Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/01/google-pressure-cooker-get-a-police-visit-maybe-not/
9 comments
I don't see how this is busting her story much. The FBI confirmed that cops went to her house, just not FBI agents, but local ones. Still, if the FBI knew, then clearly it was a joint operation in some way. Then, the WP says that the reason they went could be something other than Google searches, and instead something that they posted on Facebook or a jumpy neighbor (although that's doubtful because they never actually bought any of the stuff, just search the web for it). But does it really matter? Whether the feds got the info from Google or Facebook, it still appears to be the case that this family did research online about various items, and then cops went and knocked on their doors. No actual crime, no presumption, purely based on search terms. That's still pretty ridiculous.
Yes, the difference between "posted on facebook" and "did research online" is an extremely important distinction to make. One is meant to be seen by others (the exact grouping defined by the privacy setting), the other is not.
"if the FBI knew, then clearly it was a joint operation in some way"
or the FBI can access to police records when necessary, and sometimes checks said records when mass media indicts them in a conspiracy to harass pressure cooker enthusiasts. Of course, this explanation is far less exciting, but it is based on two assumptions we can be reasonably certain are true.
Now how does that sit with the theory Ms Catalano just might have been a little prone to exaggeration or jumping to the wrong conclusions about who was visiting her and why?
or the FBI can access to police records when necessary, and sometimes checks said records when mass media indicts them in a conspiracy to harass pressure cooker enthusiasts. Of course, this explanation is far less exciting, but it is based on two assumptions we can be reasonably certain are true.
Now how does that sit with the theory Ms Catalano just might have been a little prone to exaggeration or jumping to the wrong conclusions about who was visiting her and why?
The FBI could have easily called and asked local police, since they were getting the heat for it. THe local police would be much more willing to talk to the FBI than reporters, and the FBI wouldn't have to go through PR officers...
> purely based on search terms.
I got the impression from the blog post that a son may have clicked on links possibly relating to how bombs are made. Perhaps the FBI were monitoring who clicks on those links, and then checked for further search activity etc.
I'm not suggesting any of this is warranted obviously (Terrorism isn't a real threat at all), but it does look like it was more than 'just' search terms.
I got the impression from the blog post that a son may have clicked on links possibly relating to how bombs are made. Perhaps the FBI were monitoring who clicks on those links, and then checked for further search activity etc.
I'm not suggesting any of this is warranted obviously (Terrorism isn't a real threat at all), but it does look like it was more than 'just' search terms.
There is a huge difference! if they visited her because of her web searches which are private then it's a big deal, if on the other hand the visit was due to her profile picture which is public then it's not as big of a deal.
What's private about a web search, exactly? For unauthenticated sessions, Google does not use HTTPS by default. If I click through to a SERP link, my search referrer is passed to that party. They can do what they want with it, including alerting authorities. Not that authorities need alerting or warrant to capture all non-secure traffic.
I'm not convinced we know any of the reasons for the visit yet, but it's fairly disingenuous to consider ANYTHING done on an online property, that you don't own, is not public.
I'm not convinced we know any of the reasons for the visit yet, but it's fairly disingenuous to consider ANYTHING done on an online property, that you don't own, is not public.
The distinction between public and private in this scenario is the difference between pictures posted so that everyone can see versus a string that only two parties can read directly or others might sniff indirectly.
It's too bad we didn't get her in 2007!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asv/1244780876/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/asv/1244780876/in/photostream/
Is interesting that the FBI have said there was a police visit from specific departments, although those police departments themselves are dancing round the issue.
I wonder if the police misrepresented themselves.
“They were officers from the Nassau County Police Department who identified themselves as such,” said Kelly Langmesser, the FBI spokeswoman. But mysteriously, neither the Nassau nor Suffolk County Police would confirm their involvement in the investigation Thursday afternoon. An officer from the Nassau County Police repeatedly refused to even give her first name; a Public Information Officer in Suffolk County said she would comment when she had more information.
I wonder if the police misrepresented themselves.
“They were officers from the Nassau County Police Department who identified themselves as such,” said Kelly Langmesser, the FBI spokeswoman. But mysteriously, neither the Nassau nor Suffolk County Police would confirm their involvement in the investigation Thursday afternoon. An officer from the Nassau County Police repeatedly refused to even give her first name; a Public Information Officer in Suffolk County said she would comment when she had more information.
