a Warrant

TimeBandit

Tilt
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️
So they're admitting they're looking for "workarounds" to remove your rights using private firms.
Of course, the government is automatically involved already but now it's openly going to be involved while claiming not to be in the rights removal process.



@Gian @Panzerhund @Coltraine @MechaPregnantAnneFrank @PotstickerSwatstika @Aquafina





The Biden administration is considering working with outside firms to surveil “extremist” language by Americans online, anonymous sources told CNN on Monday.

A plan being discussed by Department of Homeland Security officials would allow the agency to use outside firms to access private messaging apps used by extremist domestic groups. DHS is generally limited in its ability to monitor Americans online and is banned from using false identities to infiltrate online groups, however the agency reportedly believes that contracting with outside firms could present a workaround solution.

Because the FBI cannot legally monitor Americans without a warrant, DHS partnerships with outside firms could also provide the FBI with some intelligence, according to CNN.

“We are exploring with our lawyers, civil rights, civil liberties and privacy colleagues, how we can make use of outside expertise,” a DHS official told the network.


The initiative comes as law enforcement agencies ramp up scrutiny of extremist groups with members present at the Capitol riot on January 6, including the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. President Biden said that white supremacists currently represent “most lethal terrorist threat” to the U.S. during his address to Congress last week.

However, the plan has produced skepticism among observers of DHS handling of the riots in Portland, Ore., in summer 2020. Federal agents were dispatched to assist local police in combatting anarchists in the city, which saw over 120 consecutive days of riots.

“There’s a tension between wanting to empower [DHS’s intelligence office] to do this kind of work around domestic terrorism on the one hand and then on the other hand the misuse of its capabilities during the summer of 2020,” a Senate aide told CNN.

A DHS intelligence agency compiled reports on two journalists during the riots, summarizing tweets from the journalists while noting that they published leaked DHS documents, the Washington Post reported in July 2020. Then-acting DHS secretary Chad Wolf ordered the agency to stop collecting information on journalists following the Post‘s report.

“In no way does the Acting Secretary condone this practice and he has immediately ordered an inquiry into the matter,” a DHS spokesman said at the time. “The Acting Secretary is committed to ensuring that all DHS personnel uphold the principles of professionalism, impartiality and respect for civil rights and civil liberties, particularly as it relates to the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
 

Gian

Well-known member
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖 💻🥩🥃
Destructive Ceremonious Master
So they're admitting they're looking for "workarounds" to remove your rights using private firms.
Of course, the government is automatically involved already but now it's openly going to be involved while claiming not to be in the rights removal process.



@Gian @Panzerhund @Coltraine @MechaPregnantAnneFrank @PotstickerSwatstika @Aquafina







That’s dreadful. Simply dreadful. 😞
 

SpiritFocused

Well-known member
Cave Beast
⏰☕
They've used private companies to launder away your right to free speech, why not use private companies to take away the rest as well? Just waiting for my turn to quarter some Blackwater troops.
 

TimeBandit

Tilt
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️
Anyone remember...InQTel???
Wow. An article from a few years back that is almost real journalisms.

Forterra Systems Inc., a California startup focused on virtual reality, was in need of money and its products didn’t have much commercial appeal. Then funds came in from a source based far from Silicon Valley: In-Q-Tel Inc., a venture-capital firm in Virginia funded by the Central Intelligence Agency.


One catalyst for the 2007 infusion, according to a former Forterra executive and others familiar with it, was a recommendation by a man who sat on the board of the venture-capital firm—and also on the board of Forterra.


In-Q-Tel pumped in cash, Forterra developed some tools useful to the military, and government contracts started coming in.

Like the agency that founded it, the CIA-funded venture-capital firm operates largely in the shadows. In-Q-Tel officials regard the firm as independent, yet it has extremely close ties to the CIA and runs almost all investment decisions by the spy agency. The firm discloses little about how it picks companies to invest in, never says how much, and sometimes doesn’t reveal the investments at all.

Even less well-known are potential conflicts of interest the arrangement entails, as seen in this Forterra example and others continuing to the present. Nearly half of In-Q-Tel’s trustees have a financial connection of one kind or another with a company In-Q-Tel has funded, a Wall Street Journal examination of its investments found.


In-Q-Tel’s hunt for promising technology has led the firm, on at least 17 occasions, to fund businesses that had a financial link of some sort to an In-Q-Tel trustee. In three instances a trustee sat on the board of a company that had an In-Q-Tel investment, as in the Forterra case, according to the Journal’s examination, which was based on a review of investment records and interviews with venture-capital and In-Q-Tel officials, past and present.


