4 ms·

I will sometimes stop myself from googling something I'm curious about. I imagine a situation where I become falsely accused of a crime and the search I'm about

by nsxwolf 10y ago

I will sometimes stop myself from googling something I'm curious about. I imagine a situation where I become falsely accused of a crime and the search I'm about to make coincidentally incriminates me and is discovered with a subpoena.

Gibbon1 10y ago
I'm pretty sure they have me set to ignore. (Threat Class: Nerd. Threat Level: 1/5. Threat Target: Probable Self) On the other hand I have a machine for messing around on the internet. And a machine for work. And a machine I do things like banking and taxes on.
- executesorder66 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure being a nerd puts you on a threat level of 5/5. http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extrem...
Godel_unicode 10y ago
You're being paranoid, that will never happen. Full stop. I realize this attitude is unpopular around here, and tin-foil hat one-upsmanship is the name of the game, but seriously. Relax. You're over thinking it.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  TSA did detain people for their tweets, didn't they?
  - golergka 10y ago
    Context? Because I remember, for example, a story about two idiots posting photographs of weapons with captions about how they're going to a certain event to shoot people up there. Suddenly, arresting people "for" their tweets doesn't seem as stupid, does it. (It all ended without any bloodshed, idiots pretended it was just a joke).
- pessimizer 10y ago
  It has happened before, and will happen again. People will be rounded up en masse from lists generated by state intelligence organizations, interrogated, shot, and dumped into mass graves. It may not happen in the US any time soon, but what if you live in Saudi Arabia and the US shares your Google searches with them? How about Singapore? The West Bank? Indonesia? South Korea? You offer no argument but your own comfortable middle-class security. Relax, you can probably get a job writing the software that makes the list. They'll never use it anyway, and shouldn't we keep an eye on those people?
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    That's a pretty manipulative pair of false comparisons, don't you think? To take them in order: 1 - search history of one person has strikingly little to do with mass "rounding up", that's almost always an ethnic/demographic thing 2 - OP isn't in any of those places. Context is important in these discussions, there are lots of things which are safe to do in the United States which are not safe in some of those places; should we stop speaking our minds as well? That's dangerous in all those places.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  It's already happened. Proof: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/1stDistrict/1092158.pdf http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/1... But seriously. Stop relaxing so much. The situation has already become worse than you apparently believe possible.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    That's not the proof you think it is (even if it does have the words "murder" and "search history" in it). If this is the best supporting evidence you could find, then I'm right, OP doesn't need to worry and can relax. As long as he doesn't plan a murder several times, tell multiple people about it, solicit people to commit it for him, lie to the police when questioned, and leave multiple pieces of physical evidence he'll be just fine. The search history is one small piece of a large pile of evidence and was not the thing that tipped the scale. Were it not present, the outcome would likely have been the same. Seriously, relax. You're over thinking it.
    - marssaxman 10y ago
      That was not the best evidence I could find; it was the first evidence I could find, after about fifteen seconds' search. This kind of thing happens all the time. It is not hard to turn up the proof if one cares to look. You are moving the goalposts. Previous poster said "incriminates me and is discovered with a subpoena". They did not say "to the exclusion of all other evidence". Search histories are already being used as evidence, this is indisputable. Nobody ever claimed they were being used as the only evidence.

by nsxwolf 10y ago

Gibbon1 10y ago

I'm pretty sure they have me set to ignore. (Threat Class: Nerd. Threat Level: 1/5. Threat Target: Probable Self) On the other hand I have a machine for messing around on the internet. And a machine for work. And a machine I do things like banking and taxes on.

executesorder66 10y ago
I'm pretty sure being a nerd puts you on a threat level of 5/5. http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extrem...

Godel_unicode 10y ago

You're being paranoid, that will never happen. Full stop. I realize this attitude is unpopular around here, and tin-foil hat one-upsmanship is the name of the game, but seriously. Relax. You're over thinking it.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
TSA did detain people for their tweets, didn't they?
- golergka 10y ago
  Context? Because I remember, for example, a story about two idiots posting photographs of weapons with captions about how they're going to a certain event to shoot people up there. Suddenly, arresting people "for" their tweets doesn't seem as stupid, does it. (It all ended without any bloodshed, idiots pretended it was just a joke).
pessimizer 10y ago
It has happened before, and will happen again. People will be rounded up en masse from lists generated by state intelligence organizations, interrogated, shot, and dumped into mass graves. It may not happen in the US any time soon, but what if you live in Saudi Arabia and the US shares your Google searches with them? How about Singapore? The West Bank? Indonesia? South Korea? You offer no argument but your own comfortable middle-class security. Relax, you can probably get a job writing the software that makes the list. They'll never use it anyway, and shouldn't we keep an eye on those people?
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  That's a pretty manipulative pair of false comparisons, don't you think? To take them in order: 1 - search history of one person has strikingly little to do with mass "rounding up", that's almost always an ethnic/demographic thing 2 - OP isn't in any of those places. Context is important in these discussions, there are lots of things which are safe to do in the United States which are not safe in some of those places; should we stop speaking our minds as well? That's dangerous in all those places.
marssaxman 10y ago
It's already happened. Proof: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/1stDistrict/1092158.pdf http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/opinions/AppellateCourt/2012/1... But seriously. Stop relaxing so much. The situation has already become worse than you apparently believe possible.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  That's not the proof you think it is (even if it does have the words "murder" and "search history" in it). If this is the best supporting evidence you could find, then I'm right, OP doesn't need to worry and can relax. As long as he doesn't plan a murder several times, tell multiple people about it, solicit people to commit it for him, lie to the police when questioned, and leave multiple pieces of physical evidence he'll be just fine. The search history is one small piece of a large pile of evidence and was not the thing that tipped the scale. Were it not present, the outcome would likely have been the same. Seriously, relax. You're over thinking it.
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    That was not the best evidence I could find; it was the first evidence I could find, after about fifteen seconds' search. This kind of thing happens all the time. It is not hard to turn up the proof if one cares to look. You are moving the goalposts. Previous poster said "incriminates me and is discovered with a subpoena". They did not say "to the exclusion of all other evidence". Search histories are already being used as evidence, this is indisputable. Nobody ever claimed they were being used as the only evidence.