Anonops #6: Anonymous en de MO-revoluties

quote:

TOR Made for USG Open Source Spying Says Maker

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:57:39 -0400
From: Michael Reed <reed[at]inet.org>
To: tor-talk[at]lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology

On 03/22/2011 12:08 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Joe Btfsplk<joebtfsplk[at]gmx.com> wrote:
>> Why would any govt create something their enemies can easily use against
>> them, then continue funding it once they know it helps the enemy, if a govt
>> has absolutely no control over it? It's that simple. It would seem a very
>> bad idea. Stop looking at it from a conspiracy standpoint& consider it as
>> a common sense question.
> Because it helps the government as well. An anonymity network that
> only the US government uses is fairly useless. One that everyone uses
> is much more useful, and if your enemies use it as well that's very
> good, because then they can't cut off access without undoing their own
> work.

BINGO, we have a winner! The original *QUESTION* posed that led to the
invention of Onion Routing was, "Can we build a system that allows for
bi-directional communications over the Internet where the source and
destination cannot be determined by a mid-point?" The *PURPOSE* was for
DoD / Intelligence usage (open source intelligence gathering, covering
of forward deployed assets, whatever). Not helping dissidents in
repressive countries. Not assisting criminals in covering their
electronic tracks. Not helping bit-torrent users avoid MPAA/RIAA
prosecution. Not giving a 10 year old a way to bypass an anti-porn
filter. Of course, we knew those would be other unavoidable uses for
the technology, but that was immaterial to the problem at hand we were
trying to solve (and if those uses were going to give us more cover
traffic to better hide what we wanted to use the network for, all the
better...I once told a flag officer that much to his chagrin). I should
know, I was the recipient of that question from David, and Paul was
brought into the mix a few days later after I had sketched out a basic
(flawed) design for the original Onion Routing.

The short answer to your question of "Why would the government do this?"
is because it is in the best interests of some parts of the government
to have this capability... Now enough of the conspiracy theories...

-Michael
_________________

24 March 2011

A sends:

From: A
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:41:41 +0000
Subject: Cryptome Fwd: Re: Fwd: The onion TOR network
To: cryptome[at]earthlink.net

Following the publication of the email extract on TOR, I asked
the EFF what they made of it. Here it is. You can of course publish it.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Rebecca Jeschke <rebecca[at]eff.org>
Date: 23 March 2011 21:29
Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: The onion TOR network
To: A

Hi A. This is from Senior Staff Technologist Seth Schoen. Thanks -- Rebecca

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Fwd: The onion TOR network
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:15:24 -0700
From: Seth David Schoen <schoen[at]eff.org>
To: Rebecca Jeschke <rebecca[at]eff.org>
CC: chris <chris[at]eff.org>, Peter Eckersley <pde[at]eff.org>,
Seth Schoen <schoen[at]eff.org>

Rebecca Jeschke writes:

any thoughts on this?

It's totally true that the military people who invented Tor were
thinking about how to create a system that would protect military
communications. The current iteration of that is described at

https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military

right on the Tor home page.

However, the Tor developers also became clear early on that the
system wouldn't protect military communications well unless it had
a very diverse set of users. Elsewhere in that same e-mail
discussion, Mike Perry (a current Tor developer) alludes to this:

https://lists.torproject.(...)11-March/019898.html

In fact, the best known way we have right now to improve anonymity
is to support more users, and more *types* of users. See:

http://www.freehaven.net/doc/wupss04/usability.pdf
http://freehaven.net/~arma/slides-weis06.pdf

The first link is to a paper called "Anonymity Loves Company", which
explains the issue this way:

No organization can build this infrastructure for its own sole use.
If a single corporation or government agency were to build a private
network to protect its operations, any connections entering or
leaving that network would be obviously linkable to the controlling
organization. The members and operations of that agency would be
easier, not harder, to distinguish.

Thus, to provide anonymity to any of its users, the network must
accept traffic from external users, so the various user groups can
blend together.

