Big Boss, Not Big Brother, Spotted Long Island Family's 'Suspicious' Google Searches

[sufrommich]

On Wednesday morning, six law enforcement officers visited a house in Long Island. They were there to ask whether the residents — a married couple and their son — were involved in terrorism. The female half of the couple, freelance journalist Michele Catalano, who was at work when the visit occurred, blogged about the incident afterward, reporting that the “joint terrorism task force” officers were there because of her family’s Google GOOG +1.83% searches and other innocuous Internet activity.

“I had researched pressure cookers. My husband was looking for a backpack,” she writes on Medium.com. Her 20-year-old son “read a CNN piece about how bomb making instructions are readily available on the internet.”

The officers asked her husband — “Do you have any bombs? … Do you own a pressure cooker? … Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb?” The idea that the feds are monitoring all of our Google searches and Internet activity to spot something like this fits in nicely with the current narrative about an all-seeing NSA that knows everything we do online, but the Internet activity was actually monitored by an employer not the government. The Suffolk County police department says that it questioned the family after getting a tip about suspicious computer searches on an ex-employee’s work computer.

So Catalano was right in a way. The Google searches did lead to the visit. But it was not a result of, as she wrote, “an alarm of sorts at the joint terrorism task force headquarters… and a crowd of task force workers huddled around a computer screen looking at our Google history.” Her family was being watched by Big Boss not Big Brother.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/01/employer-reported-suspicious-google-searches-that-led-to-terrorism-task-force-visit-for-long-island-family/

[gvstn]

1. Thanks for this interesting development.

[reformist2]

100. It's kind of a distinction without much of a difference.

The take home message is: don't search for anything odd at work, because your employer has every right to hand you over. Not a nice message.

[pnwmom]

112. The company owns their computers and is responsible for them. So that's a difference. And

they'd just let this employee go, and they might have been worried that he was about to "go postal."

[Journeyman]

2. One reason (among many) why all the facts should be known before conclusions are drawn. . .

(and definitely before opinions are voiced).

[sufrommich]

4. Yep. Especially by "journalists" who jumped

on this.

[tridim]

34. Apparently the conclusion over at KOS was "Impeach Obama"

Shark decisively jumped.

[treestar]

3. You can bet on one thing though

Many of the HOF crowd are going to run with it being the big bad NSA and no amount of quoting this will result in any admission of going off half cocked and now being wrong.

[sufrommich]

6. HOF? nt

[geek tragedy]

15. Hair On Fire. nt

[sufrommich]

52. Got it, I guess I'm a little touchy and

thinking "what the hell does History of Feminism have to do with this??"

[geek tragedy]

54. my first reaction too. nt

[treestar]

106. we use so many acronyms these days

I did not realize that one was already taken!

[MineralMan]

5. Interesting...

That is why I have been waiting before commenting.

[Peacetrain]

7. Oh for the love of God (red faced here)

checked out snopes.. (nothing there on it).. ish kabbittle so I assumed there was truth to it.. though it had me thinking it was out there.. the way the Guardian article wrote it.. I read it.. it made it sound exactly like the goverment came to investigate them..

[sufrommich]

9. It's what I hate most about the internet, too many

blogs posting "news" without bothering to wait for details or even question those details. It's not your fault though,I've learned to never trust blogs for actual news the hard way.

[Peacetrain]

12. Well I am one of those who always says wait three days

and of course the first time I do not do that.. well I am sure it will not be the last time I get my chain yanked.. sigh.. thanks for the clarification..

[reusrename]

83. It hasn't been three days yet.

I'd give it another cycle or two.

[pnwmom]

114. That's a great policy. n/t

[REP]

50. Nisht gefidlt or the comedian, Ish Kabibble

"Ish kabittle" doesn't mean anything but nisht gefidlt means "it doesn't matter to me." Ish Kabibble was the stage name of comedian Merwyn Bogue.

[Peacetrain]

66. That is interesting.. it is just something my Grandma

used to say.. and I picked it up.. have no idea what it meant or if it meant anything..

