View Full Version : Our right to privacy.
Blackdog Lin
8-1-13, 8:48pm
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/guest-post-pressure-cookers-backpacks-and-quinoa-oh-my
This is just a horrifying story to me. Horrifying. What we've come to, in the name of "safety from terrorists".
What say you?
I say the husband should not have consented to the warrantless search of the home.
Blackdog Lin
8-1-13, 9:06pm
Well yeah. I hope that I would be brave enough to do the right thing (not consent to a warrantless search). I worry that I'd bungle it.
But truly, I shouldn't even have to think about such a situation. It p***es me off that I do have to even think about such a situation.
I say that our privacy and the ability to conduct our lives free of governmental intrusion is more important than the supposed benefits of a police/nanny state. Ben Franklin had it right when he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Considering that google now defaults to encrypted searches, https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/173733?hl=en I'd say this provides a possible clue as to whether google has given their master encryption key to the government...
ApatheticNoMore
8-1-13, 9:29pm
Well yeah. I hope that I would be brave enough to do the right thing (not consent to a warrantless search). I worry that I'd bungle it.
bravery is one thing - pick a fight with 1/2 dozen armed thugs arranged along my lawn, I'd say that's closer to crazy than brave.
iris lilies
8-1-13, 9:45pm
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-01/guest-post-pressure-cookers-backpacks-and-quinoa-oh-my
This is just a horrifying story to me. Horrifying. What we've come to, in the name of "safety from terrorists".
What say you?
She has this addendum on her blog but I can't see that it changes the impact of her original story at all:
CLARIFICATION AND UPDATE
We found out through the Suffolk Police Department that the searches involved also things my husband looked up at his old job. We were not made aware of this at the time of questioning and were led to believe it was solely from searches from within our house.
I did not lie or make it up. I wrote the piece with the information that was given. What was withheld from us obviously could not be a part of a story I wrote based on what happened yesterday.
The piece I wrote was the story as we knew it with the information we were told. None of it was fabricated. If you know me, you know I would never do that.
If it was misleading, just know that my intention was the truth. And that was what I knew as the truth until about ten minutes ago. That there were other circumstances involved was something we all were unaware of.
Thank you.
iris lilies
8-1-13, 9:48pm
I say the husband should not have consented to the warrantless search of the home.
How hard is it for these guys to get a warrant in the 100 searches a month? I have no idea how often these things are turned down and even then, don't they just shop the same issue to another judge?
ToomuchStuff
8-1-13, 10:26pm
Judge shopping (probably easier in a small town where cops, judges and family do favors for one another), the famous two words (patriot act), all make it much easier to get a warrant.
Still the initial thought happened because of a search on a computer that didn't belong to the person (work computer), where you have no expectation of privacy. (but an actual terrorist, would probably use either an unsecured wifi, or hack someones, IMHO)
iris lilies
8-1-13, 10:36pm
ToomuchStuff, you are right, here's the update on Dailey Kos that explain the author's addendum. It seems that a corporate entity was concerned that a disgruntled employee would come back and blow up the place.
UPDATE 3: There’s more to the story than Catalano let on. According to the Suffolk County police department (via TechCrunch), the suspicious Google searches were reported by an employer, and the searches were performed on the workplace computer of a “recently released employee.” (It’s not clear from the police’s statement who the employee was.) So while the terms “pressure cooker bomb” and “backpack” were indeed flagged as suspicious, this was a case of a company monitoring its employee’s web searches, not secret monitoring of things you search for in the privacy of your home. It’s an interesting story either way–something to think about if you’re Googling at work–but I do regret jumping on it before all the facts were in order. The rest of the original story continues below.
bravery is one thing - pick a fight with 1/2 dozen armed thugs arranged along my lawn, I'd say that's closer to crazy than brave.
Saying "no, you cannot come in without a warrant, and I do not consent to a search" isn't picking a fight, unless you already think you are a serf. If they come in anyways, kick back, call your lawyer, and rake in the $$$.
