"Searching the web for suspicious stuff" Meet Ms Catalano. pressure cookers, backpacks &quinoa oh my

[Catherina]

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 08:23 AM - Edit history (2)

(edit: reverting back to original title, not that it makes anything better, in fact it makes things worse. So a Joint Terrorism Task Force pulls up to people's homes about 100 times a week based on google searches and that's all good? LMAO!)

by Michele Catalano

Former music contributor at Forbes, freelance writer published in The Magazine, Maura Magazine and at Boing Boing
Published August 1, 2013

pressure cookers, backpacks and quinoa, oh my!

It was a confluence of magnificent proportions that led to six agents from the joint terrorism task force to knock on my door Wednesday morning. Little did we know our seemingly innocent, if curious to a fault, Googling of certain things were creating a perfect storm of terrorism profiling. Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history.



...

Which might not raise any red flags. Because who wasn’t reading those stories? Who wasn’t clicking those links? But my son’s reading habits combined with my search for a pressure cooker and my husband’s search for a backpack set off an alarm of sorts at the joint terrorism task force headquarters.

...

I was at work when it happened. My husband called me as soon as it was over, almost laughing about it but I wasn’t joining in the laughter. His call left me shaken and anxious.

...

Meanwhile, they were peppering my husband with 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? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.



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

[chimpymustgo]

1. OMG. They're watching every keystroke. Be careful what you type and search for.

Who decided this should be the America we live in?

[Catherina]

2. It took a few weeks she said

which makes this even more ludicrous because the *items* they were googling for would have already been used if that was their intention but yeah, they're monitoring. They're *hoovering* everything, letting the computers do insta-analysis for keywords and flagging those for human review.

[pnwmom]

87. Now that your "proof" has been proven WRONG, will you change the title?

Or are you just going to leave the false story up there?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014554762#post30


The Suffolk County Police Department has just released the following information related to the case:

Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”

After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.

Any further inquiries regarding this matter should be directed to the Suffolk County Police Department

[Melinda]

3. Aww geeze, this happens in totalitarian states all the time; former USSR, Iran, etc. Nothing new...

Oh, wait.....




Thanks, Catherina, K&R.

[Catherina]

5. You're welcome. The ACLU is having fun keeping track of these too

[lastlib]

37. ...China (people's republic), North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, USA.......

Hell, ALL the tyrannical regimes do it!

.

So--you got a problem with it?

[Savannahmann]

4. But wait, how did they get to the content of her searches?

I mean, we're told that these totally professional and nice agents never just browse the data. They only go in and look for information that is authorized by a warrant. Then they might follow a hop or two, or three, or sometimes more.

That's the problem, and why the apologists have pretty much given up on the it's not happening meme. Because the evidence that it IS happening is overwhelming. The actions do not come close to matching the claims.

[Catherina]

6. A lucky guess? You have no proof. That's not what the slide said. You have their word they don't

Lucky guess?

Like the lucky guesses about Elliot Spitzer when they needed him out of the way

It's too funny.

[Dash87]

8. Google is colluding with the government. The govt. has access to all search data.

Government servers process all search queries and looks for keywords (data mining). When it finds these words, it flags the searcher and passes the information along. The FBI is contacted and follows up on the threat.

Who knows if this actually happened to this woman, though. Anyone could put anything on the Internet.

[LondonReign2]

9. I don't think Google even has to collude

From the XKey slides released, it sure looks like the NSA has the ability to beat any and all encryption technology. Google wouldn't have to voluntarily coorperate (that isn't to say that they aren't), the NSA could pick up all network traffic and break the encryption packets.

[Catherina]

19. And if they have access "Google admits protecting personal data is contrary to their business model"

And they wouldn't even need to be colluding for this either. I sure wish we could have a long Q&A with Snowden to find out how they're doing this, directly from the servers or intercepted.

Jul 31, 2013

Why Google Doesn’t Encrypt User Data While Stored

By Amir Efrati

Google is constantly improving the way it collects and stores data from its users. What it isn’t doing: encrypting that data while it is stored.

Google encrypts most user data while it is being transmitted between users and the company’s servers. But many privacy advocates and some former Google executives say that to protect users, Google should continue to encrypt user data while it being stored. That data could be encrypted in a way that allows only the users — not government authorities or even Google — to make sense of it, they say.

That would conflict with Google’s business model and disrupt user features. At public events, Vint Cerf, a Google employee who was an early architect of the Internet, has said that encrypting information while it is stored would prevent Google from showing the right online advertisements to users.

Google’s system is “designed around a particular business model,” Cerf said at a 2011 event, according to Christopher Soghoian, a longtime privacy researcher who appeared with Cerf at the event. Soghoian works for the American Civil Liberties Union.

...

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/07/31/why-google-doesnt-encrypt-user-data-while-its-stored/

Storing data in an encrypted fashion also would likely prevent Google from offering people many of the features they rely on, such as being able to quickly search for old emails.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

24. They were just 1degree away from a known terrorist

A pressure cooker, hello

[leveymg]

77. And, they had to know she was a US person inside the US. So, why no warrant?

Why?

[pnwmom]

89. It was a work computer and it was the former employer who chose to alert the police.

No need for a warrant.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014554762#post30


The Suffolk County Police Department has just released the following information related to the case:

Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”

After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.

Any further inquiries regarding this matter should be directed to the Suffolk County Police Department

[leveymg]

98. Well, that would explain it, too. eom

[pnwmom]

88. The story is garbage. Someone got let go from his job

and the former employer alerted the police after they found the searches on his work computer.

This wasn't connected to either the NSA or Google.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014554762#post30


The Suffolk County Police Department has just released the following information related to the case:

Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”

After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.

Any further inquiries regarding this matter should be directed to the Suffolk County Police Department

[LondonReign2]

7. Impossible!

Because I've been told right here on DU that the communications of only non-Americans are monitored, and also its just metadata and you have to have a warrent and all that.

[maxrandb]

17. Rediculous

That's quite a leap from law enforcement being interested in someone searching for backpacks and pressure cookers, to "all communications being monitored".

Do you think that law enforcement (local, state and federal), just sits around waiting for crime or a terrorist attack to happen?

Our law enforcement agencies have always reviewed information and have a duty to investigate suspicious activity.

In addition, you have no proof that this person was "being monitored". It could be that an internet provider noted the searches and alerted law enforcement. It could also be that these searches showed up in a routine database, law enforcement officials went to their superiors and were told to "check it out".