In-Q-Tel differs from other venture-capital firms in an important way: It is a nonprofit. Instead of trying to make money, it seeks to spur the development of technology useful to the CIA mission of intelligence gathering.


Tangled connections are endemic in the venture-capital business, where intimate industry knowledge is essential to success. Other venture-capital firms, however, are playing with their own money, or that of private investors.


In-Q-Tel uses public money, to which strict conflict-of-interest rules apply—at least $120 million a year, say people familiar with the firm’s financials. It sometimes deploys this capital in ways that, even if not by intent, have the potential to benefit the firm’s own trustees by virtue of other roles they have in the tech industry.


In-Q-Tel investments often attract other funding. Each dollar In-Q-Tel invests in a small business typically is matched by $15 from elsewhere, the firm has found. That makes the small business likelier to succeed and makes its stock options more valuable for whoever has some.


In-Q-Tel said it needs to work with people who have industry connections if it hopes to find promising technology. Some of its trustees, it said, are so enmeshed in the tech world it would be hard to avoid any ties that might be interpreted as conflicting. Besides technology, trustees come from a variety of backgrounds including academia, national security and venture capital.


“In-Q-Tel put in place rigorous policies to safeguard taxpayer funds, prevent possible conflicts-of-interest and stay focused on developing technology to meet mission requirements,” said a CIA spokesman, Ryan Trapani. “We are pleased that both the In-Q-Tel model and the safeguards put in place have worked so well.”


The firm permits its trustees to recommend investing in businesses to which they have ties, so long as they disclose these internally and to the CIA. Trustees are required to recuse themselves from reviews and votes after such recommendations.


To succeed, “you want a board who knows what the hell they are doing,” said Jeffrey Smith, who helped design In-Q-Tel when he was CIA general counsel and is now its outside counsel, as well as a senior counsel at law firm Arnold & Porter. “This is to some extent a balance, and we know that,” he said.



While serving as an In-Q-Tel trustee, retired Air Force Gen. Charles Boyd, shown above in the early 1990s, suggested it invest in a virtual-reality startup on whose board he sat. Gen. Boyd said he received no compensation from the startup for recommending the investment.
Photo: United States Air Force

In the Forterra case, Charles Boyd, a retired Air Force four-star general, joined the boards of both Forterra and In-Q-Tel in 2006. The following year, In-Q-Tel sank money into Forterra, according to an In-Q-Tel news release at the time. The amount couldn’t be determined.


Gen. Boyd said he made an initial recommendation for In-Q-Tel to invest but didn’t take part in its decision to do so. He said he received no compensation from Forterra for recommending to In-Q-Tel that it invest in the startup.


“It definitely was a win-win from our perspective to have Charles on the board and open those doors for us,” said Chris Badger, who was Forterra’s vice president of marketing. He said there was discussion within Forterra about whether “In-Q-Tel’s funding model was really generating a good benefit for the taxpayer.”


The money from In-Q-Tel and subsequent federal contracts proved insufficient. Forterra failed to attract commercial interest and closed in 2010 after selling off pieces of itself.


The purchaser was another company where an In-Q-Tel trustee served on the board of directors.


Investors in Forterra, including In-Q-Tel, took heavy losses, according to people involved in the unwinding. Gen. Boyd had no personal investment in Forterra, In-Q-Tel said.


He did have nonqualified stock options, according to In-Q-Tel, which said holders of such options didn’t receive anything for them when Forterra stopped operating. Gen. Boyd said the only compensation he received from the small business was $5,000 as it was closing down. He left In-Q-Tel’s board of trustees in 2013.


For the CIA, a captive venture-capital firm is a way to encourage and shape technology development without getting bogged down in bureaucracy.


In-Q-Tel’s beginnings trace to a plan hatched in the late 1990s by George Tenet, then the CIA director, who expressed frustration that access to pioneering technology was held back by byzantine government procurement rules.


Congress approved the creation of In-Q-Tel by agreeing to direct money to the organization, and its funding levels increased markedly in later years.





The venture-capital firm started investing in 2000, in businesses that made satellites, analyzed data, translated languages and stored data, gaining a chance to shape the technology.


In-Q-Tel has at times received funds to invest from other agencies, among them the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Defense Department, but the CIA remains the main source of its funding.