Seriously, educate yourselves about your rights, and how to properly exercise them.
iris lilies
8-1-13, 10:44pm
Saying "no, you cannot come in without a warrant, and I do not consent to a search" isn't picking a fight, unless you already think you are a serf. If they come in anyways, kick back, call your lawyer, and rake in the $$$.
This made me laugh.
This story is truly scary and puts the lie to all the assurances that we are getting from the govt.
The update doesn't change anything -- makes it worse in my mind because it proves they are spying on innocent people long term.
I think I will become a Rand Paul supporter.
bravery is one thing - pick a fight with 1/2 dozen armed thugs arranged along my lawn, I'd say that's closer to crazy than brave.
Ah, that's the beginning of the end! We've been discussing this idea of loss of privacy on another forum I am on, so I agree with you that this is a horrible story. However I have to ask: What do we know about how true this story might be?
How hard is it for these guys to get a warrant in the 100 searches a month? I have no idea how often these things are turned down and even then, don't they just shop the same issue to another judge?
My answer is: Who cares? Why lay down?
iris lilies
8-2-13, 12:03am
This story is truly scary and puts the lie to all the assurances that we are getting from the govt.
The update doesn't change anything -- makes it worse in my mind because it proves they are spying on innocent people long term.
I think I will become a Rand Paul supporter.
Then you can come over and sit by me on the Paul bandwagon, we are glad to have you. The local county Republicans brought in Rand a few weeks ago for a fundraiser meet and greet and it was a nice event.
iris lilies
8-2-13, 12:05am
My answer is: Who cares? Why lay down?
oh sure, you are right, stand up for your rights and make them jump through the hoops. agreed. I am just wondering aloud if the legal standard for a warrant is easily met in the case illustrated by this blog story.
Then you can come over and sit by me on the Paul bandwagon, we are glad to have you.
Thank you. I'm in.
Although I hate about 25% of what he stands for, I love the remaining 75%. And at least I know he really stands for it.
I find that most of the yarns woven about the right to privacy these days are woven by looms more dangerous than those they are warning about. It is about like the Wizard of Oz - don't pull back the curtain and expose the reality of those who are most loudly whining about these matters, because if you do it'll become clear where the real danger is. A lot of the political rhetoric is carefully crafted to hide the fact that what people want protected is the right to unilaterally (i.e., outside the rule of law) impose their own worldview without worrying as much about society protecting others from such imposition.
flowerseverywhere
8-2-13, 7:05am
If this happens about 100 times a week as claimed in the original post don't you think we would have heard more than this story? What do they have teams flying around the country? Or stationed in multiple states waiting for the call? Bae is 100% right. Personally if there were a bunch of armed men were surrounding my house I would call 911 and not open the door. What would they have done if the people weren't home. The story sounds a little much for me. I would think if incidents like this were happening 100 times a week there would be lots of you tube movies about it.
If this happens about 100 times a week as claimed in the original post don't you think we would have heard more than this story?That just feeds the self-ratifying contentions, though.
One tell tale sign might be the "end" of the Patriot Act. In the recent vote to defund the NSA's activity there were several comments stating that "no matter what" the PA was going to come to an end by 2015. A friend I chat with is convinced the government is/will be working feverishly on back door legislation to either keep the PA alive or otherwise negate the loss of latitude that would be felt with its repeal. I don't think he's wrong. Either way it will provide a lot of insight into what's really going on.
In the mean time warrantless searches happen (regardless of whether the OP story is urban myth or true) and will continue to happen. So will the continual surveillance of citizens who haven't (yet) done anything wrong. There will be more cases of indefinite detention. More extraordinary renditions, more "secret evidence", more charges of war crimes from the absurdity of the "war" on terror. Arbitrary justice will be used again to decide where and how a suspect will stand trial...federal, military or ??? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will remain the ultimate fall back plan if warrants are ever actually demanded by those under the microscope. The powers that be will continue to be able to continue to claim judicial immunity to keep themselves above the fray. If someone really starts throwing $#!* at the fan the government can still order their assassination as a "citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism". These are interesting times.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
Its happening everywhere. How would you like to land your plane and be surrounded by an armed group that wants to search your plane and detain you.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All%20News/2013/June/19/AOPA-demands-answers-on-aircraft-searches.aspx
Its happening enough that now many organizations are printing out cards on what you should do if this happens.