Surprisingly, we catch pedophiles, child-pornographers, human trafficers, and YES, even terrorists this way.

You'd be surprised to find out how many people the Secret Service visits everyday, but so far no one is saying that the Secret Service shouldn't investigate suspicious activity.

Seems to me that there was a red flag raised, LE investigated, visited and spoke with the folks involved, were professional and courteous, and the incident was resolved in a calm, dignified and careful manner, in accordance with our laws and protections.

I know folks keep trying to hammer all of these routine law enforcement and intelligence gathering squares, into their round-holes of "Big Brother Fear Mongering", but this just doesn't fit.

[randome]

18. Plus this sounds like it was the FBI, not the NSA.

I agree that if the FBI is monitoring domestic communications, that's cause for alarm but I'm not yet convinced that's what happened in this case.

[sabrina 1]

25. We KNOW what is going on so you can drop the pretense that we 'have to wait and see' anymore

Yesterday's revelations proved that Snowden was telling the truth and the 'wait and seers' can now start moving to the next phase, either they support this massive surveillance state begun by Bush or they don't.

I am still on the same side I was always on, when Bush started these dangerous policies.

Thankfully now both Parties in Congress are finally acknowledging the threat to this democracy these policies are.

[Liberal In Texas]

30. The NSA is not an investigative agency like the FBI or CIA.

They monitor and decode and pass the information along.

[randome]

46. Not for domestic information, they don't. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

If they are spying on domestic data consumption, heads should roll.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. How do you suggest these agents found out without spying?

If the ISP or search engine company is monitoring all the searches performed, and then turning the results over to the government in a case like this, it's just as bad as the government running the program to match up the search terms. It just means it's cheaper for the government.

This was 'domestic data', literally - the searches from an American home. The government got hold of the data, and acted on it. That is "spying on domestic data consumption", by any definition.

[struggle4progress]

105. Police department told her that her husband's ex-employer had contacted them out of concern about

use of a work computer to search for "pressure cooker bomb"

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. So it's a society of informants, looking for behaviour they deem wrong

and police who apparently have regular work taking these informants seriously. The NSA doesn't need to spy on Americans when Americans turn each other in for everyday, legal behaviour, and the police treat it like something suspicious.

[struggle4progress]

120. Or maybe the employer and the employee didn't get along -- and around the time the employer fired

the employee, the employer checked the work computer, discovered the employee had been googling terms like "pressure cooker bomb," became concerned about possible retaliation, and so contacted police -- who then really had no choice but to drop by and ask some questions: "The tone was conversational"

It's not clear what the Suffolk police are responding to, when they drop by a hundred people's homes a week: it could be all manner of accusations, not necessarily terrorism-related, that they have to check out

I was once stopped and questioned by the police because some crackpot, who I never saw before or ever after, in passing through the downtown public park where I was, apparently took a dislike to me on sight and translated that dislike into an accusation that I was involved in some kidnapping -- a kidnapping that I believe finally turned out to exist purely in said crackpot's imagination -- and denounced me to police nearby. I doubt they took the accusation terribly seriously, but they did have to check it out: the crackpot went her merry way; they then stopped me, and I answered their pleasant questions in the park until they decided it was all a big bunch of nothing-at-all, apologized and went their way

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. But this involved 6 armed men, covering the exits

Yes, it may have been a malicious call from the ex-employer, or someone in that company. But I don't think the police should take the googling of a term that was all over the news as evidence of anything apart from the man watching the news and having normal curiosity.

[randome]

124. Why would you believe in 6 armed men covering the exits?

The story is bogus. Do you really think you can pull one or two 'facts' out of it and promote those as the truth?

If an employer calls the local police and insists an ex-employee is up to no good, why would the police just say 'Yeah, right' and hang up?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. There is nothing 'bogus' in what she said

It has turned out it was her husband's ex-employer who gave the information to the task force, not the NSA - but she never mentioned the NSA or FBI.

What happened was this: At about 9:00 am, my husband, who happened to be home yesterday, was sitting in the living room with our two dogs when he heard a couple of cars pull up outside. He looked out the window and saw three black SUVs in front of our house; two at the curb in front and one pulled up behind my husband’s Jeep in the driveway, as if to block him from leaving.

Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two toward the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.

A million things went through my husband’s head. None of which were right. He walked outside and the men greeted him by flashing badges. He could see they all had guns holstered in their waistbands.

Yeah, if someone rings up and says "they searched for 'pressure cooker bombs'", the response should be "when? Was it right after they had been all over the news?", and if the answer was 'yes', then it's 'case closed'.

[geek tragedy]

150. Police aren't allowed to use common sense in determining whether to follow up

on a report of a possible crime.

As far as six armed cops, it's a report of a possible terrorist/bombing, so there are probably protocols for investigating such reports and engaging the potential suspect. Probably a bureaucratic rule.

[pnwmom]

158. She herself used the word "misleading" to describe her post.

She falsely claimed that the husband was visited by a joint terrorism strike force, when it was actually the local police.

And she had stated in the blog that the cause for the police visit was the searches they had separately conducted at home, when it was really the husband's searches at work that got the attention of the employer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

160. She said "if it was misleading..."

She also said "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." The FBI think that 2 police forces were involved.

[pnwmom]

162. The FBI was mistaken. The Suffolk County police has taken full responsibility for

the incident, and Nassau County has confirmed they weren't involved.

The woman wasn't home when the search was conducted. So everything she was "led to believe" came second-hand. Her husband, who was there, hasn't been reporting on any of this.

[pnwmom]

156. A laid-off ex-employee is found to have conducted searches for backpacks and pressure cookers

on his work computer, and the company, knowing whatever they know about him, was concerned.

The police just did a routine follow up of a tip. And there isn't a speck of evidence that they "covered all exits." In fact, according to Catalano's own post, they didn't even bother peeking into all the bedrooms.

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. 2 police went either side of the house, while, 2 went up to the front

before they asked permission to go round the back. They covered all the exits.

A search for 'backpacks' is not in the least bit suspicious. 'Backpacks' only came up in the news because the bombers in Boston used them to hold bombs they left in a public place in the middle of the marathon. 'Backpacks' would have nothing at all to do with a laid-off employee, however suspicious you were of him. People don't need to look up information about backpacks to work out if you can put a bomb in them. However, if you are interested in a top news story about them, however, you would use the search term 'backpacks'.

If a 'routine follow up of a tip' consists of 6 armed police officers going to a house, then you live in a surveillance state with a parnoid police force.