In one case, In-Q-Tel invested in a business that analyzed chemical compounds in carpets, resulting in a method to detect deadly chemicals in Afghanistan and Iraq, said the venture-capital firm’s chief executive, Christopher Darby.



Another time, it put money into a satellite antenna maker, leading eventually to the development of portable satellite antennas that can help troops or intelligence agents communicate in remote locations, Mr. Darby added.


“I’ve been told by our customers that the technology that we’ve delivered has saved countless lives,” he said.


In an example of the financial links some trustees have within the technology world, Mr. Darby also serves on the board of a for-profit tech company.


In-Q-Tel doesn’t invest in that company, which is called Endgame Inc. But the company competes with other firms in its field—cybersecurity—that sometimes seek In-Q-Tel cash. If that happens, Mr. Darby doesn’t take part in reviewing the funding requests, he said.


On the Endgame board, Mr. Darby serves as nonexecutive chairman. He said stock options he receives are “de minimis” next to the roughly $2 million a year he earns as In-Q-Tel’s CEO.


The CIA has reviewed his role at Endgame and signed off on his work there, people familiar with the arrangement said.


Of about 325 investments In-Q-Tel says it has made since its founding, more than 100 weren’t announced, although the identities of some of those companies have leaked out. The absence of disclosure can be due to national-security concerns or simply because a startup company doesn’t want its financial ties to intelligence publicized, people familiar with the arrangements said.


While moneymaking isn’t In-Q-Tel’s goal, when that happens, such as when a startup it funded goes public, In-Q-Tel can keep the profit and roll it into new projects. It doesn’t obtain rights to technology or inventions.



CyPhy Works, led by CEO Helen Greiner, above, developed a surveillance drone useful to the government after In-Q-Tel provided capital to the company. One of In-Q-Tel trustees also sits on CyPhy's board.
Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg News

At In-Q-Tel’s headquarters tucked in the back of an office park in Arlington, Va., the lobby is sparse, with three blank digital screens on the wall and an American flag in a stand. Some executives wear jeans, reflecting a Silicon Valley ethos. Its spy-world ties also are evident, in frosted windows and fingerprint scans required to enter certain rooms.


In-Q-Tel’s investments include one made last year in CyPhy Works, a Massachusetts company that produces small surveillance drones.


CyPhy’s board includes Anita Jones, a computer scientist and former Defense Department official. She is also a trustee of In-Q-Tel, appointed in 2002.


Ms. Jones didn’t connect CyPhy with In-Q-Tel, said CyPhy’s chief executive, Helen Greiner. The suggestion to seek In-Q-Tel funding came from another investor. At In-Q-Tel, Ms. Jones stayed out of discussions of whether to invest, the firm said.


After In-Q-Tel put money in, it suggested certain modifications to one of CyPhy’s surveillance drones, a model that can stay aloft for hundreds of hours because it is powered through a microfiber tether. The resulting new drone, called the Persistent Aerial Reconnaissance and Communications, or PARC, is used by the U.S. government and is available for commercial purchase.


In-Q-Tel “could see the military opportunity,” Ms. Greiner said. “They work with their customer base to say, ‘This is what these guys are doing now, but what would be the most useful?’ ”




Asked if In-Q-Tel’s investment boosted the value of any stock options held by Ms. Jones, she and CyPhy said in a written statement that “the transaction may or may not have had an effect on the value of options held” by her.


Forterra’s case was the only time In-Q-Tel funded a business that had been recommended by a trustee who was on that business’s board, according to the venture-capital firm. It said that other times when it funded businesses where a trustee was a director, the trustee wasn’t the one proposing the investment.


Connections between trustees and funded companies often are indirect, such as parallel investments by In-Q-Tel and by the primary employer of an In-Q-Tel trustee.


Three of In-Q-Tel’s 12 trustees work for other, larger venture-capital firms. In-Q-Tel has invested in at least 13 businesses in which those other firms already held stakes.


In-Q-Tel trustee Peter Barris is a co-managing general partner at New Enterprise Associates, one of the largest venture-capital firms.


Mr. Barris joined In-Q-Tel’s board in 2006. Four years later, In-Q-Tel invested in a data-storage startup at which New Enterprise already held a stake, a company called Cleversafe.


Mr. Barris didn’t recommend the investment or vote on it, according to him and other In-Q-Tel officials.


A few years later, New Enterprise Associates increased its stake in Cleversafe to 25%, and Mr. Barris joined Cleversafe’s board.


