For The Record  

FTR #718 In Your Facebook: A Virtual Panoptican?

Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

Intro­duc­tion: Recorded on 7/4/2010–Independence Day–this pro­gram con­tem­plates how inde­pen­dent our inno­v­a­tive tech­nol­ogy really makes us. Con­cep­tu­al­ized as a “lib­er­at­ing” tech­nol­ogy, Face­book (and by exten­sion other social net­work­ing sites) exposes its clients to poten­tial wide­spread dis­sem­i­na­tion of sen­si­tive per­sonal information.

Ana­lyz­ing the indi­vid­u­als and ele­ments involved with Face­book, the pro­gram should give poten­tial users of the net­work pause to reflect. Do you really want these folks han­dling your most sen­si­tive data?

Begin­ning with the back­ground of Peter Andreas Thiel, the broad­cast ana­lyzes the back­ground and polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy and activism of this pri­mary backer of Face­book. Son of a chem­i­cal engi­neer an appar­ent employee of a suc­ces­sor firm to the I.G. car­tel, Thiel’s res­i­dences include stints in South Africa and Namibia, both loca­tions of Under­ground Reich activ­ity.

Under­ly­ing this exam­i­na­tion is the fun­da­men­tal ques­tion of the family’s pos­si­ble mem­ber­ship in the Under­ground Reich. (In order to gain a work­ing under­stand­ing of the argu­ment pre­sented in these pro­grams, lis­ten­ers should famil­iar­ize them­selves with Paul Manning’s Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile. Dom­i­nat­ing the suc­ces­sor firms to the I.G. and embrac­ing the diverse ele­ments of the post­war Nazi dias­pora, the net­work Man­ning describes is to be found through­out the ele­ments dis­cussed in FTR #718.

Over the years, Thiel has man­i­fested a far-right/libertarian polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy. In addi­tion to spawn­ing a con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal review while at Stan­ford and author­ing a con­ser­v­a­tive tome The Diver­sity Myth, he has net­worked with a neo-conservative orga­ni­za­tion The Vanguard.Org.

Another Face­book lumi­nary is the grand­son and name­sake of Roelof (Pik) Botha, for­mer for­eign min­is­ter of South Africa. Although one cer­tainly can’t judge the younger Botha by his grandfather’s pol­i­tics, one should also weigh the pos­si­bil­ity that they may con­sti­tute a trans-generational nexus of power, not unlike that looked at in con­nec­tion with the Bush fam­ily in the Russ Baker inter­views (FTR #‘s 711–716.)

Also loom­ing large in Facebook’s back­ground is a CIA ven­ture cap­i­tal firm, In-Q-tel.

Of para­mount impor­tance in con­sid­er­ing the Face­book milieu is the fact that much of what is going on on the tech fron­tier is being dom­i­nated by a small group of people–dubbed the Pay­Pal Mafia by wags–who are the Thiel/Botha milieu.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: “Pik” Botha’s close rela­tion­ship with Third Reich alum­nus Franz Richter; review of the death of the U.N. admin­is­tra­tor for Namibia (con­trolled by the apartheid regime of South Africa) on Pan Am 103; review of “Pik” Botha’s escape from death on Pan Am 103; Peter Thiel’s belief in the Peak Oil phi­los­o­phy; review of the fas­cist over­tones and his­tory of Peak Oil.

1. The program’s title asks the implicit ques­tion: with its expo­sure of vast amounts of per­sonal data and under the con­trol of, or asso­ci­ated with, some appar­ently dark indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions, is Face­book a “vir­tual panopticon.”

Panop­ti­con is a type of prison:

The Panop­ti­con is a type of prison build­ing designed by Eng­lish philoso­pher and social the­o­rist Jeremy Ben­tham in 1785. The con­cept of the design is to allow an observer to observe (-opti­con) all (pan-) pris­on­ers with­out the incar­cer­ated being able to tell whether they are being watched, thereby con­vey­ing what one archi­tect has called the “sen­ti­ment of an invis­i­ble omniscience.“[1]
Ben­tham him­self described the Panop­ti­con as “a new mode of obtain­ing power of mind over mind, in a quan­tity hith­erto with­out example.

“Panop­ti­con”; Wikipedia.

2. Begin­ning with the back­ground of Peter Andreas Thiel, the broad­cast ana­lyzes the back­ground and polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy and activism of this pri­mary backer of Face­book. Son of a chem­i­cal engi­neer an appar­ent employee of a suc­ces­sor firm to the I.G. car­tel, Thiel’s res­i­dences include stints in South Africa and Namibia, both loca­tions of Under­ground Reich activ­ity.