[pnwmom]

161. The woman wasn't home at the time of the search

and she has admitted getting details wrong. For example, it wasn't a "joint terrorism strike force."

The ex-employer knows the husband -- none of us do. And the ex-employer was concerned about a laid off worker making searches for backpacks AND pressure cookers on the employers computer.

From the woman's own description on her blog, the police took a very calm, measured approach to their investigation. They weren't dressed up in attack gear and they didn't tear the house apart or arrest anyone. They didn't search their computers, open a drawer or cabinet, or search all the rooms. They just asked some questions. That doesn't sound very paranoid to me.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/government-tracking-google-searches

[muriel_volestrangler]

163. It's in the 'medium' link in the OP

She has said that her husband was never told it was about searches he did at work. What details does she admit she got wrong? Her tweet about "if you don't want the FBI turning up" was wrong, though the article didn't mention the FBI.

"And the ex-employer was concerned about a laid off worker making searches for backpacks AND pressure cookers on the employers computer. "

Yes, and this is the fundamental problem - a paranoid employer sees some searches, and the police waste time, and send 6 armed officers to his house. Not only is a search for 'backpacks' completely unsuspicious, it also confirms he was looking for things related to the news story. Backpacks are not a suspicious item. You don't need to look on the internet to find out how to put something in them. They were calm, but deciding to spend over 4 man hours of police time on this indicates a paranoid attitude in the police.

[pnwmom]

164. Backpacks alone are not a suspicious item. You're perfectly right.

But a search for backpacks in conjunction with a search for pressure cookers done by an about to be let-go employee could be suspicious. The employer was worried, and the employer -- not the police or any of us, either -- actually knew the guy.

She admits she got it wrong about the joint terrorism strike force. And she got it wrong claiming that their separate searches at home led to them being investigated. She was wrong to think that the government was watching over them as they googled and then sent in the strike force.

The truth was that the husband conducted searches at his workplace computer, and the employer -- not the NSA or google -- tipped off the police.

[muriel_volestrangler]

174. Why would a search for backpacks add any suspicion at all?

People know what backpacks are. You don't need to research them on the internet for nefarious purposes. No backpack is described as 'suitable for holding a pressure cooker'. However, searching for 'backpacks' and 'pressure cooker bombs' indicates you are interested in the top news story in the country.

"She admits she got it wrong about the joint terrorism strike force. "

Well, I haven't seen that yet. Can you link to it, please? I've linked whenever I want to show someone what was actually said.

"And she got it wrong claiming that their separate searches at home led to them being investigated."

They never told him about the searches being at work. She knew all of them had been searching on these terms at home, as had thousands, if not millions, of people elsewhere in the world.

"She was wrong to think that the government was watching over them as they googled and then sent in the strike force. "

She did not think they were watching as they googled. She imagined them looking at the list of what they googled. Which they did do, for her husband's searches. 'Strike' is your term, not hers.

"The truth was that the husband conducted searches at his workplace computer, and the employer -- not the NSA or google -- tipped off the police."

And, as I've said, this is what is wrong with your society. Paranoid people turning each other in over nothing to the police, who then take such nonsense seriously.

[pnwmom]

176. Sorry I was imprecise. She admitted very little.

But she WAS wrong about the joint terrorism strike force that she at first claimed came to her house. It was the Suffolk County police that came to the house. They acknowledge that and so does Nassau County.

We don't know what they told the husband, because he hasn't been talking. All we know is what she reported second hand. And she was wrong about some of what she reported. It wasn't the joint terrorism task force that came to investigate; and it was in response to the employer's tip, not because the joint terrorism strike force had been spying on them at home.

[pnwmom]

108. The husband conducted searches on his employer's computer

and the (former) employer reported him to the police.

[leveymg]

78. What would it take to convince you of that? A flat-out admission by FBI? Obama?

[pnwmom]

109. The Suffolk County police put out a statement saying they were involved.

And Catalano has acknowledged that the search was the result of something the husband's ex-employer found on their computer.

[maxrandb]

173. Since this story is now proved to be Bullshit

and it was in fact, the husbands employer who alerted the police about searches he made from work...maybe some folks who jumped all over me and accused me of being an Anti-American police state supporter, ought to apologize.

I don't know what is worse, that some on DU have become as knee-jerk reactionary as the Limbaugh Dildo-Heads, or that a bogus story that was so obviously untrue fooled so many DUers.

Of course, it's easy to be fooled when you already have a narrative you wish were true.

[pnwmom]

107. It was actually the Suffolk County police, in response to a tip

from the husband's ex-employer.

[disidoro01]

29. um, yes

They do sit around and wait for attacks. Witness the Boston bombing. Our government had tons of signals and walked into their respective offices, put their left thumb up their asses and searched porn with the other.
Stopping the attack could have been a strong counter point to the NSA revelations but instead we ask, if they are doing these searches and are that vigilant, how do you screw that up?
But they are all over this?

[LondonReign2]

41. Your logic seems to be confused

On one hand, you say people aren't being monitored; on the other you say maybe the ISP monitored her searches.
On one hand you say its a ridiculous idea that communications are being watched; on the other you say they showed up in a "routine database". "red flags were raised", and they should "investigate suspicious activity" as if these things magically fall from the sky rather than being as a result of monitoring.

Which is it? Are we not being monitored? Or are we being monitored and you are fine with it?

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Need new talking points

Or at least less convoluted ones

[BlueStreak]

33. It is Metadata. They didn't ask what was INSIDE the pressure cooker.

They just made assumptions about that. That's how this metadata stuff works. It makes suspects of many completely innocent people. Why SHOULDN'T I be calling Pakistan? I have friends from Pakistan. But by using only metadata, I look just like a terrorist.

So to avoid that, I guess I should use Skype from a proxy server. If they really want to unravel that, they can, but I doubt they would go to the trouble.

Of course, the real terrorists are probably already doing that.

[LondonReign2]

44. The article pointed out Skype data is also collected

And not just metadata, but the contents as well. I imagine this would be particularly true when one party was located in Pakistan.

[BlueStreak]

99. But I assume you can route Skype through proxies, which would make it a lot harder

for the NSA systems to run it down. I'm betting the more advanced terror networks already have all of that figured out.

And certainly one can use false credentials to get a skype account.

The point of these "metadata" systems is that they collect loads of data that might reveal that which nobody is trying to hide in the first place. But those who really want to conceal their activities should be able to do so. So what is the point?