You can read the entire (ongoing) discussion about government funding
for Tor development via

https://lists.torproject.(...)11-March/thread.html

(search for "[tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology").

--

Seth Schoen
Senior Staff Technologist schoen[at]eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/
454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110 +1 415 436 9333 x107

Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology
From: A3
To: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>
Cc: A2, cypherpunks[at]al-qaeda.net

On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 17:43 -0400, John Young wrote:
> Fucking amazing admission. No conspiracy theory needed.

Wasn't this already very common knowledge?

Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Iran cracks down on web dissident technology
To: A3, A2, cypherpunks[at]al-qaeda.net
From: John Young <jya[at]pipeline.com>

That's what the Eff-folks advocating TOR are saying. And point to a
file on Torproject.org. See:

http://cryptome.org/0003/tor-spy.htm

However, this appears to be a giant evasion perhaps a subterfuge,
even reminds of what Big Boys say when customers learn they are
siphoning customer data. Read the privacy policy the lawyer-advised
apologists bark, and upon reading the privacy policy see that it only
emphasizes the subterfuge. Openly admitting siphoning is supposed
to make it okay because everyone does it under cover of lockstep
privacy policy. Reject that.

If the Tor operators really know what they are being used for, then
they should admit to being agents of the USG, as Michael Reed had
the guts to do.

Claiming this US spying role for Tor is well known is a crock of slop,
but then spies lie all the time and care not a whit that they peddle
shit for eaters of it. If you believe them and like what they do then
don't shilly-shally, just do what Michael Reed did but others are
too ashamed to do after having been duped since 1996.

If Reed's precedent for honesty is followed, there will be an
admission that the Internet was invented for spying by its inventor.
And then cryptography and other comsec tools. And then cellphones
and the like. Hold on now, this is getting out of hand, the apologists
will bellow, everybody has always known that there is no privacy
in digital world.

Actually, no, they did not. And those who knew keep their Janusian
mouths writhing to reap the rewards of deception. Now that is a truth
everyone knows. No conspiracy theory needed.

quote:

Video: #Anonymous Addresses The Bilderberg Group (by Anonymous0890) #lulz You know who you are. http://tumblr.com/xec1wr7sxj

Anonymous Addresses The Bilderberg Group

quote:

Think4Freedom Ano Nymous
Do not mess with #Anonymiss http://z0r.de/538 #Anonymous Via @blackxanonymous #Anonops

quote:

Hackers step up attacks on security firms

The Internet's security infrastructure is under attack. Two major incidents against Comodo and RSA have raised the question of not just whether the enterprise can withstand hacker attacks but if the security firms we all count on to guard the infrastructure can protect themselves.

Earlier this week, Internet security firm Comodo revealed it had been tricked into minting nine high-value digital certificates that could allow the attackers to create fraudulent sites that fool users into thinking they are visiting Google, Yahoo, Skype or Microsoft's Live service. The sting on Comodo follows a more serious attack on RSA, which netted the infiltrators unspecified information that could compromise the security of the company's one-time password product SecurID.

These breaches follow other recent high-profile security events, including Anonymous's campaign to compromise HBGary Federal and Stuxnet's use of stolen code-signing certificates against Iran's nuclear capability. Altogether, it's undeniable that attackers now see the value in focusing on those companies and products that provide defense.

While the Comodo attack, at least, is thought to have limited impact, the RSA compromise could be more serious. However, both breaches point to a need by security firms to re-evaluate their approach to protecting themselves and their valuable intellectual property, says Anup Ghosh, founder and chief scientist of browser security firm Invincea. "How is it that the foundational elements of security are being compromised?" he asks.

"We have to worry whether we are going to be targeted next -- we, as in the royal we," Ghosh says. "And all we're really doing is doubling down on the technologies that was built in the late '90s and address yesterday's problems rather than the way that these attacks are actually perpetrated."