Basically you should say you do not consent to a search, but will not resist, they do have guns. And remain silent and ask if you are under arrest or being detained.
Its happening everywhere. How would you like to land your plane and be surrounded by an armed group that wants to search your plane and detain you.
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All%20News/2013/June/19/AOPA-demands-answers-on-aircraft-searches.aspx
Its happening enough that now many organizations are printing out cards on what you should do if this happens.
Basically you should say you do not consent to a search, but will not resist, they do have guns. And remain silent and ask if you are under arrest or being detained.
Back when I was in the coast guard we searched pretty much any vessel we wanted without warrants or even probable cause. We would do forced armed boardings if needed - our "safety" boardings netted some very illegal contraband fairly often. While technically we needed probable cause to do warrant less searches, there are many ways around it - especially if at sea rather than in a harbor - and always easier to justify probable cause after the fact. Personally I found it a major violation of a persons rights but it is a right easily circumvented. And like you said, when heavily armed people show up it's hard to say no.
Back when I was in the coast guard we searched pretty much any vessel we wanted without warrants or even probable cause. We would do forced armed boardings if needed - our "safety" boardings netted some very illegal contraband fairly often. While technically we needed probable cause to do warrant less searches, there are many ways around it - especially if at sea rather than in a harbor - and always easier to justify probable cause after the fact. Personally I found it a major violation of a persons rights but it is a right easily circumvented. And like you said, when heavily armed people show up it's hard to say no.
The pilots arn't complaining about being searched at boarder crossings. It's being stopped and searched in the mid-west or more than 100 miles from a boarder.
more than 100 miles from a boarder.
But isn't that always the case with air travel? If I take an international flight from London to Kansas City, can I really say all the customs and borders stuff doesn't apply to me when I land in KC because I am a long way from the border?
But isn't that always the case with air travel? If I take an international flight from London to Kansas City, can I really say all the customs and borders stuff doesn't apply to me when I land in KC because I am a long way from the border?
But you crossed a border. The flights in question never crossed one. If I fly from one country to another I must make arrangements to stop a certain airports, if not I will definatly be in trouble. But flying from California to Colorado should not be a problem.
But you crossed a border. The flights in question never crossed one. If I fly from one country to another I must make arrangements to stop a certain airports, if not I will definatly be in trouble. But flying from California to Colorado should not be a problem.
Yep, so the issue isn't really distance from the border, which is the way the article makes it sound. Are these flights with a filed flight plan? If not, as most recreational flights aren't, I guess then it depends on where we put the burden to show how/why the lesser border standards applies.
Mead, while noting that CBP’s authority to conduct searches of aircraft that have crossed an international border is well understood, questioned the agency’s authority to operate in places like Iowa City.
“In all of our research to date, we cannot identify what authority is granted Customs and Border Protection to monitor general aviation activity within the borders of the United States and we question the authority under which CBP is conducting this monitoring, stop and search activity,” Mead wrote.
I agree that asking for a search warrant is probably the correct thing for many similar type situations. However, my reality from a small set of similar but less extreme experiences among friends is that when you tork off the police by questioning their authority, they may have legal ways of getting back. They may read resistance as an admission of guilt. There are some people in law enforcement that are on power trips. This isn't Kansas anymore.
flowerseverywhere
8-2-13, 9:28pm
This story is truly scary and puts the lie to all the assurances that we are getting from the govt.
The update doesn't change anything -- makes it worse in my mind because it proves they are spying on innocent people long term.
I think I will become a Rand Paul supporter. you seriously think this random blog post of a story is the truth of what is really happening? Not me. more blah blah blah that people will believe without verification to promote a political agenda.
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-13, 9:54pm
you seriously think this random blog post of a story is the truth of what is really happening? Not me. more blah blah blah that people will believe without verification to promote a political agenda.