[wavesofeuphoria]

10. My 16 year old is homeschooled ... her curriculum includes

chemistry (includes labs and experiments), global studies (includes studying empires and regimes, and human rights violations), health education (including sex ed and drug ed), civics (social justice and the courts), among others, all of which we use the internet for information, ideas, research, etc.

She also has a big interest in forensic science and homesteading ... lots of online research on that as well.

She has penpals (email pals) in several foreign countries.

I wonder when the nice professionals will show up at our house ....

[Buns_of_Fire]

11. Define "suspicious stuff".

Oh, that's right. They don't have to define ANYTHING, do they? It's damned hard not to run afoul of something when they won't tell you what that "something" IS.

[TalkingDog]

12. I propose a contest. See who can get the FBI to their door first.

What should the prize be?

[Catherina]

20. Hahahaha! You first my friend

[PowerToThePeople]

13. if it is true.

[cali]

14. I think you should seriously consider changing your op title

to "Proof that the NSA reads the contents of Americans' internet searches"

Watch heads explode and ingenious defenses born.

[Catherina]

15. Good suggestion. Done.

I try to ram in the original title to cut down on dupes but these stories can't get enough exposure!

[randome]

22. Um, 'proof'? You of all people should know that claims are not proof.

And things are not always what they seem.

[cali]

23. that's your defense? What else could it reasonably have been that

led the FBI to their door? Google tracking their internet searches and turning them in? That's hardly plausible. Certainly disturbing if that was the case.

[randome]

32. My point is that people make up stories all the time for incredibly ridiculous reasons sometimes.

How do you know this isn't a made-up story? It's not like journalists sometimes make stuff up, right?

[cali]

50. Seriously? C'mon. This woman would have way too much to lose

by making up a story that can be checked out. And why the hay assume she's making it up. Let's assume she's not. Let's assume it's the truth. That's the most likely explanation. Now, what do you think about it?

[randome]

58. I think if anyone, NSA, FBI, any other agency, is monitoring domestic communcations...

...without a warrant, it should stop. Now why can't this journalist file a suit against the FBI or whoever it was and get the ball rolling? That would be one way to get this 'checked out'.

[cali]

61. That's a good idea. I have no idea if it's possible. Do you?

Frankly, I think it's unbelievably blind or naive to not think that intelligence agencies operate outside the law. they always have in the past. they aren't truly accountable fiscally speaking because even though the Congress sort of kind of has oversight, lots of expenditures are classified even from those doing the overseeing. There have always been black ops and with this large and sprawling a national security apparatus, there always will be.

[Go Vols]

67. DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats

The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don't need a search warrant to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal.

Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they're not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/

[pnwmom]

110. The employer reported the husband to the police after they found

something on his computer at work that concerned them. Catalano has acknowledged this.

And it wasn't the FBI or the joint terrorism task force, as she claimed. It was the local police.

[sabrina 1]

26. The proof was in yesterday's revelations. Time for you to move on to the next phase.

[randome]

35. Yesterday's 'revelations' that the NSA uses software?

That is scary, indeed.

Now are they using that software on domestic data? That's the key question to ask. And according to Greenwald, they have restrictions in place to prevent that.

Are those restrictions strong? Weak? Incomprehensible? Seems a shame a journalist like Greenwald didn't go after those kind of questions.

[sabrina 1]

43. Not working, Randome. But it's entertaining, I'll give you that.

[arely staircase]

36. and somebody tweeted it nt

[sabrina 1]

47. Did they? I read the actual forms and slides. Hard to put them in a tweet, although I did receive

links to the articles.

[arely staircase]

53. talking about the OP nt

[Marr]

27. "Things are not always what they seem..."

Wow, powerful um... argument.

[randome]

42. Like Greenwald.

And Snowden, the man who said he "saw things" but won't ever tell us what that means. The man who said "I am not here to hide from justice" from his 'undisclosed location' in Hong Kong.

Yes, things are not always what they seem.

[sabrina 1]

48. Snowden is correct, He is 'hiding' from INJUSTICE and good for him.

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle now attributing their work to try to end these Bush policies to Snowden's leaks.

I keep telling you, you need to find more reliable sources. For some reason you always seem to be uninformed about these matters.

[randome]

92. I have a good instinct for bogus stories. This has been revealed as one.

As was the Venezuelan story where Kerry admitted to 'downing' Morales' plane and then threatened Venezuela.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

113. Brilliant suggestion. nt

[Catherina]

130. I think I'll change it back lol. The story is just as disturbing either way n/t

[intaglio]

138. Except they didn't

The employer alerted the local police.

No Federal agency was involved.

Any chance of you changing your mind?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014554762#post30

[wtmusic]

16. I'll be damned if I'm going to be "careful what I'm Googling"

and I'm certainly not going to answer questions based on their illegal search of my communications. They can blow me.

"What should you do if a police officer comes to your home or office with a search warrant?

Be polite. Do not get in the officers' way, do not get into an argument with them or complain, even if you think your rights are being violated. Never insult a police officer. But you should say "I do not consent to this search." If they are properly authorized, they will search anyway. But if they are not, then you have reserved your right to challenge the search later.

Ask to see the warrant. You have a right to examine the warrant. The warrant must tell in detail the places to be searched and the people or things to be seized, and may limit what time of day the police can search. A valid warrant must have a recent date (usually not more than a couple of weeks), the correct address, and a judge's or magistrate's signature. If the warrant appears incomplete, indicates a different address, or otherwise seems mistaken, politely point this out to the police.

Clearly state that you do not consent to the search. The police don't need your consent if they have a warrant, but clearly saying "I do not consent to this search" will limit them to search only where the warrant authorizes. If possible, have witnesses around when you say it.

Do not resist, even if you think the search is illegal, or else you may be arrested. Keep your hands where the police can see them, and never touch a police officer. Do not try to leave if the police tell you to stay — a valid warrant gives them the right to detain any people that are on the premises while the search is conducted. You are allowed to observe and take notes of what the officers do, though they may tell you to sit in one place while they are conducting the search.

Don't answer any questions. The Fifth Amendment guarantees your right not to answer questions from the police, even if they have a warrant. Remember that anything you say might be used against you later. If they ask you anything other than your name and address, you should tell them "I choose to remain silent, and will not answer any questions without a lawyer." If you say this, they are legally required to stop asking you questions until you have a lawyer with you.