Under­ly­ing this exam­i­na­tion is the fun­da­men­tal ques­tion of the family’s pos­si­ble mem­ber­ship in the Under­ground Reich. (In order to gain a work­ing under­stand­ing of the argu­ment pre­sented in these pro­grams, lis­ten­ers should famil­iar­ize them­selves with Paul Manning’s Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile. Dom­i­nat­ing the suc­ces­sor firms to the I.G. and embrac­ing the diverse ele­ments of the post­war Nazi dias­pora, the net­work Man­ning describes is to be found through­out the ele­ments dis­cussed in FTR #718.)

. . . It’s hard to say when Peter Andreas Thiel first decided that one per­son could out­smart the crowd. Born in Frank­furt in 1967, Thiel bounced among seven ele­men­tary schools — from Cal­i­for­nia, to Namibia, to Ohio, to South Africa — as his father, Klaus, a chem­i­cal engi­neer, worked around the world.

Klaus; his wife, Susanne; Thiel; and Thiel’s younger brother, Patrick, even­tu­ally set­tled in Fos­ter City, Cal­i­for­nia, north of Sil­i­con Valley. . . .

“PayPal’s Thiel Scores 230 Per­cent Gain with Soros-Style Fund” by Deepak Gopinath [Bloomberg.com]; Cana­di­an­Hedge­Watch.com; 12/4/2006.

3. Thiel worked for Sul­li­van & Cromwell and Credit Suisse Group after leav­ing law school. One of America’s pre­mier white-shoe law firms, Sul­li­van & Cromwell has pro­found con­nec­tions to the fas­cist inter­na­tional, han­dling the busi­ness affairs of fam­i­lies such as the Bushes and the Bin Ladens.

. . . After col­lect­ing his law degree, Thiel clerked for U.S. Fed­eral Cir­cuit Judge Larry Edmond­son in Atlanta and then joined Sul­li­van & Cromwell LLP in New York. He lasted seven months and three days before quit­ting out of bore­dom, he says.

He jumped to CS Finan­cial Prod­ucts, a unit of what’s now Credit Suisse Group, where he traded deriv­a­tives and cur­rency options for a lit­tle more than a year. Then he went home to Cal­i­for­nia, raised $1 mil­lion from his friends and fam­ily and started his first macro fund, Thiel Cap­i­tal Management. . . .

Idem.

4. Thiel sub­scribes to the Peak Oil phi­los­o­phy, which has strong fas­cist under­pin­nings and over­tones.

. . . Thiel is a pro­po­nent of a geo­logic the­ory known as peak oil, which holds that global oil pro­duc­tion is now at or near its apex. Among his picks was Calgary-based EnCana Corp., which wrings oil from the tar sands of Canada. EnCana stock rose 54 per­cent in 2005. . . .

Idem.

5. Over the years, Thiel has man­i­fested a far-right/libertarian polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy. In addi­tion to spawn­ing a con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal review while at Stan­ford and author­ing a con­ser­v­a­tive tome The Diver­sity Myth, he has net­worked with a neo-conservative orga­ni­za­tion The Vanguard.Org.

In addi­tion, a CIA tech­nol­ogy sub­sidiary is deeply involved with the Face­book milieu.

Although it can be taken for granted that the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity will cen­trally posi­tion itself with regard to any and all tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ments, the fact that intel­li­gence ser­vices are involved with an orga­ni­za­tion that col­lects and orga­nizes vast amounts of per­sonal data should not be overlooked.

Face­book is a well-funded project, and the peo­ple behind the fund­ing, a group of Sil­i­con Val­ley ven­ture cap­i­tal­ists, have a clearly thought out ide­ol­ogy that they are hop­ing to spread around the world. Face­book is one man­i­fes­ta­tion of this ide­ol­ogy. Like Pay­Pal before it, it is a social exper­i­ment, an expres­sion of a par­tic­u­lar kind of neo­con­ser­v­a­tive lib­er­tar­i­an­ism. On Face­book, you can be free to be who you want to be, as long as you don’t mind being bom­barded by adverts for the world’s biggest brands. As with Pay­Pal, national bound­aries are a thing of the past.

Although the project was ini­tially con­ceived by media cover star Mark Zucker­berg, the real face behind Face­book is the 40-year-old Sil­i­con Val­ley ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist and futur­ist philoso­pher Peter Thiel. There are only three board mem­bers on Face­book, and they are Thiel, Zucker­berg and a third investor called Jim Breyer from a ven­ture cap­i­tal firm called Accel Part­ners (more on him later). Thiel invested $500,000 in Face­book when Har­vard stu­dents Zucker­berg, Chris Hughes and Dustin Moskowitz went to meet him in San Fran­cisco in June 2004, soon after they had launched the site. Thiel now report­edly owns 7% of Face­book, which, at Facebook’s cur­rent val­u­a­tion of $15bn, would be worth more than $1bn. There is much debate on who exactly were the orig­i­nal co-founders of Face­book, but who­ever they were, Zucker­berg is the only one left on the board, although Hughes and Moskowitz still work for the company.