Hackers have always sought out corporate intel, but in a presentation at RSA, Josh Corman, research director of the 451 Group, argued that attackers are increasing their focus on intellectual property, at a time companies are becoming more proficient with protecting their custodial data, such as credit cards numbers and personal-identifying information. These factors point to a need by companies -- especially security firms -- to learn how to better protect their IP, he says.

"What is now required is for us to ask what kind of evolution and changes do we need to thwart those attackers who are more talented and more persistent," he says. "We can mock these companies for their mistakes -- or we can talk about the criminals and the perpetrators."

This article, "Hackers step up attacks on security firms," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Get the first word on what the important tech news really means with the InfoWorld Tech Watch blog. For the latest business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

quote:

Democrat urges investigation into federal security contractors

Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia is seeking an investigation into whether government money was used by three data security firms involved in a proposal to harass liberal critics of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Reporting from Washington—
A Democratic congressman is seeking an investigation into whether government money was used by three security contractors involved in a proposal to track and harass liberal critics of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia plans to send letters Monday to the Defense and Justice departments, as well as the head of the intelligence community, requesting a review of the companies' federal contracts. All three firms are government contractors with security clearance.

Johnson wrote that he was concerned the companies "may have violated the law and/or their federal contracts by conspiring to use technologies developed for U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism purposes against American citizens and organizations on behalf of private actors."

The inquiry stems from email correspondence between the three data security firms — HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies — proposing surveillance and sabotage of liberal and labor activists in an effort to win a contract with Hunton & Williams, a law firm representing the Chamber of Commerce.

The security firms came together in a group they dubbed "Team Themis," apparently after the Greek goddess of law and order.

Details of the proposal, which included planting false information to embarrass anti-chamber groups and creating dossiers on activists, complete with photographs and family references, were leaked this year by the hacker group Anonymous.

The chamber said it was not aware of the proposals and called the tactics "abhorrent."

HBGary Federal declined to comment. A company source said Palantir was aware of the congressman's request and believed the agencies would do what they could to comply. Neither Berico nor Hunton & Williams returned calls seeking comment. In the past, all have denied wrongdoing.

Johnson and 19 other Democrats this month called on Republican leaders to investigate Hunton & Williams and Team Themis for possible violations of federal law, including forgery and computer fraud.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, declined to pursue the matter, saying in a statement, "While I appreciate Mr. Johnson's letter, it is the role of the Justice Department to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted."

Johnson said an investigation was necessary to determine whether Americans were sufficiently shielded from technologies meant to target enemies abroad.

"This is uncharted territory when we're dealing in the cyber world," Johnson said. "It's a dangerous place. It can be a place where liberties of American people are threatened or taken away."

quote:

Op maandag 28 maart 2011 14:51 schreef truepositive het volgende:
The plot thickens

Vandaag was toch ook operation ESR?

quote:

How General Electric avoids paying taxes

In a jaw-dropping exposé in The New York Times, David Kocieniewski explains how General Electric, the country's largest corporation, has managed to accumulate $26 billion in the last five years while not just paying zero taxes but receiving a net tax benefit of $4.1 billion from the IRS. The author dives deep into the company's regulatory filings and interviews a number of tax law and policy experts. Below, we've pulled out from the multi-page report the various schemes and tactics the corporation uses to keep exploiting the tax system. It's worth reading in full here.

-Lobbying The company spent more than $200 million in the last ten years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. One of its major lobbying coups includes the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, which allowed it to "defer taxes on overseas profits from leasing planes to airlines." That law saved the company more than $1 billion just three years after it was enacted.

-Greasing Palms When GE needed to change Rep. Charlie Rangel's mind about support for a key tax break, it awarded $11 million to various schools in Rangel's district. Afterward, Rangel, who then headed the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, pledged his support for the tax provision. He says the donation had no effect on his decision. Rangel has also been under intense scrutiny recently for ethics violations unrelated to GE.