From the latest it's not the entire truth, it was probably more his employer that reported him than say them monitoring google searching (not that they don't do that, but doesn't mean they did in this case). But that cops showed up at their door does seem to be confirmed. I actually give any story from real people a certain amount of possible credibility - as in may be true - I really don't know. If your going to try to fact check and verify this you should do the same for any news you say hear on television - that is the ultimate in blah blah blah that people will believe without verification to promote a political agenda.
you seriously think this random blog post of a story is the truth of what is really happening? Not me. more blah blah blah that people will believe without verification to promote a political agenda.
And you think our government's actions are all unicorns and rainbows? Really???
ApatheticNoMore
8-3-13, 2:20am
The thing is no political agenda actually depends on it. There are maybe a dozen really good arguments against mass surveillance, none of them depend on this story being true. Though yea fine that's one hypothetical *or* actual of how such power *could* be abused. What other political agenda? Distrust of cops? Yea you can find well documented stuff for that too (but the cops in this case were not abusive at any rate although they may not have had a reason to search). Support of Rand Paul? Uh it's a really long chain of reasoning to get from A to B there indeed (might as well support Democrat Wyden, he pushes back and probably more effectively).
Support for the argument that the government tracks everything? Well we'll probably not get the full story anytime soon. Two NSA whistleblowers have claimed it does, it stores everything, an old NSA mathematician says the size of the Utah data center indicates they must - that much storage isn't needed for metadata. But the government predictably denies like Clapper, who are you going to believe? Except to admit absolute certainty may not be in our possession, but I know which one I'm thinking is more plausible ..
If such things actually were going on do you imagine you'd hear about it in the mainstream media? I don't, it would not be televised. But still rumors get out. It might be youtubed (until google got too evil).
With regard to crossing borders: With laws so varied and the matter becoming so critical, I would expect to see the crossing of state boundaries as grounds for the police within that state to treat the crossing in the same way the federal government treats international border crossings.
flowerseverywhere
8-3-13, 7:42am
And you think our government's actions are all unicorns and rainbows? Really???no, I think there is a reason to carefully examine the governments roles in our personal lives. We have what, 300 million people in the US? How many millions of personal e-mails and tweets, facebook posts and blog posts are made daily. Plus the e-mails people get at work. How can they possibly monitor all of us? But here is the funniest thing to consider. If 25 years ago the government had said we are going to have everyone carry a personal tracking device and we are going to read everyone's mail there would have been a revolution. Now we pay a lot of money for the same privilege. We transmit all kinds of personal data without a care. There are very few of us that don't send e-mails, or post on the internet or carry a cell phone. We have made our data public. I am not defending a lot of what has gone on recently, just doubting that there are teams of agents making 100 searches a week around the country, the logistics and invisibility in this day of electronic media seems much to swallow.
flowerseverywhere
8-3-13, 7:47am
From the latest it's not the entire truth, it was probably more his employer that reported him than say them monitoring google searching (not that they don't do that, but doesn't mean they did in this case). But that cops showed up at their door does seem to be confirmed. I actually give any story from real people a certain amount of possible credibility - as in may be true - I really don't know. If your going to try to fact check and verify this you should do the same for any news you say hear on television - that is the ultimate in blah blah blah that people will believe without verification to promote a political agenda. Yes, I do question a lot. Weapons of mass destruction for instance as verification for going to war. That was a real tragedy, thousands of American lives lost and countless maimed and injured. I see all kinds of crazy e-mails and facebook posts that teeter on the edge of being downright evil in the message they send. Case in point, someone said to me recently she dreaded turning 72 because that was when Obama was going to cut out her medication. Seriously. Sometimes I feel like watching the news is akin to reading the national Enquirer. And I met two people who are stocking up on guns and ammo legally, they hinted it was to protect against a coming government invasion. They can't even balance a budget, how are they going to get their act together to round us all up? but history has shown that there have been many evil people who have gotten all the thugs to help them do awful things to a populace, so I guess it could be true.