The FBI, for all their faults, are professionals. Local police? Ha!
Professionals!? You mean the guys who refuse to record interviews with suspects? Now what reason could they possibly have for refusing to record an interview...
That makes them sound even more professional, if you consider it in their professional interest to cover their tracks.
Certainly problematic, but I wouldn't describe the problem with that as a lack of professionalism per se.
They aren't honest, they aren't trustworthy, they don't act in your interest... but they aren't juveniles either. They don't act like a bunch of out of control children on power-trips.
They aren't honest, they aren't trustworthy, they don't act in your interest... but they aren't juveniles either. They don't act like a bunch of out of control children on power-trips.
Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title. There is basically nothing the writer cites to absolutely negate the claim that a Google search possibly resulted in a visit from the police?
She searched for pressure cookers, and police came to her house asking her, among other things, whether they own pressure cookers and if they know how to make a bomb out of pressure cookers. Those are the facts.
She searched for pressure cookers, and police came to her house asking her, among other things, whether they own pressure cookers and if they know how to make a bomb out of pressure cookers. Those are the facts.
Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title.
Accurate. The word you are looking for is accurate. At the current time, we don't know why they visited her house for sure.
We don't know that she was asked about pressure cookers because she googled them. That's inference, not fact.
Accurate. The word you are looking for is accurate. At the current time, we don't know why they visited her house for sure.
We don't know that she was asked about pressure cookers because she googled them. That's inference, not fact.
"God Exists!..Maybe!... or maybe even NOT!"
Above statement is 100% accurate... and completely and utterly stupid and most definitely not worth publishing.
Indeed you are accurate as well in saying that we do not know why they visited her house for sure. But publishing an article that adds a "maybe not" to the claimed series of events brings us no closer to finding that out.
Above statement is 100% accurate... and completely and utterly stupid and most definitely not worth publishing.
Indeed you are accurate as well in saying that we do not know why they visited her house for sure. But publishing an article that adds a "maybe not" to the claimed series of events brings us no closer to finding that out.
Why would "God Exists!..Maybe!... or maybe even NOT!" not be worth publishing? An article that outlines the evidence and arguments both for and against the existence of God would make for a great read.
In fact, your example touches on a larger point. An article like that about God would, if presented logically, have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that God exists- all we have to go on are people's individual written accounts, and no hard evidence.
Compare that to this situation... where all we have is an individual written account and no hard evidence.
In fact, your example touches on a larger point. An article like that about God would, if presented logically, have to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that God exists- all we have to go on are people's individual written accounts, and no hard evidence.
Compare that to this situation... where all we have is an individual written account and no hard evidence.
Reasonably good job on taking my sarcastic remark and applying it to this situation where it really has no business being applied to. No really, kudos.
Fact 1) Woman claims she was visited by some type of joint task terrorist police force
Fact 2) She claims that they asked her husband about pressure cookers and whether they knew how to make a bomb with it
Fact 3) She claims to have searched for pressure cookers on Google earlier
Let's just try and verify if those facts are indeed true and/or related before hand-waving the whole thing off as a "Maybe not!" because there is no "hard evidence".. okay?
Fact 1) Woman claims she was visited by some type of joint task terrorist police force
Fact 2) She claims that they asked her husband about pressure cookers and whether they knew how to make a bomb with it
Fact 3) She claims to have searched for pressure cookers on Google earlier
Let's just try and verify if those facts are indeed true and/or related before hand-waving the whole thing off as a "Maybe not!" because there is no "hard evidence".. okay?
I'm not sure in what sense that was supposed to be sarcasm. Hyperbole, perhaps. In any case, I took it and applied a rule that applies equally in non-sarcastic/hyperbolic situations.
Anyway. You've just stated that we have three entirely unverified facts. How is "maybe, maybe not" the incorrect response to that?
Anyway. You've just stated that we have three entirely unverified facts. How is "maybe, maybe not" the incorrect response to that?
[deleted]
Those are the "facts" without any context. Context is important.
Nor have there been reports to support her claim. As to the police visit, there are plenty of other speculative reasons for it: https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...