Thiel is widely regarded in Sil­i­con Val­ley and in the US ven­ture cap­i­tal scene as a lib­er­tar­ian genius. He is the co-founder and CEO of the vir­tual bank­ing sys­tem Pay­Pal, which he sold to Ebay for $1.5bn, tak­ing $55m for him­self. He also runs a £3bn hedge fund called Clar­ium Cap­i­tal Man­age­ment and a ven­ture cap­i­tal fund called Founders Fund. Bloomberg Mar­kets mag­a­zine recently called him “one of the most suc­cess­ful hedge fund man­agers in the coun­try”. He has made money by bet­ting on ris­ing oil prices and by cor­rectly pre­dict­ing that the dol­lar would weaken. He and his absurdly wealthy Sil­i­con Val­ley mates have recently been labelled “The Pay­Pal Mafia” by For­tune mag­a­zine, whose reporter also observed that Thiel has a uni­formed but­ler and a $500,000 McLaren super­car. Thiel is also a chess mas­ter and intensely com­pet­i­tive. He has been known to sweep the chess­men off the table in a fury when los­ing. And he does not apol­o­gise for this hyper-competitveness, say­ing: “Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.”

But Thiel is more than just a clever and avari­cious cap­i­tal­ist. He is a futur­ist philoso­pher and neo­con activist. A phi­los­o­phy grad­u­ate from Stan­ford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diver­sity Myth, which is a detailed attack on lib­er­al­ism and the mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ist ide­ol­ogy that dom­i­nated Stan­ford. He claimed that the “mul­ti­cul­ture” led to a less­en­ing of indi­vid­ual free­doms. While a stu­dent at Stan­ford, Thiel founded a rightwing jour­nal, still up and run­ning, called The Stan­ford Review — motto: Fiat Lux (“Let there be light”). Thiel is a mem­ber of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neo­con­ser­v­a­tive pres­sure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a lib­eral pres­sure group that works on the web. Thiel calls him­self “way libertarian”.

The Van­guard is run by one Rod D Mar­tin, a philosopher-capitalist whom Thiel greatly admires. On the site, Thiel says: “Rod is one of our nation’s lead­ing minds in the cre­ation of new and needed ideas for pub­lic pol­icy. He pos­sesses a more com­plete under­stand­ing of Amer­ica than most exec­u­tives have of their own businesses.”

This lit­tle taster from their web­site will give you an idea of their vision for the world: “TheVanguard.Org is an online com­mu­nity of Amer­i­cans who believe in con­ser­v­a­tive val­ues, the free mar­ket and lim­ited gov­ern­ment as the best means to bring hope and ever-increasing oppor­tu­nity to every­one, espe­cially the poor­est among us.” Their aim is to pro­mote poli­cies that will “reshape Amer­ica and the globe”. The­Van­guard describes its pol­i­tics as “Reaganite/Thatcherite”. The chairman’s mes­sage says: “Today we’ll teach MoveOn [the lib­eral web­site], Hillary and the left­wing media some lessons they never imagined.”

So, Thiel’s pol­i­tics are not in doubt. What about his phi­los­o­phy? I lis­tened to a pod­cast of an address Thiel gave about his ideas for the future. His phi­los­o­phy, briefly, is this: since the 17th cen­tury, cer­tain enlight­ened thinkers have been tak­ing the world away from the old-fashioned nature-bound life, and here he quotes Thomas Hobbes’ famous char­ac­ter­i­sa­tion of life as “nasty, brutish and short”, and towards a new vir­tual world where we have con­quered nature. Value now exists in imag­i­nary things. Thiel says that Pay­Pal was moti­vated by this belief: that you can find value not in real man­u­fac­tured objects, but in the rela­tions between human beings. Pay­Pal was a way of mov­ing money around the world with no restric­tion. Bloomberg Mar­kets puts it like this: “For Thiel, Pay­Pal was all about free­dom: it would enable peo­ple to skirt cur­rency con­trols and move money around the globe.”

Clearly, Face­book is another uber-capitalist exper­i­ment: can you make money out of friend­ship? Can you cre­ate com­mu­ni­ties free of national bound­aries — and then sell Coca-Cola to them? Face­book is pro­foundly uncre­ative. It makes noth­ing at all. It sim­ply medi­ates in rela­tion­ships that were hap­pen­ing anyway.

