"We are moving toward a post-spy world, according to the guy that runs the CIA's venture capital arm." <http://t.co/5eYfbRYU8k>http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/08/10-ways-make-internet-safe-cyber-attacks/90866/?oref=d-channelriver
John Young, true masterspy. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:52 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
"We are moving toward a post-spy world, according to the guy that runs the CIA’s venture capital arm."
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/08/10-ways-make-internet-safe-cybe... <http://t.co/5eYfbRYU8k>
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
John Young | "We are moving toward a post-spy world, according to the guy that | runs the CIA's venture capital arm." FWIW, I don't run In-Q-Tel, In-Q-Tel isn't a venture firm, and I don't recall saying "post-spy" at all. Full text of the speech is at geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt, see for yourselves. In the meantime, tell me if PPD-28 would be satisfied were an artificial semi-intelligence doing the searches rather than humans. What if surveillance data was mined not by people who could go to jail but by self-modifying programs that co-evolve with the subject of the surveillance. Tell me that "the more complex the decision the more surely it will be left to humans" is a long-term guiding ethic. Opine on whether "algorithmic regulation" aimed at a single individual needs be visible to that individual if due process is to be preserved. Perhaps also read "We Are All Intelligence Agents Now", the final technical talk at last February's RSA Conference; see geer.tinho.net/geer.rsa.28ii14.txt . Still got no Clearance... --dan
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014, at 04:23 AM, dan@geer.org wrote:
John Young | "We are moving toward a post-spy world, according to the guy that | runs the CIA's venture capital arm."
FWIW, I don't run In-Q-Tel, In-Q-Tel isn't a venture firm, and I don't recall saying "post-spy" at all. Full text of the speech is at geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt, see for yourselves.
What a weird statement to make (not sure if trolling). From In-Q- Tel's website: "We identify and invest in venture-backed startups developing technologies that will provide “ready-soon innovation” (within 36 months) vital to the intelligence community mission... As a strategic investor, our model is unique. Our investments accelerate product development and add mission-critical capabilities with the sole purpose of delivering these cutting-edge technologies to IC end users quickly and efficiently."
In the meantime, tell me if PPD-28 would be satisfied were an artificial semi-intelligence doing the searches rather than humans. What if surveillance data was mined not by people who could go to jail but by self-modifying programs that co-evolve with the subject of the surveillance.
Is it a police beating still called a police beating if the police shut their eyes while lashing out? If decisions or recordings are being made about my data, and not by my service providers, then my data is being surveilled. Regardless of whether it was done by a human or a computer. Alfie -- Alfie John alfiej@fastmail.fm
since I find Mr Geer's commentary among the most interesting and informed of all those on this list (very odd to even suspect him of trolling), I investigated what you wrote, and here's what I found. your own quotation notes that IQT says "our model is unique." "unique" because they do not consider themselves a venture firm. that same paragraph (read whole thing at https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/) ends: "for each dollar that IQT invests in a company, the venture capital community invests more than nine dollars." clearly, IQT does not see itself as part of the VC community. the reasons for this look relatively straightforward: IQT is a not-for-profit, and VC is built exclusively around making direct financial profit from its investment. a not-for-profit VC is almost a contradiction in terms, since "profit" and "venture" in this context mean almost the same thing. Practically, VCs have, as a rule, a hands-off if perhaps mentorly relationship with their investments. that page makes clear that IQT gets directly involved with their partner companies, probably including technologists and technologies. this list discusses matters of great detail and legal import frequently, and precise accuracy in these matters strikes me as essential. i am not endorsing what IQT does, or the correctness of Mr Geer's statements, and I have no remote connection with any of the parties or their services, but am very interested in the record being kept clear. On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Alfie John <alfiej@fastmail.fm> wrote:
What a weird statement to make (not sure if trolling). From In-Q- Tel's website:
"We identify and invest in venture-backed startups developing technologies that will provide “ready-soon innovation” (within 36 months) vital to the intelligence community mission...
