6 ms·

Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

49 points by brown9-2 13y ago

MrKurtz 13y ago
It's shameful how many publications ran with this story on face value.
- northwest 13y ago
  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.
  - MrKurtz 13y ago
    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.
    - northwest 13y ago
      > 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.
  - untog 13y ago
    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.
northwest 13y ago
"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.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  They don't need to ask google for anything sent in plaintext, they can get that at the ISP.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
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.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The FBI, for all their faults, are professionals. Local police? Ha!
  - thecabinet 13y ago
    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...
    - untog 13y ago
      That makes them sound even more professional, if you consider it in their professional interest to cover their tracks.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      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.
mladenkovacevic 13y ago
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.
- MrKurtz 13y ago
  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/FWAVRVaN64h https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...
  - mcphilip 13y ago
    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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xibj58ADk
  - mladenkovacevic 13y ago
    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.
    - 13y ago
dendory 13y ago
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.
- MrKurtz 13y ago
  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.
  - thezilch 13y ago
    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.
    - MrKurtz 13y ago
      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.
      - 13y ago
joshdance 13y ago
Another data point in this story. https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN64h https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...
- freehunter 13y ago
  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.
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
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.
Mizza 13y ago
"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?"
codezero 13y ago
I can't imagine anyone would get a visit from law enforcement for posting a picture of fireworks on July 4th.

49 points by brown9-2 13y ago

MrKurtz 13y ago

It's shameful how many publications ran with this story on face value.

northwest 13y ago
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.
- MrKurtz 13y ago
  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.
  - northwest 13y ago
    > 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.
- untog 13y ago
  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.

northwest 13y ago

"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.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
They don't need to ask google for anything sent in plaintext, they can get that at the ISP.

moocowduckquack 13y ago

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.

jlgreco 13y ago
The FBI, for all their faults, are professionals. Local police? Ha!
- thecabinet 13y ago
  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...
  - untog 13y ago
    That makes them sound even more professional, if you consider it in their professional interest to cover their tracks.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    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.

mladenkovacevic 13y ago

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.

MrKurtz 13y ago
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/FWAVRVaN64h https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...
- mcphilip 13y ago
  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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xibj58ADk
- mladenkovacevic 13y ago
  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.
  - 13y ago

dendory 13y ago

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.

MrKurtz 13y ago
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.
- thezilch 13y ago
  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.
  - MrKurtz 13y ago
    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.
    - 13y ago

joshdance 13y ago

Another data point in this story. https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN64h https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...

freehunter 13y ago
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.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

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.

Mizza 13y ago

"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?"

codezero 13y ago

I can't imagine anyone would get a visit from law enforcement for posting a picture of fireworks on July 4th.