[REP]

79. Goyim think "ische ga bibble" is Yiddish, but it isn't and contains 0% Yiddish

It's a novelty song from 1913.

[Peacetrain]

80. Did not even know it was Yiddish

You said it was the name of a comedian? When was he around.. I wonder if she got it from him? My Grandma died 26 years ago ..


edit to add..

I just goggled him.. looks to have been popular in the 40's...bet that is where she got it from..

[pnwmom]

113. The Guardian lately is starting to resemble the other London rags, unfortunately. n/t

[sufrommich]

116. One big problem is that people are not distinguishing between

the Guardian's "comment is free" section, where anybody can post unsourced "news" with The Guardian News,which has much higher standards and is sourced.

[pnwmom]

121. Unfortunately, I'm referring to the Guardian news.

Yesterday, for example, they had an article that claimed 6 members of the "joint terrorism strike force" had visited the house. Then near the bottom of the long article it said that the Suffolk County police were the ones that really conducted the operation. Also, the article reported that the woman had been there for the raid, but she was actually at work. She just got the facts later from her husband, and some of them turned out to be wrong.

[burnodo]

8. forbes.com?

seriously? as a viable, un-biased source of information? Kashmir Hill sounds like the NSA apologists crawling all over DU.

[sufrommich]

10. I knew this would happen, soon other news sources will report

it, but the false info is out there and some are going to stick with it,I expect it will be all over Prison Planet and InfoWars as fact.

[tammywammy]

13. Here's another link

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/

[sufrommich]

24. And another from Wired:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/pressure-cooker/

[MineralMan]

14. Uh, the police dept. issued a press release

about this. The employer tipped them. Story over.

[burnodo]

18. why did the police department investigate a matter for the federal government?

[MineralMan]

20. Why not?

It is finished. Leave it.

[burnodo]

25. why not? are you kidding?

We have a multi-billion dollar Homeland Security department for these types of situations. If not, what the fuck are we paying for?

[MineralMan]

30. Local cops investigate lots of things.

It is over. Leave it.

[burnodo]

33. you seem rather insistent

if its over, why are you commenting?

[MineralMan]

37. Because I can.

Nt.

[burnodo]

39. Very good.

Feel free.

[MineralMan]

40. Thanks for the permission.

[burnodo]

42. You're welcome

please proceed

[Thor_MN]

88. So your position is that HS is supposed to be actively searching all US Google queries for content?

and sending in the black helicopters if they find something suspicious?

[jeff47]

81. Because it's not only a matter for the federal government?

Turns out local police are just as concerned about people setting off bombs. Shocking, I know! It's almost like murder violates state laws.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. It's not a matter for federal govt OR local police

He googled search terms for something in the news. Googling 'backpack' at any time means nothing - nearly everyone has, or has had, one. 'pressure cooker bomb' was all over the news. The correct response by the police to the business saying this was 'suspicious' should have been 'yeah, everyone's searching about that - it's been in the news, hadn't you heard?'. But, instead, the police are just as paranoid as the people the article criticises, so the have a team of 6 armed men going to houses of people who have done nothing more than shown a vague interest in the news.

If people now turn in each other for googling subjects that are in the news, then the whole country has turned paranoid. The reference to Gilliam's "Brazil" elsewhere in this thread is very appropriate.

[jeff47]

109. No, that's the wife's story.

His wife's story is there was only innocuous search terms. But her story turned out to be many layers of bullshit.

Her husband's employer fired the guy, and thought ill enough of his behavior that searching for pressure cookers and posting fireworks on Facebook might indicate a problem.

It's those extra bits of information coupled with the search terms that caused the police to interview them. Which was blown up by the wife into linkbait.

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. We see whose side you instinctively take in employer-employee relations

He was laid off, not 'fired' - no need to assume he did anything wrong.

Within an hour of announcing Todd got laid off, we had 16 job leads sent his way. The internet and the people who inhabit it are awesome.

https://twitter.com/inthefade/status/332587250695147520

The 'bullshit' so far has consisted of her mentioning the FBI in a tweet, when it was only the police in the joint terrorism task force. That qualifies as 'many layers of bullshit'?

