6 ms·

Our government is sending gangs of armed men to perfectly innocent citizens' doors to interrogate them, simply because the authorities don't like what the peopl

Our government is sending gangs of armed men to perfectly innocent citizens' doors to interrogate them, simply because the authorities don't like what the people are looking at online. Chilling. Now that PRISM and XKeyscore are being reported on in the main stream media, I hope we'll hear many more stories like this and that this will cause folks to realize that it could easily be their door next time.

ianterrell 13y ago
It does make you wonder about the reporting rate on these sorts of events. Considering the hostile skepticism on the thread about the article Ms Catalano posted, I would not be surprised if other people (especially those without professional writing credentials and a million-strong twitter audience) had decided not to come forward with their stories in the past.
- x0x0 13y ago
  it also makes you wonder if the interrogees still get treated with kid gloves when they aren't relatively well off people with access to money (and therefore lawyers) and large publications/audiences with which to complain.
- untog 13y ago
  Considering the hostile skepticism on the thread about the article Ms Catalano posted There is nothing wrong with skepticism, and I would dispute that it was "hostile". We can't just go around accepting every story we read because it is a story we want it to be real.
  - cgag 13y ago
    Maybe it's just a matter of perspective but it seems to me to be much more common for people to go around denying stories they don't want to be real (police and government abuses of power).
  - griffordson 13y ago
    Was the same level of skepticism shown when the government claimed that Snowden was lying? Why not? Why is it that a private citizen is automatically doubted when they make a claim that is easily verifiable but when the government makes a claim that has been repeatedly contradicted by multiple people over the span of years, including at least two sitting US Senators, the government's claims are taken at face value? Shouldn't her story get a minimum benefit of doubt until some independent reporting can be done on the claims? Especially when everything she claims is plausible given what is known about the government's capabilities.
    - untog 13y ago
      Was the same level of skepticism shown when the government claimed that Snowden was lying? Why not? Uh, didn't really give me a chance to answer there, did you? I would say that the vast majority of people were skeptical of government claims that Snowden was lying. So the rest of your post is describing a situation that I did not witness.
riggins 13y ago
Our government is sending gangs of armed men to perfectly innocent citizens' doors to interrogate them I don't think hyperbole is necessary. In this case the facts are scary enough (i.e. most people don't consider the police an armed gang). Who wants the government to have virtually omniscient awareness of their activities?
- sbarre 13y ago
  > most people don't consider the police an armed gang Because the militarization of police, and the increasing use of SWAT, are trends that argue against this. What if next time instead of sending regular officers they send in SWAT?
- glesica 13y ago
  > most people don't consider the police an armed gang Actually a significant portion of the population DO consider the police an armed gang, and have done so for quite some time. For starters, poor people in urban areas. The difference is that now wealthier people are starting to be treated the same way poor people have been treated all along.
  - incision 13y ago
    Very true. Growing up I was far more scared of the police than anyone else in what was not a very nice area. This wasn't cultural conditioning either. It was the experience of being routinely stopped, questioned, accused, intimidated and occasionally humiliated by being made to partially disrobe. It makes for a terrible feeling of powerlessness when someone else can do whatever they want to you at any time and any effort to avoid much less rebuke the situation will only make it worse. At least one friend of mine from that time is now a police officer. His experience has only confirmed the prevalence of this ugly "at war" mentality in in law enforcement.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    That is exactly what I came here to say. Plenty of people, like me, don't trust the police. In America, probably other countries too, a problem is only recognized as a problem when it affects the wealthy or privileged.
Keyframe 13y ago
If this is all true, those systems in place, I am very curious to hear what technically is in place that we haven't heard about. Can't even imagine it.
eksith 13y ago
Wait a moment. Before you get carried away, we still only have her word. Also on the piece : In a conversation with The Atlantic Wire, FBI spokesperson Peter Donald confirmed The Guardian's report that the FBI was not involved in the visit itself. Asked if the FBI was involved in providing information that led to the visit, Donald replied that he could not answer the question at this point, as he didn't know So at the moment, we still have hearsay. It's from the original source and I'm not calling her a liar, but I still don't know what exactly happened. Just who came to the residence beyond some scary looking guys in SUVs who said they were FBI. Edit: Interesting that asking for evidence warrants downvotes.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  You possibly got downvoted because people assumed that the scary photograph at the top of the article was taken during this incident and not during the aftermath of the Boston marathon bombings, and that it is therefore a piece of evidence. I thought the same thing at first.
  - eksith 13y ago
    That's just an indication of how much TAW is milking this story for all of its shock effect before the facts are fully established. Besides, in the original article, she said the guns were holstered when they were talking to her husband and from the tone, they were cordial and shook his hand before they left. Hardly a "raid".
    - dmix 13y ago
      The police were polite... so it's not a raid? What if he denied a voluntary search of the house? Would they politely stop investigating them as terrorists and monitoring their internet activity?
      - Zelphyr 13y ago
        Exactly. How it is labeled isn't the important bit here. The fact that they showed up AT ALL based on what appears to be a confluence of Internet searches is what is concerning.
danjayh 13y ago
Welcome to the USSA, comrade.
kooker_spaooker 13y ago
Calm down drama queen. 1) veracity of basic facts of this story haven't been confirmed yet 2) even if all checks out, the visit was not b/c of political activities, no one went to jail
argumentum 13y ago
Everybody Google "backpack" "pressure cooker" "bomb" and tweet/facebook about it. Lets make these sorts of nonsensical and idiotic policies impossible.
- danjayh 13y ago
  We need someone to leak the list of search keywords that the government considers serious enough to violate the rights of individual Americans, so that we can post handy google links for the whole thing. Good thing Obama is following through on his promise to protect whistleblowers, or people might be afraid to come forward with something like that.