Thiel’s philo­soph­i­cal men­tor is one René Girard of Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity, pro­po­nent of a the­ory of human behav­iour called mimetic desire. Girard reck­ons that peo­ple are essen­tially sheep-like and will copy one another with­out much reflec­tion. The the­ory would also seem to be proved cor­rect in the case of Thiel’s vir­tual worlds: the desired object is irrel­e­vant; all you need to know is that human beings will tend to move in flocks. Hence finan­cial bub­bles. Hence the enor­mous pop­u­lar­ity of Face­book. Girard is a reg­u­lar at Thiel’s intel­lec­tual soirees. What you don’t hear about in Thiel’s phi­los­o­phy, by the way, are old-fashioned real-world con­cepts such as art, beauty, love, plea­sure and truth.

The inter­net is immensely appeal­ing to neo­cons such as Thiel because it promises a cer­tain sort of free­dom in human rela­tions and in busi­ness, free­dom from pesky national laws, national bound­aries and such­like. The inter­net opens up a world of free trade and laissez-faire expan­sion. Thiel also seems to approve of off­shore tax havens, and claims that 40% of the world’s wealth resides in places such as Van­u­atu, the Cay­man Islands, Monaco and Bar­ba­dos. I think it’s fair to say that Thiel, like Rupert Mur­doch, is against tax. He also likes the glob­al­i­sa­tion of dig­i­tal cul­ture because it makes the bank­ing over­lords hard to attack: “You can’t have a work­ers’ rev­o­lu­tion to take over a bank if the bank is in Van­u­atu,” he says.

If life in the past was nasty, brutish and short, then in the future Thiel wants to make it much longer, and to this end he has also invested in a firm that is explor­ing life-extension tech­nolo­gies. He has pledged £3.5m to a Cambridge-based geron­tol­o­gist called Aubrey de Grey, who is search­ing for the key to immor­tal­ity. Thiel is also on the board of advis­ers of some­thing called the Sin­gu­lar­ity Insti­tute for Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence. From its fan­tas­ti­cal web­site, the fol­low­ing: “The Sin­gu­lar­ity is the tech­no­log­i­cal cre­ation of smarter-than-human intel­li­gence. There are sev­eral tech­nolo­gies ... head­ing in this direc­tion ... Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence ... direct brain-computer inter­faces ... genetic engi­neer­ing ... dif­fer­ent tech­nolo­gies which, if they reached a thresh­old level of sophis­ti­ca­tion, would enable the cre­ation of smarter-than-human intelligence.”

So by his own admis­sion, Thiel is try­ing to destroy the real world, which he also calls “nature”, and install a vir­tual world in its place, and it is in this con­text that we must view the rise of Face­book. Face­book is a delib­er­ate exper­i­ment in global manip­u­la­tion, and Thiel is a bright young thing in the neo­con­ser­v­a­tive pan­theon, with a pen­chant for far-out techno-utopian fan­tasies. Not some­one I want to help get any richer.

The third board mem­ber of Face­book is Jim Breyer. He is a part­ner in the ven­ture cap­i­tal firm Accel Part­ners, who put $12.7m into Face­book in April 2005. On the board of such US giants as Wal-Mart and Mar­vel Enter­tain­ment, he is also a for­mer chair­man of the National Ven­ture Cap­i­tal Asso­ci­a­tion (NVCA). Now these are the peo­ple who are really mak­ing things hap­pen in Amer­ica, because they invest in the new young tal­ent, the Zucker­bergs and the like. Facebook’s most recent round of fund­ing was led by a com­pany called Grey­lock Ven­ture Cap­i­tal, who put in the sum of $27.5m. One of Greylock’s senior part­ners is called Howard Cox, another for­mer chair­man of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What’s In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their web­site), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA. After 9/11, the US intel­li­gence com­mu­nity became so excited by the pos­si­bil­i­ties of new tech­nol­ogy and the inno­va­tions being made in the pri­vate sec­tor, that in 1999 they set up their own ven­ture cap­i­tal fund, In-Q-Tel, which “iden­ti­fies and part­ners with com­pa­nies devel­op­ing cutting-edge tech­nolo­gies to help deliver these solu­tions to the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency and the broader US Intel­li­gence Com­mu­nity (IC) to fur­ther their missions”.

The US defence depart­ment and the CIA love tech­nol­ogy because it makes spy­ing eas­ier. “We need to find new ways to deter new adver­saries,” defence sec­re­tary Don­ald Rums­feld said in 2003. “We need to make the leap into the infor­ma­tion age, which is the crit­i­cal foun­da­tion of our trans­for­ma­tion efforts.” In-Q-Tel’s first chair­man was Gilman Louie, who served on the board of the NVCA with Breyer. Another key fig­ure in the In-Q-Tel team is Anita K Jones, for­mer direc­tor of defence research and engi­neer­ing for the US depart­ment of defence, and — with Breyer — board mem­ber of BBN Tech­nolo­gies. When she left the US depart­ment of defence, Sen­a­tor Chuck Robb paid her the fol­low­ing trib­ute: “She brought the tech­nol­ogy and oper­a­tional mil­i­tary com­mu­ni­ties together to design detailed plans to sus­tain US dom­i­nance on the bat­tle­field into the next century.” . . . .