The employer has not said they "thought ill of his behavior", but you've assumed that. They thought that searching for "pressure cooker bomb" was enough to report him to the police. If they were linking that with his wife posting pictures of fireworks, then that is intrusive behavior by them, that I think ill of.

You regard a visit from 6 armed men as 'being blown up into linkbait' - you don't think that's worth noting on the internet? Just an everyday occurrence? That would seem to show you are acclimated to a police state already.

[jeff47]

123. You've skipped over a whole lot of her story.

Her story was that the Google turned over her search history to the NSA, which then sent the JTF/FBI to search her house.

Problems:
1) Google wasn't involved, it was her husband's former employer
2) The NSA wasn't involved, it was her husband's former employer
3) It wasn't the JTF or FBI, it was the Suffolk county police.
4) It wasn't a search. You can tell because they just talked to people, even in her story.
5) It wasn't just her innocuous search terms at home. It was whatever her husband did at work.
6) She claims her husband was laid off. The company said they fired him. Note that laying someone off is technically firing them, just not firing them for cause. So both could be accurate.

You're still claiming it was innocuous search terms that had the police show up. You're also trying to paint a SWAT-team raid picture with "6 armed men!!!!" - it goes well with the stock pictures people have been attaching to this story of a SWAT team....but it's not what happened. Yep, the detectives had sidearms....just like every other detective in the US. How shocking.

The police showed up and asked questions because the story they got from the former employer hinted at something nefarious. After asking questions, the police determined there wasn't anything to it and they went away.

Now, what this story did do is make her a whole bunch of money from visitors to her sleepy little blog. Hence, linkbait.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. No, you've imagined a whole lot of that

Here's what she wrote, for reference: https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724 - plus 3 tweets listed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3385470 ; and the police statment is here: http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/

Her story was that the Google turned over her search history to the NSA, which then sent the JTF/FBI to search her house.

Problems:
1) Google wasn't involved, it was her husband's former employer
2) The NSA wasn't involved, it was her husband's former employer
3) It wasn't the JTF or FBI, it was the Suffolk county police.
4) It wasn't a search. You can tell because they just talked to people, even in her story.
5) It wasn't just her innocuous search terms at home. It was whatever her husband did at work.
6) She claims her husband was laid off. The company said they fired him. Note that laying someone off is technically firing them, just not firing them for cause. So both could be accurate.

No, she never said Google turned her history over to anyone. She imagined the task force looked at her Google history. She never said anything about Google, the company, doing anything. She never mentioned the NSA. She tweeted "Pro tip: don't do a search for pressure cookers right after your spouse does a search for backpacks if you don't want the FBI at your door". Yes, it was her husband's former employer - and he was never told that. She called it a joint task force - and the FBI thinks it was too:

Earlier on Thursday, the FBI told the Guardian that Catalano was visited by the Nassau County police department working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department. "From our understanding, both of those counties are involved," said FBI spokeswoman Kelly Langmesser. She said Suffolk County initiated the action and that Nassau County became involved, but would not elaborate on what that meant.

The Nassau County police department said Catalano "was not visited by the Nassau police department" and denied involvement in the situation.

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

It was a search, but not a thorough one - they looked at their books, walked around the back yard and garage. 'Whatever her husband did at work' - ie search terms. The police statement only talk about search terms, nothing more.

Where does the company say they fired him? The police statement calls him "a recently released employee". There is nothing about his behavior.

You're still claiming it was innocuous search terms that had the police show up

And that's what the police claim too.

You're also trying to paint a SWAT-team raid picture with "6 armed men!!!!"

No, I've never said anything about 'SWAT'. But these are not uniform police, one blocks in their car, and 4 of them go round the house, to surround it:

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.

the story they got from the former employer hinted at something nefarious.

It hints at it in your imagination. The police says it was about the search terms. It's up to the police to see things in proportion. For instance, George Zimmerman phone up the police, saying he had seen a suspicious black guy in a hoodie looking into people's homes. The call handler was able to see that in proportion, and decide this was not criminal behavior. Zimmerman was unable to do that, and look what happened.