-Anointing Tax Kings At many of its major manufacturing facilities across the world, GE has elevated the role of tax strategist to an executive decision-making post. The company's tax department has expanded to 975 employees.

-A Culture of Tax Avoidance The company's mission statement of GE's tax department urges employees to "evenly" divide their time between obeying the law and "looking to exploit opportunities to reduce tax.”

-Leasing and Lending Abroad In the late '90s GE won passage of a tax provision known as "active financing" allowing it to "avoid taxes on lending income from abroad," that in turn gave the company an array of tax credits and write-offs used to offset taxes on its U.S. operations.

-Cutting Its Domestic Work Force "Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment," writes the Times. "In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion."

Update: GE has posted a response to the article here

quote:

Congressman Probing HBGary Scandal Fears ‘Domestic Surveillance’

When a small team of hackers launched a 24-hour assault on software security firm HBGary Federal last month, they did so to take revenge on its CEO, who had sought to penetrate the global collective they aligned themselves with known as Anonymous.

They did that and more. Now a Congressional subcommittee has asked to see all HBGary Federal’s contracts with the U.S. military and the National Security Agency (NSA), along with those agencies’ contracts with two other private security firms, Berico Technologies and Palantir Technologies.

The hacked HBGary Federal emails that were posted online showed the three firms had proposed a plan to the Chamber of Commerce’s legal representative Hunton & Williams to infiltrate and discredit the Chamber’s opponents with fake documents, personas, and potentially even malicious software. There were also proposals to track and intimidate supporters of WikiLeaks.

The man behind the investigation, Rep. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia’s 4th House District, penned a letter signed by 19 other members of Congress calling for a subcommittee investigation on March 1. He believes the Chamber, Hunton & Williams, and the three security firms were in discussion regarding a “potentially illegal” scheme, according to a memo from his office.

Given the classified and convoluted nature of the alleged activities (not to mention lobbyists who will undoubtedly take issue with it), it’s possible Johnson’s Congressional probe will lead him and others down a long and winding rabbit hole. That’s also because of the wider implications he sees behind the HBGary revelations: domestic surveillance on Americans.

I spoke to Rep. Johnson on Monday and asked him about how the investigation was going, and why he had instigated it at all:

FORBES: Why was it important to you to spearhead this investigation into government and NSA contracts with HBGary, Berico and Palantir?

JOHNSON: Well I read various news reports of the possible scandal and I asked my staff to look a little further into it. Once we did it appeared to me that the implications being put forth were very serious and rose to a level of more than mere suspicion. There were no denials of accuracy by the three government contractors, so with that I felt duty bound to move for further investigation.

James Miller of the Department of Defence said in last week’s subcommittee hearing that he needed to check about handing over those contracts. Have there been any developments with that?

No, but I assume that we should receive the documentation. And just in case we’re going to request the documentation in writing from the Department of Defence as well as the director of national intelligence. Also the Justice Department may have documentation pertinent to this and we’d like to see this as well. [It transpired from the HBGary emails that the Justice Department had recommended the law firm Hunton & Williams to Bank of America.]

Does the investigation also extend to Hunton & Williams?

I’m not calling for a limited scope of the investigation. I think the investigation should proceed as far as the facts take us.

What do you think of Palantir and Berico’s attempts to distance themselves from HBGary Federal?

I would think that would be a normal response for a company finding themselves exposed in this way.

Do you think they are implicated more than they say?

Quite frankly I’d say there is a reasonable suspicion that they may be more involved than they are revealing at this time.

What concerns you the most about the contracts with these companies and the software they were selling?

[We're] talking about government contractors who may have developed tools to track and control information from foreign terrorists organizations. When those contractors using that kind of technology, developed pursuant to government contract and utilising American tax payer dollars, then turn the tools into domestic surveillance and marketing to business organizations, with the goal of discrediting and disrupting and actually destroying organizations that disagree with their clients, doing that domestically is like turning spying tools on the very people who paid for them. You should not use tools developed to get at foreign terrorist agents on American citizens who are choosing to exercise their first amendment rights.