“With Friends Like These . . .” by Tim Hodgkin­son; guardian.co.uk; 1/14/2008.

6. More about the CIA link to Facebook:

. . . . Facebook’s first round of ven­ture cap­i­tal fund­ing ($US500,000) came from for­mer Pay­pal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome ‘The Diver­sity Myth’, he is also on the board of rad­i­cal con­ser­v­a­tive group VanguardPAC.

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”.

Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Tech­nolo­gies, which was one of those com­pa­nies respon­si­ble for the rise of the internet.

Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel’s board, and had been direc­tor of Defence Research and Engi­neer­ing for the US Depart­ment of Defence.

She was also an adviser to the Sec­re­tary of Defence and over­see­ing the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is respon­si­ble for high-tech, high-end development. . . .

“Facebook–the CIA Con­spir­acy” by Matt Greenop; The New Zealand Her­ald; 8/8/2007.

7. Another Face­book lumi­nary is the grand­son of Roelof (Pik) Botha, for­mer for­eign min­is­ter of South Africa. Although one cer­tainly can’t judge the younger Botha by his grandfather’s pol­i­tics, one should also weigh the pos­si­bil­ity that they may con­sti­tute a trans-generational nexus of power, not unlike that looked at in con­nec­tion with the Bush fam­ily in the Russ Baker inter­views (FTR #‘s 711–716.)

. . . Roelof Botha has been a ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist for three years, and he dreams of putting up the early money for a Google-scale suc­cess that is adored on Wall Street and feared by rivals. But Botha, 33, is one of the hottest deal­mak­ers in Sil­i­con Val­ley for tak­ing the oppo­site tack: sell­ing out.

Botha joined Sequoia Cap­i­tal, one of Sil­i­con Valley’s elite ven­ture cap­i­tal firms, in 2003; he had helped run the Pay­Pal online out­fit. In Feb­ru­ary 2005 two Pay­Pal pals of his started a video Weblet called YouTube. Botha put up $8.5 mil­lion in Sequoia cash for a 30% stake. In Novem­ber Google bought YouTube for $1.65 bil­lion in stock. Sequoia will reap a 65-fold return, cat­a­pult­ing Botha onto the Forbes Midas List of top tech deal­mak­ers; he ranks 23rd . . . .

. . . Botha was born and bred in South Africa, the grand­son of Roelof (Pik) Botha, a for­eign min­is­ter (1977–94) in the apartheid gov­ern­ment who sup­ported the release of the impris­oned Nel­son Man­dela and later served in his gov­ern­ment (1994–96). . . .

“The Art of Sell­ing Out” by Erika Brown; Forbes; 2/12/2007.

8. As dis­cussed in AFA #35, Pik Botha appar­ently had prior noti­fi­ca­tion of the impend­ing bomb­ing of Pan Am 103. He switched his reser­va­tions at the last minute, avoid­ing the lethal fate of the U.N. admin­is­tra­tor for Namibia, who died on the flight.

There are indi­ca­tions that the Broederbond–epicenter of South African fascism–also went under­ground after the offi­cial fall of the apartheid regime. This “Under­ground Broeder­bond”, in turn, is affil­i­ated with the Under­ground Reich.

His sup­port for Nel­son Man­dela notwith­stand­ing, Grandpa Botha’s polit­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion can be gleaned from his sup­port for asso­ciate Franz Richter, an alum­nus of the Third Reich. (Botha was very close to Richter.)

. . . Franz Richter, who was mur­dered this week in a rob­bery near his game ranch out­side Johan­nes­burg at the age of 80, was one of the pio­neers of game tourism in South Africa. Richter, who was born in Roma­nia on Octo­ber 27 1927, was an orphan by the age of five. As a youth in communist-run Roma­nia, all he dreamt about was hav­ing a full stom­ach. That and Africa. When he was 15, he made his way to Ger­many where he was promptly drafted into the Hitler Youth and forced to fight in the Ger­man army. . . .

“Franz Richter: Pio­neer of Game Tourism in SA” by Chris Bar­ron [Times of Zam­bia]; psychedelicdungeon.wordpress.com; 12/22/2007.

9. Beyond Face­book, per se, it is impor­tant to con­tem­plate the con­cen­tra­tion of power within the tech world, with a small num­ber of indi­vid­u­als (“the Pay­Pal Mafia”) con­trol­ling much of what is tak­ing place.

. . . Thiel won big with Pay­Pal. Eight months later, in Octo­ber 2002, EBay agreed to buy the com­pany for $1.5 bil­lion. The Pay­Pal crew cashed-in and moved on. Chad Hur­ley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim founded video-sharing Web site YouTube Inc. and sold it to Google Inc. in Octo­ber for $1.65 bil­lion. Levchin went off and founded Slide, a photo-sharing site.

