Did the media get punked again (on internet search tip off)?

[TriplD]

There was a story about about a family on Long Island who got a police visit based on internet searches. This was supposedly "debunked" by a Suffolk County police press release dated 8/1:

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


But when you go to the Suffolk County police press release site, there is no such press release:


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...




Did the media get punked?

[pnwmom]

1. Are you saying the Suffolk Police punked the media by releasing a false statement?

Because they didn't get it up on their website?


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/suffolk-county-home-search-tipoff

Late on Thursday, Suffolk County police said its investigation was in fact prompted by a tipoff, and not covert monitoring. "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," Suffolk County said in a statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/michele-catalano-husband-_n_3695139.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york

NEW YORK -- A former employee of a New York computer company was questioned after his workplace computer search history revealed inquiries for "pressure cooker bombs" and "backpacks," but no criminality was determined, the Suffolk County Police Department said in a statement Thursday.

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

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.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/02/google_search_pressure_cooker_saga_shows_surveillance_fueled_paranoia_mistrust.html

It turns out that the cops were tipped off the old-fashioned way—by the former employer of Catalano’s husband, who saw that he had made searches about pressure cooker bombs and backpacks on a work computer, freaked out, and went to the police. Suffolk County Police Department issued a statement late Thursday confirming the details,

[TriplD]

2. I don't know what explains the discrepancy.

I really hate to speculate, but it does seem odd that a Suffolk Co. Police press release used in a national story isn't listed on the Suffolk Co. Police press releases web page.

Perhaps the NSA issued the "press release" on behalf of the Suffolk Police?

[pnwmom]

3. Maybe they don't post all their releases. Or maybe someone slipped up. I think either is much

more likely than all those media people falsely reporting about a statement from the Suffolk County PD.

[TriplD]

6. I just don't have that much faith in the media or police

to assume this is being reported accurately.

If the media's reporting a press release from a police department that's not listed with the official press releases of that police department, then something's amiss.

Maybe someone forgot to upload the press release, maybe it was something else. I would like to know.

[MADem]

4. "Suffolk County police said" sounds like their PR officer gave a verbal statement to a reporter.

If you really suspect malfeasance, I would suggest you look up their non-emergency number and ASK them, then come back here and let us know if a verbal or written statement was made.

I rather doubt that "the Guardian" would be fooled by the NSA issuing a release on behalf of a local PD, and I doubt you believe that either, if you think about it.

[pinboy3niner]

7. A screenshot of the release is posted at techcrunch.com:

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

[MADem]

34. Their IT guy is a part timer...and hasn't pushed the button to post it yet?

EDIT--I see that this 'release' was culled from an EMAIL--per post five.

Man, it's amazing how many people will screw around on their work computer, without appreciating that there are consequences. I guess that shop doesn't have the big "Subject to MONITORING" warnings that pop up on DoD and US government assets!

I would never have thought about shopping for anything on a work computer, unless it was command-related. Just not worth it!

[TriplD]

9. The link in the op has a press release

that they claim was emailed to them.

For all I know, everyone saw that and ran with it.

It wouldn't be the first time major news outlets got punked by a blogger.

[pnwmom]

10. Then why aren't the PD or Catalano saying it's not real? n/t

[MADem]

36. Give the Suffolk PD a call and ask them to send you the release, that will clear this up! nt

[cthulu2016]

5. No. TechCruch's soucing of their story appeared sketchy, but

Castalano (sp?) confirmed that the Suffolk police told her the same story. (After she first wrote about the incident.)

TechCrunch posted something that they said was on the Suffolk police website (insofar as posting a web link to something is saying you think it is on that website) that they now say, in a later clarification, they got via email from the Suffolk Police, niot from the website, hence the confusion. They posted a png that was purporting, in the context of the presentation, to be a screen capture from a website, but was not.

A minor thing when explained, but to anyone who tried to find the press release cited before the clarification, it was nowhere to be found, and it appeared that something sketchy was up. (It was something sent to press people who inquired, but not a general press release)

But since the target later said the Suffolk police told her the same thing, it appears the techcrunch story was 99% accurate, despite linking to a press release that wasn't there.

She was questioned about web searches. She says she did not know, and was not told, the source of the information. She jumped to a conclusion and published it. She was later informed (by Suffolk police) as to the real source of the information about her searches.

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.

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

Really nothing too mysterious on either side. She jumped to a bad conclusion and published. TechCrunch posted a harmlessly misleading non-link.

[cthulu2016]

13. Oh look. A simple explanation of the whole thing ^^^

This is all very straightforward, but I imagine folks will argue around the salient points for the fun of it.