When you say “tools,” what specifically are you referring to?

Apparently this is software that allows for data mining and enables the organization of vast bodies of information, or compilation through vast bodies of information, on particular subjects, and then putting it all together and so that you can have maximum intelligence on your targets. Then [also] software that would enable you to create false personas, and you use those to infiltrate the internal communications networks of your targets. With that, you can steer opinion, you can suppress other opinions, you can take over and control of what goes on in those private networks… and do so without fear of being discovered. One person can sit back and create, from one computer terminal, 20 false personas that can’t be tracked back to that particular computer.

Which company are you attributing that to?

I don’t want to attribute that to any one of the three contractors that we have here but I think that there is a scheme that was discussed that would employ that kind of technology to go after unions and other groups that opposed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Is there any documentation on this that you’ve seen, that hasn’t been reported in the public domain?

I think everything we know has been already publicly disseminated and I believe that these various [HBGary] emails allude to Palantir being a moving force behind the development of the software.

You have this information about HBGary because the company’s emails were leaked by a small group of hackers who align themselves with Anonymous. What do you think of that group, both the team of hackers and the wider collective they claim to represent?

I think we have embarked into a lawless environment with our cyber capabilities now, and we really need to see what kind of laws are lacking and what laws need to be strengthened to punish any misconduct in cyber space. It’s an emerging area. We get more and more opportunities to test our right to legally address misconduct in cyberspace. We’re getting more instances that cause us to question what can be done to right wrong by people in organizations over the Internet, both criminally and civilly.

How important is this investigation to you? How much of your time do you intend to spend on it?

I’m looking forward to a thorough investigation. I don’t know how long it will take, but I do think the implications of what has happened demand that this issue be afforded the attention it deserves.

Do you think this represents the tip of a large iceberg?

Could be.

quote:

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/(...)acties-op-telegraaf/

Ooit wel eens gekeken bij de reacties op artikelen van Telegraaf.nl? Volgens de blog Retecool komen ze allemaal op hetzelfde neer: gericht tegen de regerende macht en tegen alles is wat buitenlands is.

Als reactie daarop hebben ze een systeem gemaakt dat automatisch nepreacties plaatst op de site van De Telegraaf. Deze bot (wiki) heeft een woordenschat van ruim 120.000 woorden, die allemaal eerder door lezers van De Telegraaf in de reacties gebruikt werden. Op basis van het Telegraaf-artikel wordt dan een reactie gegenereerd.

Op een artikel over de walvissenjacht had het programma van Retecool bijvoorbeeld het volgende te zeggen:


Maarten Reijnders, blogger voor techwebsite Bright, werd hierover getipt en volgde het verhaal, vertelt hij aan nrc.nl:

Ik kreeg een aantal maanden terug al de tip dat Retecool hiermee bezig was. Dus ik volgde het proces, onder andere via Google, al een tijdje. En twee dagen geleden publiceerde de blog zelf het verhaal.

Retecool tegen Reijnders:

‘In het begin glipte slechts een klein gedeelte van de reacties door de handen van de censuurpolitie, maar tegenwoordig zijn er dagen dat 10 van de 10 gegenereerde reacties geplaatst worden’

De bot heeft ook een naam: Hubert Both. Hubert heeft succes, er zijn volgens Google meer dan honderd reacties geplaatst. De Telegraaf is nu alle nepreacties aan het verwijderen.

quote:

The date of March 28th was picked to begin mass protests at all 13 Federal Reserve branches located around the country. However, as night fell, it became apparent that either nothing or very little had happened:

Of course, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But either alternative of poor turnout or poor promotion makes for poor morale. So what went wrong?

quote:

Music Industry Lobbyist Becomes Europe’s Copyright Boss

Over the years many pro-copyright groups have lobbied extensively for harsher anti-piracy legislation. In Europe, this task may now become a little easier, as a former music industry lobbyist has been appointed as the head of a unit that deals with copyright and enforcement issues at the European Commission. Among other things, the former IFPI employee will be tasked with pushing through the ACTA trade agreement.