Later still, he was involved in a restructuring at Cleversafe that polished up the data-storage business for a $1.3 billion sale. At the time of the sale in 2015, Mr. Barris was on the board of Cleversafe as well as the boards of two of its investors: In-Q-Tel and Northwestern University.



The idea for a CIA-funded venture-capital firm came from former CIA director George Tenet in the late 1990s.
Photo: Richard Ellis/ZUMA PRESS

Mr. Barris said that this triple connection was unusual, but that all of the investors’ interests were aligned. “I could argue that In-Q-Tel benefited from [New Enterprise] rather than the other way around,” he said.


Mr. Barris added that on at least three occasions, he has recommended In-Q-Tel look into investing in companies to which New Enterprise Associates had a connection, but In-Q-Tel didn’t invest.


Ronald Gilson, a Columbia Law School professor who has written about governance and venture capital, said In-Q-Tel’s unique semigovernmental model puts it in the situation of needing expert advice while trying to avoid overly cozy financial relationships.


“On the one hand, if you wanted really pristine independence, it means you are going to need people who don’t have commercial ties to the industry,” Mr. Gilson said. “On the other hand, if you have people without any commercial ties to the industry, they are not much use.”

 

Garfisch

Right-Wing Normalist.
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️
There are plenty of historical precedents of the people siding with Chad Monarchic power to crush the oppressive Barons when they rise to challenge Monarchy. This is why kikes got so twitched over Trump even though he effectively did jack shit to curtail the Baronial power (he considers himself one too!). Barons enjoy their power as Kingmakers, but the King must crush them when they challenge his power!
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Barons enjoy their power as Kingmakers, but the King must crush them when they challenge his power!
Obviously something that Trump himself was unable to ever do.

But you're right, plenty of historical precedent indeed. My mind immediately goes to the civil wars between Castile and Aragon in the 15th Century, and then those both within Castile and Aragon respectively during the same time period. Jews were heavily involved in all of this. But maybe you are thinking of alternate precedents.
 

BillGud

Well-known member
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻
Fuck biden, dhs, fbi, and all the (((firms))). Can't arrest us all.
 

Garfisch

Right-Wing Normalist.
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️
Obviously something that Trump himself was unable to ever do.

But you're right, plenty of historical precedent indeed. My mind immediately goes to the civil wars between Castile and Aragon in the 15th Century, and then those both within Castile and Aragon respectively during the same time period. Jews were heavily involved in all of this. But maybe you are thinking of alternate precedents.
Not at all! I read William Thomas Walsh's 'Isabella Of Spain' at your recommendation, and it's all quite clear what was going on!
 

Coltraine

America First
Old World Underground
👑
🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
🎩
⏰☕🚬🚽🚿🪒🏋🏻🥓💻⛪️🍖
Not at all! I read William Thomas Walsh's 'Isabella Of Spain' at your recommendation, and it's all quite clear what was going on!
What a genuine coincidence right there.

Because just this morning I grabbed that same book up off my shelf, here, because I knew there was a chapter on the La Guardia affair in it where Toledan Jews (and Conversos) were accused of ritual murder just a year or so prior to the official expulsion order from the Catholic Monarchs. Certainly several similar episodes had occurred in Spain prior too as Jewish Ritual Murder was explicitly mentioned as being factual and historical in the famous 13th Century legal/law code (of Castilian King Alfonso "The Wise" X) called the Siete Partidas. And this was a king, mind you, who was actually extremely well-disposed towards the Jews as a whole. So besides the La Guardia case in 1490-91, one of the other most well known cases of JRM was the Crucifixion of the boy Saint Domingo of Val in Zaragosa in the 13th century and also the boy of Sepúlveda in 1468. This last incident resulted not only in the execution of 16 Jews found guilty of the crime in secular court, but also resulted in a popular assault on the Jewish community in Sepúlveda, which claimed dozens of more victims. And it was actually this last piece of info which I was originally looking for so as to update my list of Jew expulsions/pogroms from history (which by the way now numbers well into the quadruple digits; let me know if you want an updated list any time though). And so after skimming through that chapter once again as I have other times before, all of this is real fresh in my mind right now obviously. But it's still funny that you mention exactly that book of all books here.

Walsh was one of the real genuine historians of a century ago's era, and I liken EMJ to him a lot on this front. We need much more of this type however. Because they just cannot usually compete within the larger world of historiography with all the other Jews, philo-Semites, politically-correct sycophants and gatekeepers, and just overall intellectually cowardly types who just infest that exact environment today at the academic and professional levels.
 
Last edited:
Top