If 6 police officers are spending 45 minutes at a home on the basis of a google search for terms in the news, this is something Americans should know. It's baseless suspicion, an intrusion, and a waste of public money. They should be out trying to catch criminals.

[jeff47]

126. You're trying really, really hard to protect someone who admitted she lied.

No, she never said Google turned her history over to anyone. She imagined the task force looked at her Google history.

Which they got from magic pixie fairies. Or perhaps the implication she was going is Google turned it over.

She tweeted "Pro tip: don't do a search for pressure cookers right after your spouse does a search for backpacks if you don't want the FBI at your door". Yes, it was her husband's former employer - and he was never told that. She called it a joint task force - and the FBI thinks it was too:

Do you always provide links and quotes that destroy your own argument? Because that link says the FBI didn't think it was the JTF nor the FBI as she claimed.

Where does the company say they fired him? The police statement calls him "a recently released employee". There is nothing about his behavior.

There are various statements from various papers claiming he was either fired or laid off. Technically, both of those are "being fired", which is probably what is causing the confusion among the media.

You're still claiming it was innocuous search terms that had the police show up

And that's what the police claim too.

You skipped over the word "innocuous". Her story is that it was "pressure cooker" and "backpack" searches which triggered the investigation. We have no reason to believe that is actually the case - she lied about where those search results were from. So why should we believe that just those search terms were the case?

Oh, her husband didn't tell her exactly who was at the house and why they were there? Well of course we should believe her first story. It's not like the husband could have any possible motivation to lie.

You're also trying to paint a SWAT-team raid picture with "6 armed men!!!!"

No, I've never said anything about 'SWAT'.

Do I really need to link the definition of "paint a picture" as a literary device?

But these are not uniform police, one blocks in their car, and 4 of them go round the house, to surround it:

Oh look! You're quoting her story again. You know, the one she admitted was bullshit.

This woman is a right-wing blogger. She is lying in order to make herself more famous and to drive a wedge between Democrats.

You are doing an excellent job helping her reach her goal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. Again, you're just making things up

She has not "admitted she lied"; she did not "lie about where those search results were from"; the FBI thinks it was 2 police forces - hence a joint terrorism task force; she did not admit anything was "bullshit". You are fabricating huge chunks of this, just to make her look bad.

"why should we believe that just those search terms were the case? "

Because those are the terms the police say were the problem.

On that computer, the employee searched the terms "pressure cooker bombs" and "backpacks".

http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/

It's not like the husband could have any possible motivation to lie.

You choose to have more suspicion than the police did, and think that private individuals are going to lie. You are more authoritarian than the police are. I presume that's why you're making stuff up - to justify armed raids on private individuals who do nothing more than look up terms in the news.

[phleshdef]

118. A bomb threat type situation is a matter for ALL law enforcement.

[geek tragedy]

16. Forbes hired the flaky Ms Catalano, but its reporting here is correct nt

[burnodo]

21. Forbes hired her?

Where? When?

And if her husband was the only one working at the computer company, why did Catalano claim she searched for one of the terms that were "discovered" by the employee who ended up on that computer?

[geek tragedy]

26. She has a lot of questions to answer. nt

[burnodo]

31. so does Forbes

yet here you are posting this story as if its something we should all trust

[geek tragedy]

32. I'm posting the tech crunch story.

Read the Suffolk PD Press release.

Sorry, this little myth has gone up in smoke

[burnodo]

38. which is why you feel the need to repeat yourself?

[sufrommich]

27. Forbes didn't "hire" her, she's a freelance writer.

Forbes paid for some of her stuff and published it.

[geek tragedy]

29. that won't be happening again nt

[elehhhhna]

17. that's what I was thinking.

[KittyWampus]

19. I believe the woman who started this whole story has written for Forbes.com

[burnodo]

23. so Forbes.com is thoroughly suspect

and shouldn't be trusted as a source of information

[geek tragedy]

28. The Suffolk Police department issued the press release to

other outlets.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/

[burnodo]

35. so other outlets reporting the same bad information

somehow validates it?