Just a few days ago we witnessed a prime example of the revolving door phenomenon, as a former RIAA lobbyist turned federal judge got to rule on a case that had a direct impact on her former employee.

Today we bring another example, one that’s perhaps even more worrisome.

Those who read TorrentFreak regularly will be familiar with music industry lobby group IFPI. Crowned as the most active DMCA sender of 2010, IFPI are known for their aggressive anti-piracy tactics. Among other legal efforts, they were one of the driving forces behind the Pirate Bay trial.

At the same time IFPI has been lobbying in the political arena for more tools to combat online piracy, with varying results. However, due to a new appointment at the copyright and enforcement unit of the European Commission, it appears that IFPI’s influence might increase significantly.

Maria Martin-Prat, who was formerly employed as Director of Legal Policy and Regulatory Affairs at IFPI, has now been selected to lead the EU unit that deals with copyright and enforcement issues. Among other things, she will be in charge of trying to get the controversial ACTA anti-piracy agreement accepted.

This means that Martin-Prat, whose previous job was to convince politicians that more restrictive copyright legislation is needed to deal with online piracy, is now responsible for shaping future copyright laws at the European Commission. Needless to say, it’s likely that her view on copyright won’t be the most objective one.

Pirate Party MEP Christian Engstrom is not happy with the appointment, to say the least. However, knowing the ins and outs of the European Commission and the dominance of lobby groups, it comes as no surprise.

“Welcome to the European Union, where the big business lobby organizations are calling most of the shots at the Commission, and where citizens are just seen as a nuisance to be ignored. I guess the only real news is that they don’t even bother to try to hide it any more,” he said in response to the announcement.

With the appointment of Martin-Prat, Europeans should brace themselves for more restrictive copyright legislation, and more effective enforcement of current laws. Meanwhile, IFPI members will be cracking open bottles of Champagne and dancing with excitement in their offices.

quote:

;-()) RT @Anony_Ops CONFIDENTIAL #ANONYMOUS HACKED NUCLEAR LAUNCH CODES http://whitehouse.gov1.info/launch/launch-codes.html INB4, SHITSTROM

quote:

Select Target and Click on the LAUNCH Button

quote:

A meme is circulating right now about a "civil war" brewing within Anonymous. This has been simmering for quite a while, but it's only now really being circulated among outside observers.

As a decentralized movement, it's somewhat erroneous to call the various combatants "factions," as there are no set members or participation and it waxes and wanes according to interest and participation. I would rather use the word "node" to describe the different rallying-standards I've noticed.

I'd first like to explain the main combatants, then the methods employed, then finally discuss the issues that they're grappling with.

quote:

Op woensdag 30 maart 2011 19:19 schreef truepositive het volgende:
Ja dat is jammer. Binnenkort tweede poging hopelijk?

quote:

Prepare For Revolution: The Empire State Rebellion Begins on June 14th

Contrary to rumors being spread around, I do not know what our friends at Anonymous have planned for Operation Empire State Rebellion (OpESR). However, I wholeheartedly agree with the goals they presented in their “Communication #1” video. They are very similar to reports I have been writing and the movement we have been calling for on our social network.

The Anonymous OpESR “manifesto” presented in their first video states the following:

quote:

Op vrijdag 1 april 2011 17:17 schreef Dhalsim het volgende:

[..]

Dit spreekt boekdelen over jouw (on)vermogen om rationeel na te denken. Zie jij echt nog niet in dat "anonymous" gewoon het volk is wat zich richt tegen de corruptie en machtsmisbruik van de machthebbers? Ik kan simpelweg niet bevatten dat iemand zo'n enorme tunnelvisie kan handhaven terwijl er zoveel informatie beschikbaar is.