Take notes. Write down the police officers' names and badge numbers, as well as the names and contact information of any witnesses. Write down, as best you can remember, everything that the police say and everything you say to them. Ask if you can watch the search, and if they say yes, write down everything that you see them search and/or seize (you may also try to tape or take pictures, but realize that this may escalate the situation). If it appears they are going beyond what is authorized by the warrant, politely point this out.

Ask for an inventory. At the conclusion of the search, the police should typically provide an inventory of what has been seized; if not, request a copy but do not sign any statement that the inventory is accurate or complete.

Call a lawyer as soon as possible. If you don't have a lawyer, you can call EFF and we'll try to find you one. "

https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/warrants

[Catherina]

21. Good advice. Thank you

The inventory part is very important too. I wonder if you can call family and friends to come watch during the searches. I read a few stories this week about how, after law enforcement searches, contents of jewelry boxes and cash were missing but there was nothing the victims could do about it.

[Fuddnik]

38. Not in the real world.

About 25 years ago, the cops hit my house with an open-ended search warrant looking for some stolen property my roommate bought.

What they were looking for was in plain sight in the living room. They trashed and searched the entire house for 4 hours. Then the miraculously discovered the item they were looking for. In the mean time, they found some drugs in my bedroom, and I was charged. Two years, and $50k in legal fees later, I went to jail after appeals just short of the Supreme Court level.

Their warrant specified what they were looking for, with the added "and all other contraband" added. Although it's prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, all the Ohio Courts, and Federal Appeals Courts ruled in the prosecutions favor.

Our rights have been eroded even further now.

[wtmusic]

56. Thanks for that background.

Of course it doesn't justify an illegal search, but you were violating the law. That has more to do with the eventual outcome than any kind of collusion - getting a low-profile case overturned on evidentiary missteps will always be difficult.

Our rights have been eroded in some respects; on the other hand there's been a remarkable innovation which can help recitfy abuses of power: the cellphone camera. When the FBI knocks on my door that sucker will start recording and won't stop until they leave.

[disidoro01]

28. Search warrant

She should demand to see a search warrant.

[Vashta Nerada]

31. This is insane.

It appears the "prophecies" in the book 1984 have come true.

[Fuddnik]

40. They evidently think it was an instruction manual.

[Maximumnegro]

70. They came true ages ago but now we

have the internet so you can actually know about how these things happen in real time. Jesus spare the doom and gloom. This is the same shit that's been happening for ages except before it was rumours and whispers passed around aka conspiracy theories but now anyone can post to the world and this activity gets light of day.

There's a certain amount of delusion about all this from the left that is ridiculous. I mean JFK and MLK were frickin assassinated and there is no question that the gov't was involved in those in some capacity or other be it simply knowledge of the circumstances or outright responsible.

Now we get to see actual stuff before our eyes via the internet and social media and it whoa everything is doooooomed.

It's been like this for a long time.

[ProSense]

34. Evidently, this is proof the FBI and NSA are the same organization

Silliness.

[Fuddnik]

39. !

Keep trying.

[ProSense]

51. The story is bogus:

New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online

A New York woman says her family's interest in the purchase of pressure cookers and backpacks led to a home visit by six police investigators demanding information about her job, her husband's ancestry and the preparation of quinoa.

Michele Catalano, who lives in Long Island, New York, said her web searches for pressure cookers, her husband's hunt for backpacks, and her "news junkie" son's craving for information on the Boston bombings had combined somewhere in the internet ether to create a "perfect storm of terrorism profiling".

Members of what she described as a "joint terrorism task force" descended on Catalano's home on Wednesday. A spokesman for the FBI told to the Guardian on Thursday that its investigators were not involved in the visit, but that "she was visited by Nassau County police department … They were working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department."

The Guardian has contacted the Suffolk County and Nassau County police departments for comment.

Catalano was at work, but her husband was sitting in the living room as the police arrived. She retold the experience in a post on Medium.com on Thursday. She attributed the raid largely to her ongoing hunt for a pressure cooker, an item used devastatingly by the two Tsarnaev brothers in Boston, but also used by millions across the country to prepare vegetables while retaining most of their nutrients.

- more -

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/new-york-police-terrorism-pressure-cooker

This was local police, and there is no indication that her claims about "pressure cookers" is accurate.

The NSA is not the FBI, and it's definitely not the local police.

[cali]

62. um, no. not quite.

first of all, are you suggesting that the local police were monitoring google searches? lol, hon. It's quite possible and more than a little likely, that the police were informed of the google activities of this family by the NSA.

please, try to employ a wee bit of critical thinking.

[ProSense]

64. LOL!

"It's quite possible and more than a little likely, that the police were informed of the google activities of this family by the NSA."

It's bogus, and now you're spinning. Is making up stuff the same as "critical thinking"?

[cali]

74. bzzzt. fail nothing new for you. From the Atlantic- a much more trustworthy source

than Pro and her selective and self-referential links:

<snip>

Ever since details of the NSA's surveillance infrastructure were leaked by Edward Snowden, the agency has been insistent on the boundaries of the information it collects. It is not, by law, allowed to spy on Americans — although there are exceptions of which it takes advantage. Its PRISM program, under which it collects internet content, does not include information from Americans unless those Americans are connected to terror suspects by no more than two other people. It collects metadata on phone calls made by Americans, but reportedly stopped collecting metadata on Americans' internet use in 2011. So how, then, would the government know what Catalano and her husband were searching for?

It's possible that one of the two of them is tangentially linked to a foreign terror suspect, allowing the government to review their internet activity. After all, that "no more than two other people" ends up covering millions of people. Or perhaps the NSA, as part of its routine collection of as much internet traffic as it can, automatically flags things like Google searches for "pressure cooker" and "backpack" and passes on anything it finds to the FBI.

Or maybe it was something else. On Wednesday, The Guardian reported on XKeyscore, a program eerily similar to Facebook search that could clearly allow an analyst to run a search that picked out people who'd done searches for those items from the same location. How those searches got into the government's database is a question worth asking; how the information got back out seems apparent.

It is also possible that there were other factors that prompted the government's interest in Catalano and her husband. He travels to Asia, she notes in her article. Who knows. Which is largely Catalano's point.

<snip>

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/#.UfqCSAXy7zQ.facebook

Cheers, honey.

[ProSense]

82. "From the Atlantic- a much more trustworthy source"

Update: Now We Know Why Googling 'Pressure Cookers' Gets a Visit from Cops
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023387587

Scroll down.

"Cheers, honey."

[pnwmom]

167. Catalano has posted on her own blog that she got this wrong.

The local police (not the NSA or the joint terrorism strike force) acted on a tip from the husband's ex-employer after they found searches on their computers that gave them concern.