[geek tragedy]

44. The only bad information is from Catalano. Her story is bullshit. End of discussion. nt

[burnodo]

49. are you Mineral Man now?

he's saying the same thing in the same way?

WAY too many unanswered questions here for you to declare a victory for Obama.

[geek tragedy]

53. "victory for Obama"

This story has nothing to do with Obama. Not a goddamn thing.

It was local employer reporting something to local police.

It was people who like to play loose and fast with the truth who tried to make it about Obama and the federal gubmint.

[leftynyc]

107. If victory for Pres Obama

means people jumping at any story that makes him look bad only to find out it's bullshit and still people continue to push it and make themselves look like fools then yes, it's a victory for Pres Obama.

[phleshdef]

119. There are no unanswered questions here whatsoever.

[snooper2]

87. you aren't going to reply any more are you?

[Autumn]

11. So, the wife or the husband did a search on their work computer

and the company that one of them had been formerly employed with reported the search? But I would think that both of them would not use the other one's employers computer.

[Hydra]

36. The article is really confusing

If it's accurate, whoever the employee was did all the search terms themselves and then should have been questioned if they were looking for that.

The problem is that there are huge gaps in the narrative. A "computer company"? "ex-employee"? Doesn't sound like Michelle. And recently ex-employed?

More questions than answers after I read that.

[Autumn]

41. Yes it is. Since she's a writer I can see her searching for those terms.

It puzzles me as to why they would use an ex employers computer. I would like to see more from her.

[leftstreet]

51. Maybe they were trying to get the ex-employer in trouble?

Dunno

[OilemFirchen]

58. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Baby boy was working at a computer store, quit or got fired. Owner/manager saw some suspicious searches, alerted local authorities. Local authorities checked it out, found nothing and left.

Other than specific names being omitted for the sake of privacy, this seems a no-brainer.

OTOH, that there is a poster here who is extremely invested in not believing this resolution is fucking hilarious. Lord love a duck.

[Autumn]

60. I didn't see where he was mentioned. But as a free lance writer, she should be aware that

her story would be checked out thoroughly.

[OilemFirchen]

64. Where who was mentioned? The son?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, baby boy was my first suspicion:

if you are my exceedingly curious, news junkie 20-year-old son, you click a lot of links when you read the myriad of stories. You might just read a CNN piece about how bomb making instructions are readily available on the internet and you will in all probability, if you are that kid, click the link provided.

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

[Autumn]

69. Yes, the part about the son being the ex employee. I haven't seen that in the articles

I had read. But the way she made it sound they were on their own computer. If she embellished the situation she can say goodbye to her free lance career. You got it right, news junkies, young or old will click the link provided.

[OilemFirchen]

72. I'm surmising.

I might, possibly, have a nose for news. That's classified.

Anyway, I clearly could be wrong. But I doubt it. I do find it interesting that that the cops didn't insist on waking up baby boy to interview him, but I'm guessing they saw enough to determine that no one at that house was a threat.

As to the blogger-cum-celebrity? She got her fifteen minutes. I doubt her career will be impacted in any way.

[OilemFirchen]

75. ... and I retract!

Guess, per the Wired story, it was daddy's employer.

Must have a sinus infection or something.

[Autumn]

78. That is strange isn't it. She's young enough to want a career.

But she better find something else soon.

[Hydra]

22. I've read this article 3 times

And I can't make sense of it with all the missing info. Who was the ex-employee? Michelle? Her Husband? Her son? What were the google search terms that were submitted? All submitted by the same person?

I'd like to say this answers the questions...but in total it makes it sound like there was someone who needed to be questioned...but not these guys?

edit: search terms: "Pressure cooker bombs" and "backpacks"? geez..

[reusrename]

55. Yeah, me too.

She's employed by someone as a free-lance journalist?

How does that work?

[sweetloukillbot]

67. I'm employed as a freelance journalist

In my spare time I write music reviews for the local paper. I make going out money and get to go to concerts for free. It's a nice hobby that lets me do what I love and make some extra money on the side of my full time job.

I know how tough it is to make a living doing it full time, so I wouldn't be surprised if she has a second job that allows her to use the Internet and possibly search for pressure cookers, although the fact that the husband is home during the day leads me to suspect he may be the one who is newly unemployed.