Ik ga er maar vanuit dat er persoonlijke belangen meespelen. Zo niet, dan heb ik het met je te doen.

Robbie Williams ft Gary Barlow- Shame(Official Video)

quote:

BarrettBrownLOL Barrett Brown
#Anonops and th3j35t3r have come to an understanding in order to focus on our common enemies. http://pastebin.com/bSvuEZNa

quote:

Google Comes Under Fire for 'Secret' Relationship with NSA

Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group largely focused in recent years on Google's privacy practices, has called on a congressional investigation into the Internet giant's "cozy" relationship with U.S. President Barack Obama's administration.

In a letter sent Monday, Consumer Watchdog asked Representative Darrell Issa, the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to investigate the relationship between Google and several government agencies.

The group asked Issa to investigate contracts at several U.S. agencies for Google technology and services, the "secretive" relationship between Google and the U.S. National Security Agency, and the company's use of a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration airfield in California.

Federal agencies have also taken "insufficient" action in response to revelations last year that Google Street View cars were collecting data from open Wi-Fi connections they passed, Consumer Watchdog said in the letter.

"We believe Google has inappropriately benefited from close ties to the administration," the letter said. "Google is most consumers' gateway to the Internet. Nonetheless, it should not get special treatment and access because of a special relationship with the administration."

Consumer Watchdog may have an ally in Issa, a California Republican. In July, he sent a letter to Google raising concerns that White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, the former head of global public policy for Google, had inappropriate e-mail contact with company employees.

A Google spokeswoman questioned Consumer Watchdog's objectivity. Some groups have questioned the group's relationship with Google rival Microsoft, and Consumer Watchdog's criticisms of online privacy efforts have also exclusively zeroed in on Google, with the group rarely mentioning Microsoft, Facebook and other Web-based companies in the past two years.

"This is just the latest in a long list of press stunts from an organization that admits to working closely with our competitors," said the Google spokeswoman.

But Consumer Watchdog gets no funding from Microsoft or any other Google competitor, said John Simpson, consumer advocate with the group. "We don't have any relationship with Microsoft at all," he said. "We don't take any of their money."

Consumer Watchdog has decided to focus on Google's privacy practices because the company's services serve as a gateway to the Internet for many people, Simpson said. If the group can push Google, "without a doubt the dominant Internet company," to change its privacy practices, other companies will follow suit, he said.

"Google's held itself to be the company that says its motto is, 'don't be evil,' and they also advocate openness for everyone else," he said. "We're trying to hold them to their own word."

Consumer Watchdog, in January 2009, suggested that Google was preparing a lobbying campaign asking Congress to allow the sale of electronic health records. Google called the allegations "100 percent false and unfounded."

In September, Consumer Watchdog bought space on a 540-square-foot video screen in New York's Times Square, with the video criticizing Google's privacy practices.

In April, Consumer Watchdog officials called for the U.S. Department of Justice to break up Google. They appeared at a press conference with a representative of the Microsoft- and Amazon.com-funded Open Book Alliance.

Consumer Watchdog's latest complaints about the relationship of Google and the Obama administration are outlined in a 32-page report.

The paper questions a decision by NASA allowing Google executives to use its Moffett Federal Airfield near Google headquarters. Although H211, a company controlled by Google top executives, pays NASA rent, they enjoy access to the airfield that other companies or groups don't have, Simpson said.

The paper also questions Google contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense and other agencies, suggesting that, in some cases, Google contracts were fast-tracked. The paper also questions Google's relationship with the U.S. National Security Agency and calls for the company to be more open about what consumer information it shares with the spy agency.

When asked if other companies, including broadband providers, should disclose what customer information they share with the NSA, Simpson said they should, too.

"I understand the NSA is a super-secret spook organization," he said. "But given Google's very special situation where it possesses so much personal data about people, I think that there ought to be a little more openness about what precisely goes on between the two."

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.

Source: PCWorld