America’s Sweetheart Deals? Social Networks and Manufacturers, Angel Investors and Intelligence Agencies

“The most important Manhattan Projects of the future will be vast government-sponsored enquiries into what the politicians and the participating scientists will call “the problem of happiness” . . .” –  Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, 1932, 1946 

The “criminal investigation into Facebook’s data deals with major electronics manufacturers” launched by federal prosecutors as reported in The Associated Press brings to mind my three points: 1. Consumers’ repeated unnecessary purchase of smartphones and devices; 2. The apparent failure or oversight of federal prosecutors to look at intelligent agencies that for years have reportedly invested in social networks; and 3. Consumers’ blind reliance and not taking responsibility to know when you’re legallyobligated to give correct personal information and when you’re not.

Are these “data deals as innocuous efforts to help smartphone makers”? User, make a smartchoice when purchasing a smartphone. On the subject of Global Threats & National Security, Lt. Gen Robert Ashley, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) recently stated, “Do you know what’s in your phone? Do you know who provided the chips, software, everything that goes in your phone?” Smart man.

I wonder if Lt. Gen. Ashley read my paper “Apple and the “Trojan Horse”: Do You Believe the Target or the Enemy Bearing Gifts?” In my paper, I refer to the “controversial report” of malicious chips in the servers of American companies…” I point out Apple’s CEO Tom Cook’s statement, “The iPhone is really not made anywhere. It’s made everywhere. That’s the truth. ” I question Cook asking if a problem, say security, comes up with Apple products, is he ultimately responsible? If not, how does one find the responsible party in a global haystack of foreign technologies? Then again, that may be the point. Apple not finding “a malicious chip in any servers” doesn’t necessarily mean it was not present.

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) via Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) gave rise to the internet. As government and the military have been integral to scientific and technological advances since the country’s founding, it seems naive to throw around terms like privacy, control, and regulation in our surveillance state.

Are you following the alleged 2016 “election interference”? You’d be interested to know that in 2009 “the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the military’s R&D arm, issued a Social Media in Strategic Communication proposal that called for $42 million to go toward better social networking analytics. The idea is to track the spread of ideas on networks such as Facebook, find people participating in ‘persuasion campaigns,’ and develop countermeasures.”

Yes, DARPA was apparently engaging in preemptive if not preventive measures on what is now being called “election interference” during the first term of the Obama Administration. Mr. Obama, it appear those interfering didn’t “cut it out.”

Yes, the public is aware that their information has been collected. My point? Why would Congress want to regulate and interfere with users who are indirectly helping government agencies build public portfolios? It appears that as intelligence agencies are keeping their eyes on Russia and China, they’ve asked tech companies to keep their eyes on the public by following their data.

“You pays your money and you takes your choice.” – Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, 1932, 1946  

Intel Agencies and the Angel Investors

Information sharing with advertisers highlights how businesses and investors have a vested interest in data. But “angel capitalists” are not the only ones who are strictly investing in social media – intelligence agencies reportedly want a piece of the action.

In 2016, Saqib Shah wrote an article in Digital Trends “Report: CIA funding social media surveillance and data-mining companies,” where he writes that “The companies, which provide unique tools to mine data on Instagram and Twitter, are receiving funds through the CIA’s venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel…PATHAR’s Dunami tool is currently being used by the FBI to track Facebook.”  If these reports are correct, then it’s not only about what you buy but what say and do. To know data is to know you.

In 2011, Ashlee Vance wrote aBloomberg Businessweek article, “The Data Knows. New Analytics Technology is Predicting What You’re About To Do Next.” Who seeks this information? “Top venture capital firms…and In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the CIA, have helped finance Cloudera.” It appears that the people paying for this information are the same people who are being tracked-taxpayers.

David Talbot’s 2010 article, Can Twitter Make Money? is very telling of what was to come. He reveals, “Twitter plans to become the leader in instant news-and make itself into a sustainable business in the process.” How? Investors’ deep pockets. “It definitely feels like there is a shift occurring on the Web-and we think it’s a multibillion–dollar opportunity,” says Brian Pokorny, a partner with SV Angel in San Francisco, which has invested in Twitter and other companies involved in the real-time Web.” Looking at the photo in same article it reads:

“TITANS OF TWEET  Twitter founders Evan Williams, Biz Stone, and Jack Dorsey hoist cold ones with Ted Wang, a law partner at Fenwick and West, and venture capitalists Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, and Peter Fenton of Benchmark Capital.”

Pay to Play

How does it work? Beacons and amazing algorithms. Clicking on websites gives a play by play of the terrain a user’s covered. A user’s history creates running portfolios that track past and real time behavior, or as the article points out, “for tracking peoples every move on the Internet.” These data gives capital firms, advertisers, intelligence agencies and those who “pay to play” a vantage point on investment, product development, marketing, or government surveillance.

Game Plans

Remember when as children we’d collect team player’s cards from our favorite baseball teams. If you recall, the cards gave the player’s photo and stats. In American football, we’ve witnessed when Quarterbacks like Tom Brady of the New England Patriots throws a pass and in the process the other teams’ defender tackles the receiver and is called for passing interference. This leads to the ball being moved to the spot of the foul. Like baseball and football, intel agencies come up with game plans using strategy and tactics.

The attack on September 11, 2001 may have opened the door to the Patriot Act, but election interference appears to have opened the floodgates of surveillance via data collection on social media networks. According to a member of the intelligence agencies at Senate Intelligence Committee on Global Threats & National Security, the last two years comprises 90% of data collection.

This large statistic is not surprising given that in 2009, “the National Security Agency talked publicly about creating a new type of technology that would grab ’essentially every kind of data there is.” So, why the concern for global threats? Reports of technological advances and cybersecurity competition arising from Russia, China, and non-state actors.

Some critique Congress’ and the State Department’s lack of tech savvy staff. Perhaps it’s because there are government former employees working at social media, networks, and tech firms. Recall the “revolving door” between the private and public sectors. 

Just like in 2009, concerns of national security continue, “‘We must eliminate our current reliance on a combination of luck and unsophisticated manual methods,’ the intelligence agencies say.” It now appears they need to hire from some of the same people in technology they have questioned on privacy and security. Counterintelligence or counterintuitive?

Regulation? Forget about it.

Regulate? Why would Congress, or more specifically government agencies, wish to regulate social media and networks in which intelligence agencies are reportedly financially invested in? Government has neither the time, means, inclination, nor resources to do so. More importantly, consider the power of lobbyists who reportedly target Congress, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission.

The way I see it, there is some value to Congress’ countless hearings. Grant it by their own admission lobbyists can counter committee members’ efforts. The key is for you, the user, to not only “read between the lines” but empower yourself with the information provided and work the system. That is, when clicking consent, know when you’re legallyobligated to give correct personal information and when you’re not. Through a wrench in the “wheel in the sky” and scatter the clouds.

“Politics in turn becomes an arena for contention among rival techniques. The technician sees the nation quite differently from the political man: to the technician, the nation is nothing more than another sphere in which to apply the instruments he has developed. To him, the state is not the expression of the will of the people nor a divine creation nor a creature of class conflict. It is an enterprise providing services that must be made to function efficiently. He judges states in terms of their capacity to utilize techniques effectively, not in terms of their relative justice. Political doctrine revolves around what is useful rather than what is good.” — Robert K. Merton, Professor of Sociology, Columbia University. 1964