Google and the CIA?

snottgoblin writes "DailyTech has an article suggesting that Google might be involved in a partnership with the CIA. The article also quotes a former CIA officer that Google's refusal to comply with the DOJ over privacy issues was 'a little hypocritical [...] because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency.'" Because I'm sure no one would go on the air and try to drum up a scandal aimed at the biggest target they can find.

"Valuable Insight"

[MLopat]

If something is worth posting, I don't see why anyone would immediately discredit the article with a comment like "Because I'm sure no one would go on the air and try to drum up a scandal aimed at the biggest target they can find. "

Let people RTFA and discuss it in the comments.

Re:"Partnership" ?

[El Torico]

This is from the article -

From reports, Steele did not bring evidence to light in order to back up his claims,...

This article is just rumor and speculation. It is quite likely that Google is selling technology to the CIA, and that isn't a problem. Anyone with the cash can buy a Google Search Appliance.

Re:Where do I signup ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those were jokes? Aren't jokes intended to amuse people?

An important thank you

[DysenteryInTheRanks]

I just want to say "thanks" to whoever added the "fud" tag.

THANKS DUDE!

I love it when people remember to put this tag on appropriate articles.

I have often been hard at work in the office some afternoon, or at home on a sunny Saturday morning, thinking to myself, "I'd really like to read some Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. And where better to do so than on Slashdot? If only there were a convient way to browse this FUD all on one easy screen. After all, there is not enough FUD on the Slashdot front page, you really have to look for it."

But thanks to the "fud" tag in the super-useful Slashdot InfoTagging SystemTM, I don't have to struggle any more to find this FUD!

What I like even better than the FUD tag is when someone tags an article notfud or "!fud". Because sometimes I want to read stuff that's just not FUD. (Thankfully, I've never seen an article with both the FUD and notfud tags at once.)

The only thing I like better than the notfud tag are the "yes" and "no" tags. Very useful, for when I need to come up with questions the answer to which is very clearly "yes" or "no."

Re:"Valuable Insight"

[MWoody]

*sigh* Why must this crap be posted in response to every single news article. Once again, say it with me:

SLASHDOT IS A BLOG.

It is not a news agency. It has no reporters. It is an opinionated blog where a small collection of people find articles that are interesting, comment on them, and allow other members to reply to the news and/or their comments. Slashdot has no requirement for journalistic neutrality, nor should it; if you despise the posters to the extent that their opinions compel you to comment every time they open their mouths, just go somewhere else. Google news, for example. What would be the point of this site if it just posted links to articles? That's been DONE, many times, elsewhere.

Now, if you disagree with the comments attached to the article, say so! Feel free to disagree with scuttlemonkey, at length and with much vitriol. But this "waaah waaah a slashdot editor has an opinion this site suxors it used to be better why don't they just post the news waaah waaah" shit is just getting old. Disagree with what he has said; don't claim he has no right to say it.

Re:Not surprising...

[TopShelf]

Frankly, I'd be disappointed if the CIA wasn't working with Google.

WTF

[lewp]

I'm a big Google fanboy. I think their services are great, and I trust them with my personal email. But the summary for this item is really a load of horseshit. If this had been about Microsoft or any other company that draws the Slashdot hivemind's ire the story would have been immediately accepted as gospel.

But since it's Google the claims are dismissed immediately as a publicity stunt.

Fuck you, editors.