Regarding the OP and its subsequent updates, one aspect that bothers me is that the husbands former employer flagged him. I wouldn't have any problem with that if he was posting about blowing up a grade school or playing sniper outside an abortion clinic, but there is no indication that he did anything more than most of us with a curious streak do. If that's true it is a little disturbing. Is this a tactic employers will start using to keep employes in line? How many disgruntled employes will turn in their former co-workers just to get even? From the airplane view, is the government going to, officially or otherwise, encourage citizens to spy on each other and report anything that might be suspicious? That's not a trend I'm particularly comfortable with.
I don't want to project what you could mean, so could you please outline the specific actions that you are concerned about?
ToomuchStuff
8-3-13, 12:31pm
Regarding the OP and its subsequent updates, one aspect that bothers me is that the husbands former employer flagged him. I wouldn't have any problem with that if he was posting about blowing up a grade school or playing sniper outside an abortion clinic, but there is no indication that he did anything more than most of us with a curious streak do. If that's true it is a little disturbing. Is this a tactic employers will start using to keep employes in line? How many disgruntled employes will turn in their former co-workers just to get even? From the airplane view, is the government going to, officially or otherwise, encourage citizens to spy on each other and report anything that might be suspicious? That's not a trend I'm particularly comfortable with.
I didn't see anything on why and how he left his former employer. It could have been on good terms or bad. If bad terms, you could have had the companies security and lawyers worrying about liability, if it wasn't reported (and he struck back at them). If it was on good terms, you could have had someone who didn't like him, and had someone whose family was in Boston and it struck them differently then others, so they reported it.
There is a lot, that we will probably never know.
The pilots arn't complaining about being searched at boarder crossings. It's being stopped and searched in the mid-west or more than 100 miles from a boarder. We'd board vessels docked or moored in some US harbor and "inspect" them as long as we had some probable cause that they may have something illegal onboard or may have come from somewhere outside the USA or just because we wanted to make sure you had the required documentation or safety equipment. Even if the vessel was your private domicile just like your house. Pretty darn invasive IMHO. Imagine sailing off the coast on a lovely summer day and a bunch of heavily armed people just board your boat and start searching it for no "apparent" reason and no warrant. Sad to say that happened a lot - both in territorial waters, at docks, in harbors as well as in international waters to both US and foreign vessels. Very invasive but also very effective from a law enforcement stand. I imagine it's the same when ICE searches a plane lying from point A to pointbB even if it never crossed any borders.
From the airplane view, is the government going to, officially or otherwise, encourage citizens to spy on each other and report anything that might be suspicious? That's not a trend I'm particularly comfortable with.
Speaking of airplane view, if you're in airports or on public transit it's not only encouraged but drilled into you constantly these days - "report anything suspicious" - especially suspicious behavior.
ApatheticNoMore
8-3-13, 3:19pm
We have what, 300 million people in the US? How many millions of personal e-mails and tweets, facebook posts and blog posts are made daily. Plus the e-mails people get at work. How can they possibly monitor all of us?
They can store and archive all data, the NSA whistleblower said for 100 years (for everyone's lifetime basically). Then they can data mine and analyze all data as well. That's what computers DO. Is this a question of whether not they have the computing capacity to do that? I don't doubt they do.
But here is the funniest thing to consider. If 25 years ago the government had said we are going to have everyone carry a personal tracking device and we are going to read everyone's mail there would have been a revolution. Now we pay a lot of money for the same privilege. We transmit all kinds of personal data without a care. There are very few of us that don't send e-mails, or post on the internet or carry a cell phone. We have made our data public.
uh no, noone consented to government tracking it all. Odd you think all private emails are public, apparently they are, but no noone consented to that.
I am not defending a lot of what has gone on recently, just doubting that there are teams of agents making 100 searches a week around the country.
I thought the 100 searches a week were just locally. But anyway that's a figure that should be checkable.
