
Declan McCullagh on Pressure-CookerGate - tptacek
https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN64h
======
droithomme
An M-66 is a perfectly legal firecracker sold in all states where firecrackers
are legal, and purchased by what is probably millions of people over the
years.

[http://www.fireworksforever.com/products-
page/firecracker/m-...](http://www.fireworksforever.com/products-
page/firecracker/m-66/)

Only $11.59 for a box of 36.

The author of this inane hit piece Declan McCullagh, gives his title as "Chief
Political Correspondent" at CNET, and an employee of CBS. He posts that Ms.
Catalano posted "photos of explosives."

Are M-66 explosives? Yep. Firecrackers are in fact explosives. They are also
legal to purchase, possess, and light.

How is posting a stock photo of these firecrackers to your Facebook feed on
July 4th relevant to anything at all? CNET Chief Political Correspondent
Declan McCullagh certainly is implying that posting such a stock photo gives
the JTTF, whose members are generally coordinated under and paid by the FBI,
the right to search your house and ask questions about pressure cookers which
you happen to have recently done a google search for. Why does CNET Chief
Political Correspondent Declan McCullagh believe this is justified or that
anyone would consider posting a stock photo of firecrackers on the 4th of July
to be something anyone would reasonably expect should lead to an armed house
search and interrogation by JTTF members?

What does this stock firecracker photo posted on July 4th have to do with JTTF
agents searching this couple's house and asking them specific questions about
whether they owned a pressure cooker?

~~~
tptacek
Jesus. He's not saying the visit was a good idea. In fact, he's said the
opposite. Character assassination is bad enough, but to do it for absolutely
no reason at all?

The fact is that you have absolutely no idea what happened, or even what some
of the words in your comment (like "JTTF") actually mean. But you've got
strong opinions and a lot of outrage. Because you're an outrage tourist. I
wouldn't be surprised if you'd be angrier to find out that the FBI HADN'T been
dragnetting Google.

~~~
freehunter
He's also saying the fireworks were the reason the police visited. Which seems
unlikely.

~~~
ethomson
Seems significantly more likely than what was claimed in the original story:

1\. The NSA using monitoring technology against civilians in the country,
against their charter. 2\. County sheriffs deputies who are members of the
Joint Terrorism Task Force obtaining this classified information from the NSA
3\. Aforementioned county sheriffs accidentally divulging said classified data

I'd listen to an argument that points 1 or 3 occurred. Point 2? Way more
likely that somebody read facebook than interagency communication of
classified data from a classified program to a local law enforcement officer
with no security clearance.

~~~
tptacek
We don't even know that the police looked at the page; for all we know,
someone called this in to the police.

~~~
tptacek
Hey, guess what? Someone called this into the police. I'm shocked.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6144198](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6144198)

~~~
ethomson
Absolutely stunning that Occam's Razor won out.

~~~
tptacek
Occam's Razor is pre-Snowden thinking. Like 9/11, Snowden changed everything.

------
adventured
I knew Michele a long time ago when she blogged regularly about politics on A
Small Victory (asmallvictory.net). Back then she was very sensationalistic,
and would go out of her way to artificially inflate or dramatize stories. I'm
not surprised she drew the conclusion that the visit was due to Google
searches; I also wouldn't be surprised if she intentionally inflated the
story, she has always had a talent for getting attention.

Also worth noting. She was a pretty loud blogger post 9/11 and during the Iraq
invasion. She ran a very popular Iraq invasion blog, lauded for updating about
the invasion faster than the mainstream media. It would not surprise me in the
least if the Feds have her on _some_ list or another (not saying that's ok
mind you). The Washington Post article about this talks about whether she'd be
on a watch list, and Michele talks about searching for how to cook lentils and
ending up on a watch list ("This is where we are at," Catalono wrote. "Where
you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some
lentils could possibly land you on a watch list."). That part is Michele
knowing exactly how to craft a sound bite for media consumption. I suspect
this story is demonstrating a real abuse by the terrorism obsessed police /
feds, and the rest is Michele throwing fuel on the fire for the headlines.

------
abalone
It's unlikely that Google searches led to this. Most searches are done over
HTTPS by default these days. Plus it was local law enforcement, and while the
feds may share leads, it's unlikely info gleaned from an illegal top secret
NSA program targeting citizens would be exposed to those citizens in this
manner 100 times a week.

A county police "task force" monitoring local citizen Facebook posts is a MUCH
more plausible explanation. Still disturbing, but the reporting on this so far
has been terrible.

------
grey-area
If this was the cause, why were they questioned about pressure cookers and not
fireworks?

There's now a guardian article up about this with contradictory responses from
the FBI and local police.

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

I find it unlikely that the JTTF don't have access to prism and other tools,
so that seems a more likely avenue to me; searching for pressure cookers could
lead to all sorts of non-https pages on amazon for example. After all that's
exactly what these tools are designed to do - dig whatever the operators
consider flags for terrorism this week out of the haystack of Internet
traffic.