[reusrename]

82. You're either self employed, or you aren't.

Saying you're a freelance writer that works for an employer is an oxymoron.

[sweetloukillbot]

86. I do contract work under a 1099 for a single paper

They consider me freelance because I'm not on staff. But I say they're my employer because they're the only paper I write for.

[reusrename]

89. I do freelance work myself.

I just think it's odd that there is this additional wrinkle in the story.

This single paper that you work for under the 1099, what would they think if it were reported that you were their employee?

A better question is why would they tell the police you were an employee?

It's odd to me that the journalists at Forbes didn't make this clear. None of the folks I do freelance work for would ever mistake me for an employee, and they would be pretty upset if a bunch of magazines did that and then reported it.

[sweetloukillbot]

91. I agree there.

I was surprised the Forbes story didn't have some sort of disclaimer in it. Although it sounds like she was little more than a blogger - whether she was paid or not I'm not sure.

[reusrename]

95. I think she does cooking so they probably purchased her recipes or something.

That's what makes the most sense at this point.

I need to wait for more detail in order make sense of this story.

At this point I have no reason to believe anyone is not telling the truth.

It's so sketchy that this same set of facts could fit many different scenarios.

[TriplD]

43. Why did they interview the husband and not her if the searches were on her work PC

And if she was supposedly at work when this happened, when did she work at this other place?

Why would a former employer be looking into her Google search history? It would think it would require some IT skills to get that from a PC. Why was this business prompted to investigate a former employee?

[geek tragedy]

45. Was his work PC. He was the one who got fired nt

[leftynyc]

108. The woman has clarified

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

Michele Catalano posts a 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.

The piece I wrote was the story as we knew it with the information we were told. None of it was fabricated. If you know me, you know I would never do that.

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.

Thank you.

[diabeticman]

46. Propaganda spin has begun. Pass the Vomit bag

[sagat]

48. ....

[geek tragedy]

103. Condolences on the passing of your paranoid theory.

You should try living in the real world instead of Fantasy Land--it's better, but more complex.

[diabeticman]

104. You are just a rude thing!

[Fire Walk With Me]

47. "Don't suspect your neighbor; turn them in!" ~Public sign in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". n/t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

56. Good thing TPTB had all their content handy to search right away (son & husbands)

The original story talked about her husband, and sons online actions also contributed to the visit by the authorities (unless the whole family worked in the same office).

Wonder if they had to get a warrant for that?

Also, I'm sure this isn't the first story of its kind since 911 that's been recorded, and I'm sure most go unreported probably due to some "legal" gag order.

[reusrename]

61. I'm sure that the fact that there were three of them figures into this.

A single person making all those searches would give a distinctly different social network analysis than three people making those searches.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

70. But if they were just scanning network end points meta then it would look like a single user

But if they have access to all the content, too... It would be easy to identify multiple users.

[reusrename]

85. Careful, or you'll give away sources and methods.

This is what they are really up to. This is what the denial is actually all about.

The published physical engineering drawings, the published slideshow presentations, the published photographs, the published doctoral theses, the published statements of multiple whistleblowers, the public statements of Senators and Representatives that sit on the oversight committees, all of it points to a single conclusion.

All of the actual evidence shows this to be the case.

[geek tragedy]

90. You should try reading the post before offering factually false commentary. Nt

[RebelOne]

57. I was on Facebook and there are some people

who are going to do a search for pressure cookers and backpacks to see if the police or FBI will be at their doors.

[reusrename]

59. The problem with that is the algorithms are classified.

We don't know how the analysis of her particular social network kicked her out as a suspect.

[sweetloukillbot]

68. And they'll probably be disappointed when they aren't n/t

[BenzoDia]

62. Wow, so many suckers out there taking the bait.

[Bonx]

120. Gotta know - What's 'the bait' ?

[zappaman]

63. You and your silly facts!

[NYC_SKP]

65. Recommended. (nt)

[msanthrope]

71. Pic of explosives on her Facebook---

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153008673760061&set=pb.500530060.-2207520000.1375381160.&type=3&theater

This was a winger set up from the start.