ianterrell 13y ago

It does make you wonder about the reporting rate on these sorts of events. Considering the hostile skepticism on the thread about the article Ms Catalano posted, I would not be surprised if other people (especially those without professional writing credentials and a million-strong twitter audience) had decided not to come forward with their stories in the past.

x0x0 13y ago
it also makes you wonder if the interrogees still get treated with kid gloves when they aren't relatively well off people with access to money (and therefore lawyers) and large publications/audiences with which to complain.
untog 13y ago
Considering the hostile skepticism on the thread about the article Ms Catalano posted There is nothing wrong with skepticism, and I would dispute that it was "hostile". We can't just go around accepting every story we read because it is a story we want it to be real.
- cgag 13y ago
  Maybe it's just a matter of perspective but it seems to me to be much more common for people to go around denying stories they don't want to be real (police and government abuses of power).
- griffordson 13y ago
  Was the same level of skepticism shown when the government claimed that Snowden was lying? Why not? Why is it that a private citizen is automatically doubted when they make a claim that is easily verifiable but when the government makes a claim that has been repeatedly contradicted by multiple people over the span of years, including at least two sitting US Senators, the government's claims are taken at face value? Shouldn't her story get a minimum benefit of doubt until some independent reporting can be done on the claims? Especially when everything she claims is plausible given what is known about the government's capabilities.
  - untog 13y ago
    Was the same level of skepticism shown when the government claimed that Snowden was lying? Why not? Uh, didn't really give me a chance to answer there, did you? I would say that the vast majority of people were skeptical of government claims that Snowden was lying. So the rest of your post is describing a situation that I did not witness.

riggins 13y ago

Our government is sending gangs of armed men to perfectly innocent citizens' doors to interrogate them I don't think hyperbole is necessary. In this case the facts are scary enough (i.e. most people don't consider the police an armed gang). Who wants the government to have virtually omniscient awareness of their activities?

sbarre 13y ago
> most people don't consider the police an armed gang Because the militarization of police, and the increasing use of SWAT, are trends that argue against this. What if next time instead of sending regular officers they send in SWAT?
glesica 13y ago
> most people don't consider the police an armed gang Actually a significant portion of the population DO consider the police an armed gang, and have done so for quite some time. For starters, poor people in urban areas. The difference is that now wealthier people are starting to be treated the same way poor people have been treated all along.
- incision 13y ago
  Very true. Growing up I was far more scared of the police than anyone else in what was not a very nice area. This wasn't cultural conditioning either. It was the experience of being routinely stopped, questioned, accused, intimidated and occasionally humiliated by being made to partially disrobe. It makes for a terrible feeling of powerlessness when someone else can do whatever they want to you at any time and any effort to avoid much less rebuke the situation will only make it worse. At least one friend of mine from that time is now a police officer. His experience has only confirmed the prevalence of this ugly "at war" mentality in in law enforcement.
- smtddr 13y ago
  That is exactly what I came here to say. Plenty of people, like me, don't trust the police. In America, probably other countries too, a problem is only recognized as a problem when it affects the wealthy or privileged.

Keyframe 13y ago

If this is all true, those systems in place, I am very curious to hear what technically is in place that we haven't heard about. Can't even imagine it.

eksith 13y ago

Wait a moment. Before you get carried away, we still only have her word. Also on the piece : In a conversation with The Atlantic Wire, FBI spokesperson Peter Donald confirmed The Guardian's report that the FBI was not involved in the visit itself. Asked if the FBI was involved in providing information that led to the visit, Donald replied that he could not answer the question at this point, as he didn't know So at the moment, we still have hearsay. It's from the original source and I'm not calling her a liar, but I still don't know what exactly happened. Just who came to the residence beyond some scary looking guys in SUVs who said they were FBI. Edit: Interesting that asking for evidence warrants downvotes.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
You possibly got downvoted because people assumed that the scary photograph at the top of the article was taken during this incident and not during the aftermath of the Boston marathon bombings, and that it is therefore a piece of evidence. I thought the same thing at first.
- eksith 13y ago
  That's just an indication of how much TAW is milking this story for all of its shock effect before the facts are fully established. Besides, in the original article, she said the guns were holstered when they were talking to her husband and from the tone, they were cordial and shook his hand before they left. Hardly a "raid".
  - dmix 13y ago
    The police were polite... so it's not a raid? What if he denied a voluntary search of the house? Would they politely stop investigating them as terrorists and monitoring their internet activity?
    - Zelphyr 13y ago
      Exactly. How it is labeled isn't the important bit here. The fact that they showed up AT ALL based on what appears to be a confluence of Internet searches is what is concerning.

danjayh 13y ago

Welcome to the USSA, comrade.

kooker_spaooker 13y ago

Calm down drama queen. 1) veracity of basic facts of this story haven't been confirmed yet 2) even if all checks out, the visit was not b/c of political activities, no one went to jail

argumentum 13y ago

Everybody Google "backpack" "pressure cooker" "bomb" and tweet/facebook about it. Lets make these sorts of nonsensical and idiotic policies impossible.

danjayh 13y ago
We need someone to leak the list of search keywords that the government considers serious enough to violate the rights of individual Americans, so that we can post handy google links for the whole thing. Good thing Obama is following through on his promise to protect whistleblowers, or people might be afraid to come forward with something like that.