And I met two people who are stocking up on guns and ammo legally, they hinted it was to protect against a coming government invasion. They can't even balance a budget, how are they going to get their act together to round us all up?
priorities, now actually I am NOT arguing they ARE trying to round us all up, just that government can prioritize spending on what it wants to. Why do several undeclared half wars continue all over the world when they can't balance the budget? Priorities. Clearly balancing the budget is not a priority and I'm not sure why it should be (especially from their perspective). They have the ability to money print afterall. Plus I think they can turn to various illegal scams to make money if they really wanted to keep funding whatever is black budget no matter what (all that NSA info could surely be used for insider trading right?)
Regarding the OP and its subsequent updates, one aspect that bothers me is that the husbands former employer flagged him.
I think the workplace being constantly spied on, the employee constantly subject to little brother, drives people whack! I think it's a deep subconscious stress load felt the moment an employee steps in the workplace (even if they are doing nothing wrong :~)). But an employer is not the NSA, the worst they can do is fire you, provided they don't start working hand in glove with the government as in this case. That would be a new level of horrible, all employers now monitoring their employees for the government.
flowerseverywhere
8-3-13, 3:26pm
uh no, noone consented to government tracking it all. Odd you think all private emails are public, apparently they are, but no noone consented to that.
I thought the 100 searches a week were just locally. But anyway that's a figure that should be checkable.
maybe you can figure out the figure for the amount of searches being done, I don't know how to check it. 100 local searches a week makes 15 a day. How could a team possibly do this? Are they all in the same block? Also, I don't think e-mails are public, and we did not consent to government tracking via our cellphones. But apparently that type of info is introduced into court cases or police work, as in Trevon Martin or with the Boston bombers and no one had any problem with it.
Odd you think all private emails are public, apparently they are, but no noone consented to that.
Unless you take relatively extraordinary measures regarding your internet security and privacy you should probably assume nothing is private. The odds of getting hacked/spied on/surveilled/etc. rest heavily on what you do online to raise flags. As we now know, if your activity is interesting enough to someone who knows what they're doing they will watch you. My best defense is to be boring.
My best defense is to be boring.
Mine too, unfortunately I don't have to work at it.
I don't want to project what you could mean, so could you please outline the specific actions that you are concerned about?
Nothing specific (at least nothing beyond the President's enemies list). Like most people I've always believed it was far better for citizens to remain vigilant that it was to let the government monitor everything. Unfortunately my perception now is that government monitoring is at an all time high AND there are more and more instances where it is also asking citizens to help escalate that even further by reporting anything they see. See creaker's example of airport security. Anyway, it just has the feeling of an increasing state of paranoia where people are going to start seeing boogey men that aren't really there and others will use the same channels to satisfy personal vendettas. Neither case is truly new, it just seems to be ebbing ever further into daily life. Either that is really happening or I am the one who is paranoid. Arguments can be made either way.
iris lilies
8-3-13, 6:30pm
Speaking of airplane view, if you're in airports or on public transit it's not only encouraged but drilled into you constantly these days - "report anything suspicious" - especially suspicious behavior.
It's not just these day, I first encountered tight airport security in the 1970's in London when the IRA was blowing up stuff and people. Airport and train terminal security was always in your face there. I specifically remember no trash cans in the train stations, what a pain.
It's not just these day, I first encountered tight airport security in the 1970's in London when the IRA was blowing up stuff and people. Airport and train terminal security was always in your face there. I specifically remember no trash cans in the train stations, what a pain.
I was an air force brat in the 70's - seeing fully armed soldiers in the airport in Rome was an eye opener.
But (putting on my conspiracy hat) - sometimes I think this kind of security is more to modify people's thinking than to make people safe. It feels like we've had this huge training program since 9/11 to get people to practice to submit mindlessly to authority. From taking off our shoes, to getting x-rayed, and groped, to making us put shampoo in 3 oz bottles. Most folks don't even think twice about it any more. I'm thinking the day is not too far off that any refusal of any "official" request will be in itself probable cause for search and detainment.
Creaker...I could go with this thought too if I just let myself go. I read Farenheit 451 a couple of years ago and it scared me with its accuracy depicting what is happening today.