[pnwmom]

111. The police received a tip from the husband's ex-employer. The NSA wasn't involved

and neither was the joint terrorism task force.

The woman writes fan fiction mocking John Kerry. This was another piece of fiction, though unacknowledged.

[djean111]

66. So - we are to believe the local police were monitoring her searches?

Wow! I find that absolutely ridiculous.
They were alerted by NSA/FBI.

[RC]

71. No one listens to you any more.

The NSA is not the FBI, and it's definitely not the local police.

Your last sentence is a lame attempt at obscuration.
The NSA gathers the information and the law enforcement uses the information so gathered. Doesn't matter whether it is the local police or the FBI or any number of alphabet soup, law enforcement agencies. They can all dip into the information in the data base, in one way or another.

[cali]

75. alas, plenty of people here are impressed by... LINKS!

but this nonsense from Pro is particularly egregious.

[ProSense]

83. .

A RW hack sucked in a lot of gullible people and you're yelling about "LINKS!"

[cali]

54. uh, no pro. please.

do you actually believe that the FBI doesn't get intelligence from the NSA?

[ProSense]

55. Um

bogus: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023385470#post51

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. Do you want a dictionary definition of 'bogus', just to prove you wrong?

The story is not 'bogus'. She said the men were from a "joint terrorism task force ", and the FBI confirms "she was visited by Nassau County police department … They were working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department." So the FBI has said the story is basically true. Are you trying to claim that she made up the stuff about pressure cookers? If so, are you saying that police forces get together to surround a house with armed men for no reason whatsoever? If so, then it's even worse than them doing it because the government is spying on their searches.

[Puzzledtraveller]

73. ..that you even needed to explain this to PS

You've more patience than I.

[geek tragedy]

116. How does that crow taste? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. No crow being eaten here

It was about Google searches, as she'd said. The rest of us assumed it was the NSA who had been monitoring her searches - it turns out it was her husband's former employer, who then went to the police about them, and the police thought it worth sending 6 armed men to their home about.

Think about that - the USA now has companies informing on their ex-employees because of simple, common Google searches, and the police happily using that as a reason for a search of the house (oh, sure, they asked to come in - but they made sure they had 2 armed men on each exit first). So, it turns out the NSA isn't needed for the total surveillance society - just voluntary informers at work, and a police force that thinks that is enough to search a home.

[geek tragedy]

125. "The rest of us assumed it was the NSA"

Yeah . . . no shitty judgment there.

People have been filing frivolous and even malicious police complaints against each other for a long time. It's called SWATing.

Not even what happened here. Former employer suspected a crime based on something they found on their property (we still don't know what they found, btw--you're still assuming things, which is not your forte). Has happened during all phases of the Republic's history. A non-story.

[muriel_volestrangler]

135. And the police send 6 armed men to investigate

Enjoy your surveillance state, where looking at news stories is taken by the police as 'suspicion of a crime', as well as by paranoid ex-employers.

[geek tragedy]

139. Oh the drama. Someone reported a suspected crime.

Police, AS THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO, followed up and determined no crime occurred. Happens thousands of times per day.

Cue ominous music.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. No, they didn't have a 'crime' to report, suspected or otherwise

They had a google search to report. And, as everyone said (on both sides of this argument), it was a perfectly normal, understandable, and innocent search - many said "well, I've done searches like that - how come I haven't been visited?" Do you think that we should be reporting these searches as a possible crime? The police are not 'obligated' to visit people on the basis of internet search terms.

[geek tragedy]

145. If someone reports what they consider possibly criminal conduct, yes

the police are required to investigate.

Even if the police know it's a waste of time. My family had the police called on it by a crazy neighbor lady who claimed our tall, skinny dark haired boy (we're all stout and light haired) was vandalizing her fence. The police would show up, apologize, and say "we got a complaint, and we have to follow through, okay I'll be going now."

P.S. It's actually a problem in New York where they don't follow up on crimes, so they don't have to fill out a report, so the crime doesn't get counted in stats.

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. A claim of vandalising a fence is a claim of a crime; a google search is not

This is pretty simple. Did 6 policemen show up at your house, a pair each taking an exit, and blocking your car in the driveway?

[geek tragedy]

149. Two points:

1)

After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches.

We do not know what was said in those interviews. This is an employee who was fired. Sometimes harsh things get said in such circumstances, and the "disgruntled ex employee" is a classic spree killer archetype. This is all speculation, because we do not know what was said. They could have said "oh he's harmless as a fly" they could have said "he threatened to get revenge on us."

2) After the FBI screwed the pooch on the Bros Tsarnaev by failing to act on the tip from the Russians, one can expect local law enforcement to overcompensate and make sure they are 125% satisfied there's no threat.

[pnwmom]

170. The employer may well have had other reasons to be concerned that this laid off worker

was a risk. The police can't talk about that and the wife certainly wouldn't.

We know from her blogging (at Command Post and elsewhere) that she's an Ann Coulter-type right wing nut case. Her husband might be just like her.

[muriel_volestrangler]

175. Fine, make up crap about the individuals, and let off the police and employer

Jesus, it's so depressing to see DUers leaping to conclusions about the mental stability of individuals, when they were the people who did nothing out of the ordinary whatsoever, while you let off an employer who not only laid a guy off, they then suggested to the police he was suspicious. And then you let off the police who turned up mob-handed and armed at his house.

Fuck, can't you recognise you are supporting a police state?

[pnwmom]

177. I'm not making up anything about her. Her rantings are freely available

for anyone to read.

Knowing what I now know about her background, I'm giving the husband's ex-employer the benefit of the doubt.

[pnwmom]

168. They didn't search her home, according to Catalano on her blog.

They didn't open a single drawer or cabinet, ask to see their computers, or even enter all the rooms.

They asked the husband some questions after his ex-employer raised concerns about his searches on their computers. And then they left, without arresting him or taking any other action.

[ProSense]

140. Bogus:

"If it was misleading, just know that my intention was the truth" (embarrassing)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023389805

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. The thread title was wrong; the story was correct

The author never claimed it was the NSA or FBI.

[ProSense]

152. LOL!

Now you're disagreeing the the person's confession.

[pnwmom]

155. She wasn't visited by a joint terrorism strike force. She was visited by the Suffolk County police

after the husband's ex-employer tipped them off about searches he did at work. The FBI wasn't in the loop.

The story was bogus, and it was told by a self-described "Security Mom" who runs a right wing website called "Command Post."