Exec­u­tive Vice Pres­i­dent Reid Hoff­man founded Linked-In Corp., a busi­ness net­work­ing site. Vice Pres­i­dent Jeremy Stop­pel­man cre­ated Yelp, a site that helps peo­ple find restau­rants, shops and other busi­nesses in their area. . . .

“PayPal’s Thiel Scores 230 Per­cent Gain with Soros-Style Fund” by Deepak Gopinath [Bloomberg.com]; Cana­di­an­Hedge­Watch.com; 12/4/2006.

Discussion

11 comments for “FTR #718 In Your Facebook: A Virtual Panoptican?”

  1. Out­stand­ing pro­gram! Emory is an infor­ma­tional tour de force!

    Posted by Phillip D. Collins | August 12, 2010, 8:32 am
  2. Thank you for putting the truth “in our face”! Now we know whom we are deal­ing with.

    Posted by Christian Royal | August 14, 2010, 6:59 am
  3. dave emory is the rea­son im donat­ing to WFMU

    Posted by david almanza | March 4, 2011, 11:07 am
  4. @David Almanza: I would’ve done the same thing, but my Pay­Pal hasn’t been ver­i­fied yet. =(

    But when I can, though, you betcha it’ll be one heck of a char­ity fundraiser, I can guar­an­tee you that much. Dave has done so much to wake peo­ple up over the past 30 years. Let’s try to help him keep it going if and when we can. ;-)

    Posted by Steven | March 15, 2011, 12:18 pm
  5. I saw this and thought it was rel­e­vant to this ear­lier post. It seems that Julian Assange agrees that social media sites are being exploited by intel. agencies.

    http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-revelations-assange-interview/

    Posted by Sherman Brennan | May 3, 2011, 8:26 am
  6. There’s an inter­est­ing bit of info regard­ing the Arab Spring in this piece about the CIA set­ting up an entire divi­sion to mon­i­tor Face­book and twit­ter (part of the Open Source ini­tia­tive set up by John Negro­ponte). The steady meme of “the US intel­li­gence com­mu­nity was com­pletely caught by sur­prise by the Arab Spring” is appar­ently con­tested by the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity itself: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/the-cia-is-following-twitter-facebook.php

    The CIA Is Fol­low­ing Twit­ter, Face­book
    Carl Franzen Novem­ber 4, 2011, 7:30 PM

    Many around the Web reacted with alarm to an exclu­sive report pub­lished Fri­day by the the Asso­ci­ated Press that the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency has a whole cen­ter ded­i­cated to mon­i­tor­ing Twit­ter, Face­book and other media, even old school print news­pa­pers and TV sta­tions, to obtain intel­li­gence on inter­na­tional issues.

    The Open Source Cen­ter has been active since the mid­dle of the Bush Admin­is­tra­tion, well before Twit­ter launched in 2006. In fact, it was estab­lished in 2005 under the Office of the Direc­tor of National Intel­li­gence (then John Negro­ponte) in response to the 9/11 Commission’s call for more focus on for­eign counterintelligence.

    ...

    Still, the center’s analy­sis work report­edly ends up in the President’s daily intel­li­gence brief­ing more often than not.

    And the center’s direc­tor Doug Naquin, said that through its mon­i­tor­ing, ana­lysts employed there man­aged to fore­see the Jan­u­ary upris­ing against Mubarak’s gov­ern­ment in Egypt, although he con­ceded they weren’t sure exactly when it would take place.

    That in-and-of itself is an eye-popping admis­sion given that in Feb­ru­ary, the AP reported that Pres­i­dent Obama was “dis­ap­pointed with the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity” for fail­ing to pre­dict the rev­o­lu­tion and appar­ently said as much in a can­did mes­sage to National Intel­li­gence Direc­tor James Clapper.

    Con­gress­men on the intel­li­gence com­mit­tees in the House and Sen­ate even reached across the aisle to join forces in their crit­i­cism of the inabil­ity of U.S. intel­li­gence agen­cies to see the Arab Spring coming.

    Around the same time, U.S. Sec­re­tary of State Hillary Clin­ton said: “I don’t think any­body could have pre­dicted we’d be sit­ting here talk­ing about the end of the Mubarak pres­i­dency at the time that this all started,” as Ynet News reported.

    ...

    Posted by terrafractyl | November 5, 2011, 8:02 pm
  7. Of course, as set forth in the admit­tedly exhaus­tive series that began with dis­cus­sion of Wik­iLeaks and mor­phed into cov­er­age of the Arab Spring, the GOP/Bush/transnational corporate/Underground Reich fac­tion of the intel­li­gence com­mu­nity and State Depart­ment appears to have been behind it.