ApatheticNoMore
8-3-13, 9:14pm
My best defense is to be boring.
I may be some people's definition of boring (well, I can't help their terrible taste :laff:), but I don't think I can be the type of boring you'd need to be sure to be on noone's radar, which is to say entirely apolitical. And I don't think I should have to be.
My best defense is to be boring.
From the government's point of view, I'm probably the very opposite of boring. And yet, nobody has ever knocked on my door demanding to search my premises without a warrant. I wonder why....
ApatheticNoMore
8-3-13, 9:54pm
If it's like anything else I suspect you are more likely to be targeted if you are say minority or poor or Muslim or something like that (not this particular case). So yea they may very well target those least able to defend themselves through the legal system.
Creaker...I could go with this thought too if I just let myself go. I read Farenheit 451 a couple of years ago and it scared me with its accuracy depicting what is happening today.
I always think of The Fifth Element (cheezy movie, but fun). The police always say please and thank you, but saying "no" to any request they make is not an option.
iris lilies
8-3-13, 10:50pm
I always think of The Fifth Element (cheezy movie, but fun). The police always say please and thank you, but saying "no" to any request they make is not an option. that's a really good sci fi film
ToomuchStuff, you are right, here's the update on Dailey Kos that explain the author's addendum. It seems that a corporate entity was concerned that a disgruntled employee would come back and blow up the place.
UPDATE 3: There’s more to the story than Catalano let on. According to the Suffolk County police department (via TechCrunch), the suspicious Google searches were reported by an employer, and the searches were performed on the workplace computer of a “recently released employee.” (It’s not clear from the police’s statement who the employee was.) So while the terms “pressure cooker bomb” and “backpack” were indeed flagged as suspicious, this was a case of a company monitoring its employee’s web searches, not secret monitoring of things you search for in the privacy of your home. It’s an interesting story either way–something to think about if you’re Googling at work–but I do regret jumping on it before all the facts were in order. The rest of the original story continues below.
Is there a link to this specific piece?
Anyway, it just has the feeling of an increasing state of paranoia where people are going to start seeing boogey men that aren't really there and others will use the same channels to satisfy personal vendettas.Perhaps my spouse and I come from an earlier time, when the level of civilian vigilance being touted was reasonable and customary. From my view, the level only briefly ebbed significantly during the 1980s and 1990s.
Actually, we're still in ebb, in some ways. A car alarm or house alarm goes off and many people these days just ignore it. We even have places where people witnessing an attack look the other way and flee instead of calling the authorities to respond to the attack. For years we lived in neighborhoods where we were sure that our neighbors wouldn't do anything if our home was being broken into or even if they heard screaming coming from our home.
It is only in the last ten years that I've noted neighbors actually going back to keeping an eye on us and our homes, calling us when we leave our inadvertently garage door open, etc. And that's mostly the elderly folks in their 80s, who live across the street, who grew up in a time when keeping an eye on things - what you seem to consider paranoia - was expected.
flowerseverywhere
8-4-13, 7:37am
of course there is more to the story. If you search there are several news stories that slightly differ. It appears the police did not enter the house. It was the local police detectives and apparently the origin of the questioning (not search) was from an employer report. Employers do monitor your computer use. They don't hide that fact http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57596728/n.y-.couple-gets-scare-over-simple-google-search/ http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/science_tech/new-york-couples-google-search-ends-with-police-search by the way, read the comments after the story. Huge levels of exaggeration and paranoia totally out of proportion with the original story. If it happened to me I would be freaked out. But the original supposition of a band of agents that search a hundred times a week after people do google searches does not seem to be accurate.
iris lilies
8-4-13, 8:38am
Is there a link to this specific piece?
yes, and I meant to include it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/01/1228194/-Wife-searches-online-pressure-cookers-husband-a-backpack-Terrorism-task-force-shows-up-at-house
From the government's point of view, I'm probably the very opposite of boring. And yet, nobody has ever knocked on my door demanding to search my premises without a warrant. I wonder why....
Maybe they just don't like to swim.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.