[lark]

59. Consistency seems to be your strong point.

[Quantess]

49. I have long suspected this. In fact this is the kind of thing that shouldn't surprise anybody,

ever since we all found out what the Bush Admin. was up to, back in 2007.

Whenever I look up health related questions on the internet, I wonder if some govt worker is out there, guessing that I have all kinds of weird health conditions. It goes through my mind occasionally.

This is definitely one of those "it shouldn't be a surprise" things.

[tridim]

142. That's why paranoia is so dangerous.

It destroys rationality and can easily destroy lives. I've seen it happen too many times.

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY cares in the least if you search for the cure for hair cancer or whatever other weird conditions you're searching for.

[pnwmom]

166. I hope you got the word that this has been debunked. nt

[Quantess]

183. Debunked?

That my google searches for "foot psoriasis" were never sought out by NSA agents...? Wow, gee,
No really... thanks for telling me that, pnwmom.

[tridim]

184. Nobody cares AT ALL that you search for "foot psoriasis". NOBODY.

Irrational paranoia is a serious illness, Quantess.

[lark]

52. She MUST be totally mistaken!

So many posters here have stated categorically that the Obama government is absolutely not looking at our actual internet activity, texts, phone calls, etc. unless it's going to a foreign terrorist website.

So, all of those who have asked for proof, here it is! Yes, Virginia, our own government is spying on everything we do.

[geek tragedy]

153. How's that crow tasting? nt

[kestrel91316]

57. I own both a pressure cooker AND a pressure canner. And I own a backpack.

But I don't have any quinoa. I guess that makes me a trustworthy, loyal Amurkan.

[wtmusic]

60. I wonder if me including the word "bomb" in this reply

will implicate both of us.

How about "long grain rice"? "Dufflebag"?

I'm sure their sophisticated software will analyze the possibilities.

[kestrel91316]

63. Here: lets REALLY yank their chain. bomb backpack pressure cooker terrorism hate USA islam

What a bunch of maroons.

[wtmusic]

65. LOL

Like any terrorist would be so obvious.

Particularly troubling is how crappy their PowerPoints look. Really, NSA...is it asking too much to hire someone with rudimentary graphics skills?

[bunnies]

79. I have all four!

Sweet geezus! Im screwn!

[Puzzledtraveller]

72. k&r

[leveymg]

76. "Suspicious stuff" - were these NSA training slides written by a teenager? Jeez.

[BlueCheese]

80. To be perfectly fair...

We don't know why they got a visit from their nice friendly law enforcement folks. It might have been because of their search terms (the part about the agents asking about that is suggestive), but that is only a plausible educated guess.

I sure would like to get to the bottom of this, however.

[msanthrope]

81. Now that this "story" has been debunked....care to amend it?

by Michele Catalano

Former music contributor at Forbes, freelance writer published in The Magazine, Maura Magazine and at Boing Boing
Published August 1, 2013

pressure cookers, backpacks and quinoa, oh my!

It was a confluence of magnificent proportions that led to six agents from the joint terrorism task force to knock on my door Wednesday morning. Little did we know our seemingly innocent, if curious to a fault, Googling of certain things were creating a perfect storm of terrorism profiling. Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history.



...

Which might not raise any red flags. Because who wasn’t reading those stories? Who wasn’t clicking those links? But my son’s reading habits combined with my search for a pressure cooker and my husband’s search for a backpack set off an alarm of sorts at the joint terrorism task force headquarters.

...

I was at work when it happened. My husband called me as soon as it was over, almost laughing about it but I wasn’t joining in the laughter. His call left me shaken and anxious.

...

Meanwhile, they were peppering my husband with 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? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.



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.

[JI7]

84. cool story sis

hehehehhe

[tammywammy]

85. So now that it has come out that it was her husband's former employer that tipped off the police

After finding searches for "pressure cooker bomb" and "backpack" will you be updating the OP?

[JoePhilly]

86. From PROOF ... to POOF!!

[geek tragedy]

115. I think it's time to start another appreciation thread for genius material like this.

Thank gawd we have manure spreaders to fertilize GD.

[JoePhilly]

123. The real problem is that everything that happens, EVERYTHING ...

... is evidence of the vast government conspiracy.

This thread was headed in that same direction ... knee jerk first, ask questions later.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3385102

[tridim]

127. And people wonder why I've been so down on DU since 2008.

Knee jerk is the norm on neo-DU, and everything is always Obama's fault. They took the "Thanks Obama" meme and made it their reality.

I heard that KOS posters were calling for impeachment yesterday over this fake story. Impeachment, because a liar lied.

[JoePhilly]

133. Started on the day he took office and hasn't stopped.

They predict evil things that don't happen, and then take credit for the evil thing not happening.

There's another thread listing the things that have not improved since Obama became President.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3389720

It includes Citizen's United and the laws that ALEC has been pushing through in states with GOP Governors.

Its no wonder the left can't get more "real progressives" into office. Their connection to reality is tenuous at best.

[Union Scribe]

144. And yet

here you are.

[zappaman]

90. One would think a self delete would be in order...

[randome]

91. Never!

There are rushed, wrong posts and there are...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Number23]

96. And Lord knows, it would not be the first time a self-delete would be in order

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)

for this person. More like the 50th. This week.

[Catherina]

93. Clarification and update

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.

...

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.

http://openareas.tumblr.com/post/57110075747/clarification-and-update

Like the surveillance supporters, judging by all the "ignored" persons posting, have a leg to stand on because of that lol. This only makes defense of this *vast* surveillance even sorrier.

[randome]

95. No one is 'defending' surveillance.

But this story is bogus. It's a fact!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

117. If you have people on ignore, how do you know what they're saying?

I know you don't have me on ignore, as you responded to a post of mine a week or so ago. So, at the risk of blindly being accused of being a supporter of vast surveillance networks, the NSA, etc, can you please edit the title of yr OP to reflect the fact that this story was a bit of a hoax? Many DUers will read an OP, but they don't always see one post buried deep in a thread, so in the interests of keeping things honest, I think the best idea would be either to self-delete or edit the the title of the OP itself.

[randome]

126. It's become a hardened position now. The OP won't edit or delete.

This isn't the first such thread.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Violet_Crumble]

136. She just edited the OP title, but is repeating the lie about some Terrorism task force...

It was plain boring cops who turned up after an employer did what employers have every right to do, and that's log the browsing history of their employees. I don't know why anyone would keep on repeating the lies of that Catalino person who's been well and truly debunked

[Scurrilous]

180. Catalino writes for the neo-con Pajamas Media site.

Oh my!