[sufrommich]

73. That picture is from July 4th. nt

[msanthrope]

74. The Boston Bombers used fireworks bought in New Hampshire for their bombs.

I think that's part of the 'innocent' cover she and unemployed husband decided to do.

I think this was a Pajamas Media writer set-up from the start.

[sufrommich]

76. That seems too convoluted and conspiratorial to me.

Usually,the most obvious excuse is true.My guess is either her husband wasn't totally truthful with her as to why the police were at the door or she embellished a story to take advantage of the NSA headlines without ever imagining it would become a huge story.

[msanthrope]

77. I didn't say it was smart. nt

[killbotfactory]

92. That the government would think searches for "pressure cooker" and "backpack"

should be cause to investigate someone, regardless of how they found out about it... is troubling.

Really, it's disturbing.

[BklnDem75]

93. Why is it disturbing?

Someone called it in. It's their job to investigate.

[killbotfactory]

94. They are two common household items. nt

[BklnDem75]

96. That were used in an attack in Boston

If you called the cops on something you deemed suspicious, do you expect them to ignore it without checking it out?

[killbotfactory]

97. They where plus EXPLOSIVES

First of all, I wouldn't expect an employer to scan my google search logs and report any two keywords that might sound suspicious when combined, and then report me to the cops, and second of all I would expect the cops to use discretion and investigate the claims of the employer, if they were deemed credible enough, before invading my home and checking all of my computer logs.

[BklnDem75]

98. The statement from the police department:

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.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/01/employer-reported-suspicious-google-searches-that-led-to-terrorism-task-force-visit-for-long-island-family/


All three were in the search.

[JHB]

101. Was the work computer a laptop or notebook the company took back...

...and found these in the search history? Or was it his computer, used for work with that company, and they had some monitoring software they required be installed?

Just trying to grasp the actual mechanics of how the company knew the search history.

[MadrasT]

102. Where I work

We had a computer running monitoring software connected to the router that directed traffic to the internet. Any time someone in the company fired up a web browser and accessed the internet, everything going to or from their computer ran through that monitor.

We installed it because we had managers who were worried that people were wasting time on the internet when they should be working.

I worked in I.T. and we discovered a couple people looking at porn, etc., on work time... but when we told their managers... suddenly everyone became uncomfortable about the "big brother" aspect and nobody wanted to take any action about it.

It was odd.

We actually disconnected it later, after I threw a fit and said "Why in heaven's name are we running this thing and paying annual maintenance on the software if nobody cares about the data it is collecting?"

[JHB]

105. Right, but that was at your workplace, if I understand you correctly

The wife and son wouldn't have had access to it at an office.

If it was a laptop or notebook that belonged to the company and was returned to them when he no longer worked for them, then the whole thing is 1) him letting family members use company property, and b) company IT guys checking/clearing the history and being jumpy after the Boston bombing.

If it was his home computer with company-required monitoring software because it was also used for company work, that's a bigger concern to the general public.

[PowerToThePeople]

117. If it was his home computer with company-required monitoring software

Why would anyone do this? If you need a computer for offsite work, the company should supply it. If they want to monitor it, so be it. Do your personal stuff on your personal computer and work stuff on the work computer. Pretty simple imo. Do not offer to byod.

[JHB]

124. Why would a boss cut corners and try to foist expenses onto employees?

or on "independent contractors"?

I agree with you completely about keeping them separate, it's what I do, but just because that's the proper way of handling it doesn't mean that's what happens everywhere.

[jeff47]

111. Search history is saved in multiple places

It's saved in your browser's cookies and cache, and you can configure a network to cache the search requests as they go by, or log the search requests as they are sent.

[Zoeisright]

110. I thought that story didn't pass the smell test.

So all the poor pearl-clutchers will need to find something else to bash the President about.

[gollygee]

115. I've researched both pressure cookers and backpacks

I just bought a pressure cooker recently, to cook with, and I have a child entering middle school and I was trying to figure out just what to get as far as a backpack goes.