
Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not. - brown9-2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/01/google-pressure-cooker-get-a-police-visit-maybe-not/
======
dendory
I don't see how this is busting her story much. The FBI confirmed that cops
went to her house, just not FBI agents, but local ones. Still, if the FBI
knew, then clearly it was a joint operation in some way. Then, the WP says
that the reason they went could be something other than Google searches, and
instead something that they posted on Facebook or a jumpy neighbor (although
that's doubtful because they never actually bought any of the stuff, just
search the web for it). But does it really matter? Whether the feds got the
info from Google or Facebook, it still appears to be the case that this family
did research online about various items, and then cops went and knocked on
their doors. No actual crime, no presumption, purely based on search terms.
That's still pretty ridiculous.

~~~
MrKurtz
There is a huge difference! if they visited her because of her web searches
which are _private_ then it's a big deal, if on the other hand the visit was
due to her profile picture which is _public_ then it's not as big of a deal.

~~~
thezilch
What's private about a web search, exactly? For unauthenticated sessions,
Google does not use HTTPS by default. If I click through to a SERP link, my
search referrer is passed to that party. They can do what they want with it,
including alerting authorities. Not that authorities need alerting or warrant
to capture all non-secure traffic.

I'm not convinced we know any of the reasons for the visit yet, but it's
fairly disingenuous to consider ANYTHING done on an online property, that you
don't own, is not public.

~~~
MrKurtz
The distinction between public and private in this scenario is the difference
between pictures posted so that everyone can see versus a string that only two
parties can read directly or others might sniff indirectly.

~~~
thezilch
It's too bad we didn't get her in 2007!

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/asv/1244780876/in/photostream/](http://www.flickr.com/photos/asv/1244780876/in/photostream/)

------
moocowduckquack
Is interesting that the FBI have said there was a police visit from specific
departments, although those police departments themselves are dancing round
the issue.

I wonder if the police misrepresented themselves.

 _“They were officers from the Nassau County Police Department who identified
themselves as such,” said Kelly Langmesser, the FBI spokeswoman. But
mysteriously, neither the Nassau nor Suffolk County Police would confirm their
involvement in the investigation Thursday afternoon. An officer from the
Nassau County Police repeatedly refused to even give her first name; a Public
Information Officer in Suffolk County said she would comment when she had more
information._

~~~
jlgreco
The FBI, for all their faults, are professionals. Local police? Ha!

~~~
thecabinet
Professionals!? You mean the guys who refuse to record interviews with
suspects? Now what reason could they possibly have for refusing to record an
interview...

~~~
untog
That makes them sound even more professional, if you consider it in their
professional interest to cover their tracks.

------
mladenkovacevic
Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title. There is basically nothing the
writer cites to absolutely negate the claim that a Google search possibly
resulted in a visit from the police?

She searched for pressure cookers, and police came to her house asking her,
among other things, whether they own pressure cookers and if they know how to
make a bomb out of pressure cookers. Those are the facts.

~~~
MrKurtz
Nor have there been reports to support her claim. As to the police visit,
there are plenty of other speculative reasons for it:
[https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...](https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN64h)

~~~
mladenkovacevic
No .. just stop it.

What a strange tactic to try and bring truth to a truly peculiar story by
introducing another completely uninformed person's ramblings and insinuations.

Here are two facts:

1) She searched for pressure cookers

2) The police officer asked her if her and her husband own a pressure cooker
and/or knew how to make a bomb with it

Trying to start a conversation around a picture of fireworks she had on her
Facebook account posted on Independence day contributes EXACTLY ZERO to
settling the 2 disturbing facts we are trying to consolidate.

~~~
MrKurtz
She also says:

"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](https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724)

There is no _proof_ it was a result of her searches.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
What exactly is your point?

Well in any case, at least we're back to the original claims so let's try and
get to the bottom of it:

The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure
cooker bomb related questions?

Again how is this statement supposed to do to dispel the original Google
search = police visit suspicion. The cop probably doesn't want the suspected
terrorist to get too jumpy. In any case.. who cares how the cop is trying to
justify his strange visit to this particular household. He's certainly not
going to explicitly say "Well we know you searched for pressure cookers so we
wanted to see what that's all about". Or is that the kind of "proof" you're
hoping to see here.

The goal here should be to try and verify the woman's claims. Not try and find
100 reasons to dismiss it in the fastest manner possible.

~~~
MrKurtz
_The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure
cooker bomb related questions?_

Evidently in Boston they do.

I agree completely, the goal is to verify the claims, and thankfully someone
is trying to: [http://twitter.com/kashhill](http://twitter.com/kashhill)

------
northwest
_" The government needs legal process—such as a subpoena, court order or
search warrant—to force Google to disclose user information."_

Well, as long as we know that the NSA has installed _hardware_ at their
"partner" companies, the main questions about the degree of access to private
user data seem answered to me.

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

------
jack-r-abbit
Is it possible that the picture on FB led someone to "tip off" the police, who
in turn began looking into the matter and (legally) discovered that there had
been some searches for pressure cookers and backpacks and then continued to
look into the matter by paying them a very civil police visit?

The police look into leads all the time and a lot of them turn out to be
people totally unrelated to the matter, or people that have actually done no
wrong. But the police can't tell the future. They don't know ahead of time
which tip is legit and which one is a dead end. They go down a few dead ends
before finding the right one. Wouldn't it be nice if every thing was solved on
the very first lead or inquiry.

------
Mizza
"As Catalano wrote in her post, the investigators asked her husband pretty
innocuous questions:

> Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was
> I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they
> asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice
> cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? … Have you ever looked up how to make
> a pressure cooker bomb?"

In what world does a police anti-terrorism task force coming in to your home
and asking if your home cooking implements are to be used to make a bomb
designed to kill and maim constitute "innocuous questions?"

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

------
joshdance
Another data point in this story.
[https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...](https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN64h)

~~~
freehunter
How is that a data point? It's unfounded blabbering from someone who knows
nothing about the situation and has no more facts or information than the WP
article does. Declan even admits he hasn't investigated this case.

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

~~~
northwest
Yes, but this fact needs a lot less attention than the state we're currently
in, given the ignorance and resulting apathy of the general public.

~~~
MrKurtz
Huh? they're running a story that implies that the feds or local police can
monitor Google searches without evidence, they are cynically exploiting recent
headlines to pull traffic. If you want the press to be taken seriously on
serious matters they need to get this shit together.

~~~
northwest
> If you want the press to be taken seriously on serious matters they need to
> get this shit together.

That's certainly true for the educated readers/people.

It's a sad thing, but if you want to get real change, you're going to need the
_masses_ mobilized. Educated people already know about the current problems
and a lot of them care and do want to take action - the thing is, we're a tiny
minority.

In other words, the issue you are raising doesn't really need to be addressed,
in the current situation - the more visibility for the main problem at stake,
the better. Unless you work for the NSA, Google, Microsoft/Skype, Paltalk,
AOL, and a ton of defense contractors etc., that is.