    Ref­er­ence John Loftus’s analy­sis in FTR #731 for dis­cus­sion of the two fac­tions in the CIA and State Department.

    The fac­tions that have come to power don’t appear to be par­tic­u­larly “moderate”–unless one con­sid­ers the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood to be moderate.

    Posted by Dave Emory | November 5, 2011, 9:49 pm
  8. @Dave: Sadly, it is started to look like the Tahrir Square move­ment may have indeed been manip­u­lated from the very start. Only ques­tion is, why aban­don their old friend Gaddafi?

    Posted by Steven L. | November 6, 2011, 5:08 am
  9. @Terrafractyl: Not sur­pris­ing. The Under­ground Reich and the other mem­bers of the crim­i­nal Estab­lish­ment have always been leery of social media and have con­stantly tried to take advan­tage of them from the start.....could Peter Thiel have been one of their use­ful idiots, as it were? He was one of the early financiers of Face­book, if I recall correctly.

    Posted by Steven L. | November 6, 2011, 5:12 am
  10. http://penumbralreport.com/2012/01/08/the-ever-expanding-digital-panopticon-dhs-releases-report-on-social-media-spying-program/

    The Ever Expand­ing Dig­i­tal Panop­ti­con: DHS Releases Report On Social Media Spy­ing Program

    Excerpt:

    ” ...In the final analy­sis we are left with a gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance pro­gram which cov­ers every user any­where on the inter­net which is col­lect­ing, stor­ing and ana­lyz­ing infor­ma­tion on a very long and elas­tic set of terms which can be changed at a moment’s notice. It is this all– pow­er­ful, but obscured abil­ity to con­duct such sur­veil­lance on a population’s legal activ­i­ties which is the hall­mark of the dig­i­tal panop­ti­con. And, it is this capa­bil­ity cou­pled with the NDAA with its fear-inducing “indef­i­nite deten­tion” pro­vi­sions aimed at cit­i­zens for unclear vio­la­tions of the law which has the poten­tial to bring about the true aim of any panop­ti­con: self-regulated behav­ior based upon an uncer­tain pun­ish­ment for poten­tially unde­sir­able activ­ity. The result of such devel­op­ments will be cit­i­zens becom­ing hes­i­tant to exer­cise their right of free speech for fear that they will end up in a gov­ern­ment data­base some­where — or worse...”

    Posted by R. Wilson | January 9, 2012, 9:14 pm
  11. http://openid.net/2011/01/08/internet-identity-system-said-readied-by-obama/

    Inter­net Iden­tity Sys­tem Said Read­ied by Obama Admin­is­tra­tion
    2011-01-07 05:00:01.9 GMT

    By James Sterngold

    Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) — The Obama admin­is­tra­tion plans to announce today plans for an Inter­net iden­tity sys­tem that will limit fraud and stream­line online trans­ac­tions, lead­ing to a surge in Web com­merce, offi­cials said.

    While the White House has spear­headed devel­op­ment of the frame­work for secure online iden­ti­ties, the sys­tem led by the U.S. Com­merce Depart­ment will be vol­un­tary and main­tained by
    pri­vate com­pa­nies, said the offi­cials, who spoke on con­di­tion of anonymity ahead of the announcement.

    A group rep­re­sent­ing com­pa­nies includ­ing Ver­i­zon
    Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Inc., Google Inc., Pay­Pal Inc., Syman­tec Corp. and AT&T Inc. has sup­ported the pro­gram, called the National Strat­egy for Trusted Iden­ti­ties in Cyber­space, or NSTIC.

    “This is going to cause a huge shift in con­sumer use of the Inter­net,” said John Clip­pinger, co-director of the Law Lab at Harvard’s Berk­man Cen­ter for Inter­net and Soci­ety in Cam­bridge, Mass­a­chu­setts. “There’s going to be a huge bump and a huge increase in the amount and kind of data retail­ers are going to have.”

    Most com­pa­nies have sep­a­rate sys­tems for sign­ing on to e-mail accounts or con­duct­ing secure online trans­ac­tions, requir­ing that users mem­o­rize mul­ti­ple pass­words and repeat steps. Under the new pro­gram, con­sumers would sign in just once and be able to move among other web­sites, elim­i­nat­ing the
    incon­ve­nience that causes con­sumers to drop many transactions.

    Fewer Pass­words

    For exam­ple, once the sys­tem is in place, Google would be able to join a trusted frame­work that has adopted the rules and guide­lines estab­lished by the Com­merce Depart­ment. From that point, some­one who logged into a Google e-mail account would be
    able to con­duct other busi­ness includ­ing bank­ing or shop­ping with other mem­bers of the group with­out hav­ing to pro­vide addi­tional infor­ma­tion or verification.