I suspect the author incorrectly inferred that the visit was directly related to the family's google search history. Still, it'd be very unsettling if the post of a picture of firecrackers was a factor in the decision to send a squad out for questioning.
Am I the only one who grew up with M-XX fireworks and loved using them for a couple weeks a year? Exploding mushrooms and dropping them down crawdad holes was the extent of my nefarious behavior...
Here's a good video of one of the fun ways to use M-66 firecrackers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xibj58ADk
Am I the only one who grew up with M-XX fireworks and loved using them for a couple weeks a year? Exploding mushrooms and dropping them down crawdad holes was the extent of my nefarious behavior...
Here's a good video of one of the fun ways to use M-66 firecrackers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xibj58ADk
No .. just stop it.
What a strange tactic to try and bring truth to a truly peculiar story by introducing another completely uninformed person's ramblings and insinuations.
Here are two facts:
1) She searched for pressure cookers
2) The police officer asked her if her and her husband own a pressure cooker and/or knew how to make a bomb with it
Trying to start a conversation around a picture of fireworks she had on her Facebook account posted on Independence day contributes EXACTLY ZERO to settling the 2 disturbing facts we are trying to consolidate.
What a strange tactic to try and bring truth to a truly peculiar story by introducing another completely uninformed person's ramblings and insinuations.
Here are two facts:
1) She searched for pressure cookers
2) The police officer asked her if her and her husband own a pressure cooker and/or knew how to make a bomb with it
Trying to start a conversation around a picture of fireworks she had on her Facebook account posted on Independence day contributes EXACTLY ZERO to settling the 2 disturbing facts we are trying to consolidate.
You realize that the Boston bombers gathered normal fireworks, which they then used in a pressure cookers, right?
Some hysterical Facebook user saw that she had posted a picture of a bunch of fireworks (in classic statistical failings, so many are claiming that no one could possibly call in for hers given that there are many other pictures of fireworks on the tubes. Those people have no understanding of odds), and in the shadow of Boston felt that this was a critical thing to tell the police about. The police pretty much have to follow up on all such things, so they go and talk to them, again in the shadow of the Boston bombings, asking about Boston bombing type things (because street-level law enforcement is often looking backwards, assuming the same crimes are the new norm).
Yes, a picture of fireworks absolutely explains why they would ask about a pressure cooker. Whether she had previously been looking up pressure cookers or backpacks (if that is actually true at all) almost certainly has nothing to do with this, but she knew where to go with it for maximum interest.
Some hysterical Facebook user saw that she had posted a picture of a bunch of fireworks (in classic statistical failings, so many are claiming that no one could possibly call in for hers given that there are many other pictures of fireworks on the tubes. Those people have no understanding of odds), and in the shadow of Boston felt that this was a critical thing to tell the police about. The police pretty much have to follow up on all such things, so they go and talk to them, again in the shadow of the Boston bombings, asking about Boston bombing type things (because street-level law enforcement is often looking backwards, assuming the same crimes are the new norm).
Yes, a picture of fireworks absolutely explains why they would ask about a pressure cooker. Whether she had previously been looking up pressure cookers or backpacks (if that is actually true at all) almost certainly has nothing to do with this, but she knew where to go with it for maximum interest.
She also says:
"They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing. I don’t know what happens on the other 1% of visits and I’m not sure I want to know what my neighbors are up to." https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724
There is no proof it was a result of her searches.
"They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing. I don’t know what happens on the other 1% of visits and I’m not sure I want to know what my neighbors are up to." https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724
There is no proof it was a result of her searches.
What exactly is your point?
Well in any case, at least we're back to the original claims so let's try and get to the bottom of it:
The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure cooker bomb related questions?
Again how is this statement supposed to do to dispel the original Google search = police visit suspicion. The cop probably doesn't want the suspected terrorist to get too jumpy. In any case.. who cares how the cop is trying to justify his strange visit to this particular household. He's certainly not going to explicitly say "Well we know you searched for pressure cookers so we wanted to see what that's all about". Or is that the kind of "proof" you're hoping to see here.
The goal here should be to try and verify the woman's claims. Not try and find 100 reasons to dismiss it in the fastest manner possible.
Well in any case, at least we're back to the original claims so let's try and get to the bottom of it:
The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure cooker bomb related questions?
