Slashdot Mirror


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.

2 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. "Valuable Insight" by MLopat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. An important thank you by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."