    Bruce McConnell, a senior coun­selor for national pro­tec­tion at the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity, said NSTIC may lead to a big reduc­tion in the size of Inter­net help desks, which spend much of their time assist­ing users who have for­got­ten their
    pass­words. Because the sys­tems would be more secure, he said, it may also result in many trans­ac­tions that are now done on paper, from phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal to real estate pur­chases, to be done online faster and cheaper.

    A draft paper out­lin­ing NSTIC was released for com­ment by the White House in June.

    ‘Who Do You Trust?’

    “NSTIC could go a long way toward advanc­ing one of the fun­da­men­tal chal­lenges of the Inter­net today, which is — Who do you trust?” said Don Thibeau, chair­man of the Open Iden­tity Exchange, an indus­try group based in San Ramon, Cal­i­for­nia, rep­re­sent­ing com­pa­nies that sup­port devel­op­ment of the new
    framework.

    “What is hold­ing back the growth of e-commerce is not tech­nol­ogy, it’s pol­icy. This gives us the rules, the poli­cies that we need to really move forward.”

    The new sys­tem will prob­a­bly has­ten the death of
    tra­di­tional pass­words, Clip­pinger said. Instead, users may rely on devices such as smart­cards with embed­ded chips, tokens that gen­er­ate ran­dom codes or bio­met­ric devices.

    “Pass­words will dis­ap­pear,” said Clip­pinger. “They’re
    buggy whips. The old pri­vacy and secu­rity con­ven­tions don’t work. You need a new architecture.”

    Secure, Effi­cient

    Devel­op­ment of a more advanced secu­rity sys­tem began in August 2004, when Pres­i­dent George W. Bush issued a Home­land Secu­rity Pres­i­den­tial Direc­tive that required all fed­eral= employ­ees be given smart­cards with mul­ti­ple uses, such as gain­ing access to build­ings, sign­ing on to gov­ern­ment web­sites and insur­ing that only peo­ple with proper clear­ances would have access to restricted doc­u­ments. The sys­tem was intended to be more secure and more efficient.

    The Obama admin­is­tra­tion advanced the process when it issued its “Cyber­space Pol­icy Review” in 2009. One of the 10 pri­or­i­ties was the secu­rity iden­ti­fi­ca­tion sys­tem. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment is facil­i­tat­ing what it calls a “foun­da­tional” sys­tem in two ways. It is devel­op­ing the frame­work for the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion plan, and it will make a large
    num­ber of gov­ern­ment agen­cies, ser­vices and prod­ucts avail­able through the secure sys­tem, from tax returns to reserv­ing camp­sites at national parks.

    “Inno­va­tion is one of the key aspects here,” said Ari
    Schwartz, a senior adviser for Inter­net pol­icy at the Depart­ment of Com­merce. “There’s so much that could be done if we could trust trans­ac­tions more.”

    Schwartz said use of the sys­tem, once com­pa­nies vol­un­tar­ily choose to par­tic­i­pate, may spur a range of effi­cien­cies and e-commerce sim­i­lar to the way ATM machines trans­formed bank­ing, open­ing the way to a grow­ing num­ber of ser­vices lit­tle by little.

    Pri­vacy Concerns

    Civil lib­er­tar­i­ans have expressed con­cern that the sys­tem may not pro­tect pri­vacy as well as the gov­ern­ment is promising.

    “If the con­cept were imple­mented in a per­fect way it would be very good,” said Jay Stan­ley, a senior pol­icy ana­lyst for pri­vacy and tech­nol­ogy at the New York-based Amer­i­can Civil Lib­er­ties Union. “It’s a con­ve­nience. But hav­ing a sin­gle point of fail­ure may not be good for pro­tect­ing pri­vacy. The devil’s really in the details.” He said the ACLU would “vehe­mently oppose” any­thing that resem­bled a national ID card.

    Aaron Brauer-Rieke, a fel­low at the Cen­ter for Democ­racy & Tech­nol­ogy in Wash­ing­ton, a civil lib­er­ties group, said it was impor­tant that the sys­tem would be oper­ated by pri­vate com­pa­nies, not the gov­ern­ment. He said he was con­cerned about
    how the data on con­sumer online trans­ac­tions would be used.

    “New iden­tity sys­tems will allow mov­ing from one site to another with less fric­tion and open up data flows, but might also enable new kinds of tar­geted adver­tis­ing,” he said. “We have to make sure pri­vacy doesn’t get lost in this.”

    Schwartz and McConnell said the new sys­tem wouldn’t be a national iden­tity card and that com­pa­nies, not the gov­ern­ment, would man­age the data being passed online.

    “There will not be a sin­gle data base for this infor­ma­tion,” McConnell said.

    Posted by R. Wilson | January 9, 2012, 9:20 pm

Post a comment