Again how is this statement supposed to do to dispel the original Google search = police visit suspicion. The cop probably doesn't want the suspected terrorist to get too jumpy. In any case.. who cares how the cop is trying to justify his strange visit to this particular household. He's certainly not going to explicitly say "Well we know you searched for pressure cookers so we wanted to see what that's all about". Or is that the kind of "proof" you're hoping to see here.
The goal here should be to try and verify the woman's claims. Not try and find 100 reasons to dismiss it in the fastest manner possible.
The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure cooker bomb related questions?
Evidently in Boston they do.
I agree completely, the goal is to verify the claims, and thankfully someone is trying to: http://twitter.com/kashhill
Evidently in Boston they do.
I agree completely, the goal is to verify the claims, and thankfully someone is trying to: http://twitter.com/kashhill
"The government needs legal process—such as a subpoena, court order or search warrant—to force Google to disclose user information."
Well, as long as we know that the NSA has installed hardware at their "partner" companies, the main questions about the degree of access to private user data seem answered to me.
Well, as long as we know that the NSA has installed hardware at their "partner" companies, the main questions about the degree of access to private user data seem answered to me.
They don't need to ask google for anything sent in plaintext, they can get that at the ISP.
Is it possible that the picture on FB led someone to "tip off" the police, who in turn began looking into the matter and (legally) discovered that there had been some searches for pressure cookers and backpacks and then continued to look into the matter by paying them a very civil police visit?
The police look into leads all the time and a lot of them turn out to be people totally unrelated to the matter, or people that have actually done no wrong. But the police can't tell the future. They don't know ahead of time which tip is legit and which one is a dead end. They go down a few dead ends before finding the right one. Wouldn't it be nice if every thing was solved on the very first lead or inquiry.
The police look into leads all the time and a lot of them turn out to be people totally unrelated to the matter, or people that have actually done no wrong. But the police can't tell the future. They don't know ahead of time which tip is legit and which one is a dead end. They go down a few dead ends before finding the right one. Wouldn't it be nice if every thing was solved on the very first lead or inquiry.
"As Catalano wrote in her post, the investigators asked her husband pretty innocuous questions:
> Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? … Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb?"
In what world does a police anti-terrorism task force coming in to your home and asking if your home cooking implements are to be used to make a bomb designed to kill and maim constitute "innocuous questions?"
> Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? … Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb?"
In what world does a police anti-terrorism task force coming in to your home and asking if your home cooking implements are to be used to make a bomb designed to kill and maim constitute "innocuous questions?"
I can't imagine anyone would get a visit from law enforcement for posting a picture of fireworks on July 4th.
Another data point in this story. https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...
How is that a data point? It's unfounded blabbering from someone who knows nothing about the situation and has no more facts or information than the WP article does. Declan even admits he hasn't investigated this case.
It's shameful how many publications ran with this story on face value.
Yes, but this fact needs a lot less attention than the state we're currently in, given the ignorance and resulting apathy of the general public.
So, the news needs to be hysterical to make up for people's lack of hysterics?
Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
Huh? they're running a story that implies that the feds or local police can monitor Google searches without evidence, they are cynically exploiting recent headlines to pull traffic. If you want the press to be taken seriously on serious matters they need to get this shit together.
> If you want the press to be taken seriously on serious matters they need to get this shit together.
That's certainly true for the educated readers/people.
It's a sad thing, but if you want to get real change, you're going to need the masses mobilized. Educated people already know about the current problems and a lot of them care and do want to take action - the thing is, we're a tiny minority.
In other words, the issue you are raising doesn't really need to be addressed, in the current situation - the more visibility for the main problem at stake, the better. Unless you work for the NSA, Google, Microsoft/Skype, Paltalk, AOL, and a ton of defense contractors etc., that is.
That's certainly true for the educated readers/people.
It's a sad thing, but if you want to get real change, you're going to need the masses mobilized. Educated people already know about the current problems and a lot of them care and do want to take action - the thing is, we're a tiny minority.
In other words, the issue you are raising doesn't really need to be addressed, in the current situation - the more visibility for the main problem at stake, the better. Unless you work for the NSA, Google, Microsoft/Skype, Paltalk, AOL, and a ton of defense contractors etc., that is.