Obama, intellipedia and Google: Was I fooled?

With some crimson in face, I must offer a follow-up to my earlier post about Google and the CIA. In that piece, I say that one of the points of intersection between Google and the intelligence community is Intellipedia, spookland's answer to Wikipedia.

While researching that earlier post, I came across an unofficial blog devoted to Intellipedia. This blog published a story which riveted my attention:

President Barack Obama creates his first article on Intellipedia

After much persistence from Intellipedia evangelists, President Barack Obama created his first article on Intellipedia. Intellipedia insiders wouldn't comment on the specific article, but there is some speculation that the article is related to Occidental College.

Long-time readers should have no trouble guessing why this post intrigued me. In previous columns, I have theorized that Barack Obama was recruited into the intelligence community at Occidental. Other writers (including a few right-wing cranks) have picked up on the meme.

Unfortunately, I neglected to note the date on which the afore-quoted text first appeared on the Intellipedia blog: April 1, 2009.

Sigh. The prankster hath been pranked.

Originally, I did not read the comments appended to that post. If I had, I would have discovered that one reader was miffed because the piece was not clearly labeled "satire."

Well, I'm not miffed, except perhaps at myself. Satire loses its punch when it is forced to wear a label. Having yanked more than a few legs in my time, I can't object when my own limbs receive some tugging.

Still, I wonder: Did the person who wrote that post read my previous scribblings about Barack Obama, Occidental and related matters?

Although I may have to eat a small serving of crow, I don't have to gulp down the whole bird -- despite what you may read on this site. Someone at a small publishing house called Nimble Books says I'm all wet in my assertion that Google and the CIA are likethis.

For one thing, Intellipedia runs on MediaWiki, which is open source software created by Wikipedia, not Google.

I wish people would stop saying "For one thing..." unless they have at least one more thing lined up. In fact, maybe we should have a "three thing minimum" rule in place.

Since the writer brought up Wikipedia, let's see what that site has to say about Intellipedia's origins:

Google was contracted by the government to provide computer servers to support Intellipedia. Google also provides the software to search Intellipedia, which ranks results based on user created tags.

I'd say that short paragraph justifies my main contention that the U.S. government must place enormous trust in Google.

And where (you may ask) did Wikipedia get this info? The footnote trail leads to this piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, titled "Google has lots to do with intelligence." That article tends to buttress my main argument -- which is simply that, uh, Google has lots to do with intelligence.

There's plenty of further evidence for those who wish to seek it, and Google itself -- the search engine -- can lead you to that evidence in a jiffy.

As noted earlier, former CIA case officer Robert David Steele -- who has testified before Congress on the value of open source intelligence -- has claimed that, from the beginning (or the near-beginning), Google received funding from the CIA's Office of Research and Development. Steele named Dr. Rick Steinheiser as the link-man between Google and ORD. Steinheiser is a real person, he really does work at CIA, and he has a special interest in data mining. Any data miner would love to get in good with the folks at Google.

I've been trying to think of a reason why a guy like Steele would lie about a thing like this. Can't think of a motive. Can you?

Nevertheless, the nameless nay-sayer at Nimble Books insists that my contention of a CIA-Google link is "completely devoid of factual accuracy." Perhaps my critic can share his resume. Perhaps he can explain why his expertise on the CIA exceeds that of Mr. Steele -- who is, incidentally, hardly the only source for this assertion.

It's a sad day when a book publisher displays a phobic reaction toward research.