This reminds me of whatshername...Believe It or Not...Better Dead than Red...Beet, Bears, Battlestar Galactica...something like that...and her penchant for posting trash from right-wing sources...

[treestar]

137. Exactly and it will be added to the list of Terrible Things

and quoted by many a poster as a clear abuse of authority.

[Union Scribe]

146. Why

when there are so many real and continuing abuses to choose from?

[arely staircase]

94. oh, well

so much for the proof.

[mythology]

97. And this thread is a wonderful example of why jumping to conclusions is rather silly

Just because it's on the internet, doesn't actually make it true.

[HipChick]

101. Exactly...some DU'ers will fall for anything if they think it can prove their point

[struggle4progress]

100. "I believe whatever I read on the internet!"

[randome]

103. I don't believe you do! So there!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[struggle4progress]

104. You have to believe it! I couldn't post it on the internet if it wasn't true:

Obama would come kick down my door and search my house for anything else I wrote that weren't true, like bad proofs of mathematical theorems, and then I'd get shipped off to prison

[BenzoDia]

106. Debunked. smh.

[geek tragedy]

112. Proof that the OP and her ilk believe everything they read on the Internet. nt

[sagat]

114. .

[Union Scribe]

147. Oh look, even awoken profiles get in

on the swarm action.

[tridim]

128. Yep, we've definitively ID'ed the problem.

There is even a State Farm commercial about them.

[TriplD]

178. You are relying on claims of a press release that doesn't exist

http://apps.suffolkcountyny.gov/police/morepress.htm


August
08/02/2013 - Cab Driver Killed in Single-Car Crash - Main Street and Gnarled Hollow Road, Setauket...
08/01/2013 - Body Found in Blackhawk Marina - The Blackhawk Marina 198 Poospatuck Lane, Mastic...
08/01/2013 - Copiague Man Arrested For Having 69 License Suspensions/Revocations - Fifth Avenue and Pine Aire Drive, Brentwood...
08/01/2013 - Man Arrested for Multiple Burglaries - In front of 155 Marcy St., West Babylon...

July
07/31/2013 - Man Dies After Car Strikes Building - 159 Adams Ave., Hauppauge...
07/29/2013 - Officers Rescue Man Who Fell Into Storm Drain While Attempting to Retrieve Phone - Route 112 near Granny Road,



Where is your proof?

[geek tragedy]

181. Pathetic. nt

[Life Long Dem]

122. This proves DU members like the OP post bullshit stories

With the hair on fire mentality. For your information, everything you read on the internet is not true.

[Catherina]

129. This story is just weird. Update from the Atlantic

Update, 7:05 p.m.: Because the Googling happened at work.

The Suffolk County Police Department released a statement this evening that answers the great mystery of the day.

Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”

After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches. The incident was investigated by Suffolk County Police Department’s Criminal Intelligence Detectives and was determined to be non-criminal in nature.

...

As of this afternoon, it was still not clear which agency knocked on Catalano's door. The Guardian reported that an FBI spokesperson said that Catalano "was visited by Nassau County police department … working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department." (Catalano apparently lives on Long Island, most likely in Nassau County.)

Detective Garcia of the Nassau County Police, however, told The Atlantic Wire by phone that his department was "not involved in any way." Similarly, FBI spokesperson Peter Donald confirmed with The Atlantic Wire that his agency wasn't involved in the visit. He also stated that he could not answer whether or not the agency provided information that led to the visit, as he didn't know.

Local and state authorities work jointly with federal officials on terror investigations similar to the one Catalano describes. Both Suffolk and Nassau County's police departments are members of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), Donald confirmed. Suffolk County is also home to a "fusion center," a regionally located locus for terror investigations associated with the Department of Homeland Security. It wasn't the JTTF that led to the visit at Catalano's house, Donald told us. The task force deputizes local authorities as federal marshals, including some in Suffolk and Nassau, who can then act on its behalf. But, Donald said, "officers, agents, or other representatives of the JTTF did not visit that location.

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.

One hundred times a week, groups of six armed men drive to houses in three black SUVs, conducting consented-if-casual searches of the property perhaps in part because of things people looked up online.

But the NSA doesn't collect data on Americans, so this certainly won't happen to you.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

[tridim]

131. I see you're still spreading your crap the day after the story was completely debunked.

Catalano LIED. Period. Do you even care?

She got caught and called-out on her lie and is now being rightfully ridiculed and shamed. It's all deserved, and it's all her own damn fault.

[sigmasix]

151. once the hair begins burning there's no stopping it

The utter dishonesty of the hair on fair crowd is shameful. They are convinced in a giant government conspiracy to spy on their every move and word. It dosn't matter that their "proofs" are little more than lies and hyperbole- anyone that doesn't value these lies is accused of being a sock puppet or a "sheeple". This story has been thoroughly debunked by everyone involved in it, but the right wing Libertarian supporters in disguise at DU still continue to claim this story proves their conspiracy theories and belief that president Obama is out to spy on every American all the time.
Isn't it time for these "hair on fire" extremists to act like adults and appologize for their lies and paranoia concerning the president and our country?
Why do teabaggers disguise themselves as progressives when they tell lies about the president?

[geek tragedy]

154. The extreme, loony left and the extreme loony right tend to have more common ground

than either would like to admit.

They tend to meet in LaRoucheville.

[zappaman]

169. yep

when 2 sides go far enough on the circle, they meet.

[Number23]

182. This person CANNOT HEAR YOU. She is so convinced of the intellectual and moral superiority of her

beliefs that she has put, by her account, literally HUNDREDS of DUers on ignore. Considering the fact that there are probably only a couple of hundred DUers that are regular posters here -- WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THIS PERSON?

She posts many OPs, many of which are incredibly poorly sourced or ill-informed, knowing full well that she won't see any contradictions as well as any attempts to educate her on the topic, even from people who may know much more than she does, because anyone that has so much as dared to have a different opinion has been put on ignore.

It won't do any good for anyone to refute her or try to tell her that this story is debunked. Unless you are one of the 14 people on this web site that thinks this person walks on water and breathes honesty and farts justice, SHE CANNOT SEE YOUR POSTS. It would make much sense for people to just ignore her OPs and let them sink. There is no discussion to be had in these OPs.

[Cali_Democrat]

157. ...

[Scurrilous]

179. Kick

For the hilarity.