[TriplD]

14. Maybe she was threatened with espionage charges for shining light on the operation?

I'm sure a little NSA intimidation can go a long way into getting people to say things they don't necessarily believe.

[TeeYiYi]

20. Your strainer might be too tight...

TYY

[Brother Buzz]

21. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Occam's razor applies here.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Oh lawd

[JustAnotherGen]

27. +1

[struggle4progress]

11. "... For those of you wondering where we got the press release: I called

the Suffolk County Police Department for a statement, and they emailed it to me ..."
Employer Tipped Off Police To Pressure Cooker And Backpack Searches, Not Google
Alexia Tsotsis
posted yesterday
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/01/employer-tipped-off-police-in-pressure-cookerbackpack-gate-not-google/

[pnwmom]

12. Thanks! n/t

[TriplD]

16. If Breitbart can punk the media with doctored tapes

then why should we take this blogger at face value?

[pinboy3niner]

38. It's not a "blogger"; it's a technology news website owned by AOL. nt

[MADem]

35. Awww, darn, you've blown another fine conspiracy theory all to bits! nt

[arely staircase]

15. you think they put out a press release everytime they talk to someone?

oh wait, you think the one they did put out, wasn't really put out by them?

in that case

[TriplD]

18. It's a national story - if they are putting them out for car accidents

then why not when a national story cites their press release, you know, so that it can be confirmed?

[arely staircase]

19. they did put one out about this

what in god's name are you talking about?

[TriplD]

22. It's not on their website

with the rest of their press releases.

I would like to know why that is.

[arely staircase]

23. so they haven't updated their website

big deal. they have made the release available to everyone who has asked for it. call them and ask for it. then get back to us.

631-852-6308

[cthulu2016]

24. My crystal ball says you are about to get a techcrunch link and some insults

And then you will point out that some blog is not actually the Suffolk County Police Department

And so on.

The substance of the techcrunch png is what the Suffolk PD is saying. It is, however, funny to see people link to a graphic on a blog as a police press release while lecturing folks about internet credulity.

[TriplD]

29. The link posted is the link cited in techcrunch n/t

[cthulu2016]

30. I meant a link to techcrunch...

to look at the picture of a press release, rather than a link to the press release, which link seems to not exist.

But none of it matters because the content of the "press release" is accurate even if there was never a general press release.

[DevonRex]

31. How do you know ALL their press releases are on the site?

They might very well do press releases like this regularly in the community. And keep a copy in a computer file and a hard copy, too.

Unless you know ALL the press releases they've ever released you can't say this isn't normal procedure.

[quinnox]

17. So maybe there was a cover up? This whole story is pretty bizarre.

Here is what they wrote about the description of the men who visited them - "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."


Then later on, apparently the police said they sent out a team of detectives to the house, so it leads you to believe this must have been them. The only problem with this explanation is the 3 black SUVs, that sounds like government agents (they use vehicles like this). So, in other words, is it possible these men were actually from the government, and not the "police detectives" claimed later on? Because they don't want this story to be considered as true, especially in light of the national debate going on regarding these spying programs. It would be very bad timing for it.

I think it is possible. Of course I am speculating, but this story does have interesting angles to it.

[cthulu2016]

25. See #5. It's really pretty straightforward

Whatever one's theory, the Suffolk County PD does say they were acting on a tip from a former employer about web searches done on a work computer, so there's no real mystery about what Suffolk PD says.

One can say that what they say is wrong, but that would be side-ways to an allegation that they don't say what they say, and would not, as a theory, be advanced by anything in the OP.

(Which is only about whether they say what they say.)

[TeeYiYi]

26. I agree with you that there are still some unanswered questions...

The six gentlemen in casual clothes from three black SUVs comes to mind.

"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."

The FBI denied it was them, but then who exactly is taking credit for the visit? Six suits in black SUVs sounds like overkill to me; and a little nefarious. Especially in light of the fact that his creepy employer admitted turning him in for a search query that every one of us would have been guilty of during the Boston Marathon tragedy. I'd be willing to bet that search history was from April.

People have been quick to condemn the messenger but the way I see it, she's been completely honest.

We're definitely not getting the whole story from the department responsible for the visit.

TYY

[quinnox]

32. exactly, that is the part that jumps out at me too

It just doesn't pass the smell test. I don't see the local police department using black SUVs, and a team of 6 detectives investigating this? WTF? It sounds more like a government operation.

[arely staircase]

37. she embellished the story

or the detectives have a black SUV. two very simple explanations.