As a strategic investor, our model is unique. Our investments accelerate product development and add mission-critical capabilities with the sole purpose of delivering these cutting-edge technologies to IC end users quickly and efficiently."
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014, at 01:54 PM, z9wahqvh wrote:
your own quotation notes that IQT says "our model is unique." "unique" because they do not consider themselves a venture firm. that same paragraph (read whole thing at https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/) ends: "for each dollar that IQT invests in a company, the venture capital community invests more than nine dollars." clearly, IQT does not see itself as part of the VC community.
IQT aren't a charity. If they are not taking equity or profits, then they are wanting something else. From more reading, it looks like what they do is provide funding to companies that have interesting products, and pay to re-purpose for in-house use. In other words, they are more like a high-valued customer that want for heavy customisation. Perhaps this is an easier way to get shit done rather than go through the request for tenders route.
the reasons for this look relatively straightforward: IQT is a not-for- profit, and VC is built exclusively around making direct financial profit from its investment. a not-for-profit VC is almost a contradiction in terms, since "profit" and "venture" in this context mean almost the same thing.
Practically, VCs have, as a rule, a hands-off if perhaps mentorly relationship with their investments. that page makes clear that IQT gets directly involved with their partner companies, probably including technologists and technologies.
I'm not sure which VCs you're talking about. Besides a seed round, most VCs will want at least one seats on the board for control. Definitely not hands-off.
i am not endorsing what IQT does, or the correctness of Mr Geer's statements, and I have no remote connection with any of the parties or their services, but am very interested in the record being kept clear.
And I'm all for that too. That's why I made the comment. Alfie -- Alfie John alfiej@fastmail.fm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 08/13/2014 05:53 AM, Alfie John wrote:
In other words, they are more like a high-valued customer that want for heavy customisation. Perhaps this is an easier way to get shit done rather than go through the request for tenders route.
- From observing some of the companies that In-Q-Tel's backed, there also seems to be an element of "My employers get good use out of your product. Here, have a cookie. Keep up the good work." - -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS] Developer, Project Byzantium: http://project-byzantium.org/ PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1 WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ Life is too short to drink bad coffee. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT65/BAAoJED1np1pUQ8RkrZIP/3rbYdaeuvM/HX/W3GhMc14Q KcMEX+SnzsQgn6UlJ2BRG8VGelYF0lNhx8yyRhyjLwf+Yqo406Nul1Tb7zA9jif8 pGT2zIQ67AQTgRrrAgdLQnyP69vccxLzgScMqLjgwS8OXNZFygZEBwYoVW0IMj8N Soo6xBQUl6OOpYa42fB/fYDEp2h0XR6CepUWBJZykN0cLswmW3Z9BJsrhbxAw/0T XyN4vr3a7nEp7ZWstIUVbyul+GEtpxEMELQSPpkGzvJ1v0ZGQHYi84KlgPby4tam s0Jk4wXmOeMzVH7gCZB6jgrLHMnOC40SAg+Z1hrsWuLEoVParSwtlSMZdT1XF1OM N/idodcYIrAX/kASJtgIFKsd0bOQvOyg3t4GkmGKuQfaOdqUkaz/MPKLLbP3fjvH sUPs8I/NVQjE7TQQKDhZa4t4wigTFj4OFLshw90Vw6n5L4um//5TIxrmdpZNY0ra uAzKgRLLZRu/yahNzmq+Q3qgqm+i/cil9IlarC2nyoQvmrHCKh7aZxBbRkfQOtw0 rjYPs0ZNX8j1NSVi+z0NiLkHN9k/FSqkD27TTc6KsYt1zn29AxQ0QM1kh36dX2u3 274o27sQDmmA937hlXkPLclJBVPp8XKsx7n/TTcsDLbURHagE9goEfNkI82glP6v 2Fl5qhP5EGbW3XVp2JjV =MaXF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (6)
-
Alfie John -
dan＠geer.org -
John Young -
Ryan Carboni -
The Doctor -
z9wahqvh