[mythology]

33. If by completely honest you mean

she jumped to a conclusion and loudly pronounced it without doing even the slightest bit of research, then yes she's been completely honest.

As for why the police would approach in the fashion they did, that's relatively standard formation going into an unknown potentially dangerous situation that starts with bombs. Yes it's a bit intimidating, but the goal is to be sure that if the situation is dangerous they have the chance to contain it.

[TeeYiYi]

39. Aww come on...

...If the cops decided to ask me (or you) some questions about...whatever, they would send ONE guy in a clearly marked vehicle (truck where I live.)

Twitter is an extremely malleable platform. Shit happens in real time on Twitter. She (Michelle Catalano) blogged her experience in real time to her Twitter followers, as she was experiencing it. As the details changed, she updated her posts. She told what she 'knew' to be the truth at the time. The cops didn't admit to WHY they were investigating the family's google search histories until this story blew up on the internet. The family had been led to believe that the searches in question were made on their home computers.

The fact that it turns out to be her husband's recently fired-from company that made the 'he might be a terra'rist' google-search-history claim to the authorities is more than a little creepy. That particular search history on her husband's work computer was more than likely from April of this year; smack in the middle of the Boston Bombing tragedy. Every computer in the universe (mine included) more than likely held that same set of search-history parameters during April of 2013.


So, what did she 'lie' about?

Investigation based on google search history?.... Check. Not a lie.
Three black SUVs?... Check. Not a lie.
Six official detective guys in leisure attire?... Check. Not a lie.
Search of home, based on google search history?... Check. Not a lie.


As it turns out:

No mention by the cops of the actual (employer instigated) purpose for the visit?... Check. The cops weren't forthright.

“Six agents from the joint terrorism task force”?... To be determined...

Six "detectives" in black SUVs employed by the local police department?... So they say.

Former employer being a complete and total shit stirring douchebag?... Check. Confirmed.


TYY

[sweetloukillbot]

41. She didn't tweet it as it was happening because she wasn't there

Her blog says her husband called her and then she vividly describes the scene of the black SUVs blocking him in. She wasn't there, she didn't see a fucking thing, but everyone is playing it off like she is an eyewitness to the whole thing. The only person who has said it was 6 men in suits driving black SUVs wasn't there to see what happened.

[TeeYiYi]

42. She tweeted it in very nearly real time as it was being relayed to her by her husband...

No FUCKING difference![//b]

TYY

[sweetloukillbot]

43. Big fucking difference between firsthand and second hand

Especially since she claimed the events happened on Wednesday, and she wrote about them on THURSDAY. Which isn't real time. But you're obviously not going to be convinced by facts, so bye.

[TeeYiYi]

44. Not when it's your husband that it's happening to.

If she didn't blog about it until the next day, that just means that she had more time to get her facts in order.

TYY

[sweetloukillbot]

45. What, by actually being a journalist and calling the police to find out what happened?

Oh wait, I wasn't going to reply to your conspiratorial apologism for a hack right-wing blogger. Oh well.

[TeeYiYi]

46. Yeah, what ARE you doing up on a Saturday morning?....

I thought you said buh bye.

Is she an actual journalist?...or a pretend journalist? (Forbes doesn't count.) She doesn't seem too professional, which garners my sympathy. Anyway, when it's your own family that it's happening to, the journalist thing goes out the window, in my opinion. She's human, after all. Try to put yourself in her shoes.

Good morning.

TYY

[TeeYiYi]

47. She wasn't posting from a position of journalistic integrity...

It was an emotional response to something that had actually happened to her family...perceived by her and posted on her personal Twitter account. Her 'loud pronouncement' was directed at her so called friends, following her on Twitter.

re:

As for why the police would approach in the fashion they did, that's relatively standard formation going into an unknown potentially dangerous situation that starts with bombs. Yes it's a bit intimidating, but the goal is to be sure that if the situation is dangerous they have the chance to contain it.

I disagree. If those six guys had any inkling of encountering a potentially dangerous bomb situation, they would have been clad in SWAT gear, not polyester leisure suits. And there would have been a lot more than six.

Hopefully, someone will think to ask a neighbor for their account of what actually transpired that day.

TYY

[sweetloukillbot]

40. How can you tell she's been completely honest?

What has she said that makes you sure she's so trustworthy? The way she said it was the FBI on twitter, but said it was the terrorism task force on her blog post? The vivid descriptions she gives of a situation she wasn't witness to?
Or perhaps the way she refused to give any interviews and told the people questioning her to kiss her ass?

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. Wow I think you're a day late...