~~~
declan
Alas, this only shows you don't understand what PRISM is. (Hint: it's not used
by local cops! Sigh.)

~~~
zeteo
>this only shows you don't understand what PRISM is. (Hint: it's not used by
local cops

You're making two big assumptions here:

1\. PRISM is the only secret program with access to web browsing data.

2\. People with access to PRISM and similar programs can't pass low-priority
leads to local cops.

~~~
declan
I'm not making those assumptions.

------
princess3000
In case you were wondering, that stock picture of fireworks was posted on July
4th.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Ahh but it is exactly when we are celebrating our superior freedoms and
democracy (which the whole world is naturally jealous of) that the terrorists
will attempt to strike a cowardly blow at those very same things we are
celebrating. Therefore any and all expressions of said celebration are veeery
suspect indeed.

------
nutate
I have a feeling most people who are up in arms about this haven't been
visited by the police because they live in a bad neighborhood and "there were
reports of X" happening in their apartment. When their neighbor was wrong, or
the dispatcher had the wrong number, or whatever.

~~~
username223
Or because they got tired on a long drive and pulled over on the side of the
road to sleep. Waking up to a spotlight, then a gun and flashlight in the
hands of a bored cop on the night shift is a tense situation.

------
famousactress
TL/DR: Lazy and irresponsible journalist makes wild and unsubstantiated claim
in the process of pointing out wild and unsubstantiated claims by other lazy
and irresponsible journalists.

------
pravda
First of all, it looks like a stock photo. And they are clearly labled with
"Consumer Fireworks" and "Made in China"

~~~
tptacek
It's an entirely stupid reason for a police visit. It could have been a film
of someone setting an actual bomb, and it would still be an entirely stupid
reason for a police visit.

------
makerops
"Instead of drawing the most likely conclusion, she instead blames this on
local Long Island cops MONITORING HER GOOGLE SEARCHES."

Ah...I get it...that would never happen in the US.

------
lawnchair_larry
Did neither Declan nor tptacek read the original article? This post doesn't
explain anything.

~~~
falk
Exactly. This article doesn't explain why they questioned her specifically
about pressure cookers.

~~~
declan
As I said in the G+ comments: "I would be surprised if cops on routine visits
about explosives did not ask about pressure cookers. The Boston bombing wasn't
that long ago.﻿"

------
speeder
Nice, now it makes the whole thing even worse, we have police scaring people
because their 4th July fireworks.

------
Dirlewanger
_Instead of drawing the most likely conclusion, she instead blames this on
local Long Island cops MONITORING HER GOOGLE SEARCHES._

Any hard sources on this besides this guy blabbing off and making more drama?

~~~
mladenkovacevic
This M. L. Hunt person in his comments writes a very reasonable response:

"+Declan McCullagh In her account she mentions the cops specifically asking
her husband if they have a pressure cooker. Assuming that is true, where do
you think they got that idea from? Besides, how many millions of people do you
think posted pictures of fireworks, even relatively powerful ones like M-66s,
around 04July? What do you think made Ms. Catalano's photo(s?) particularly
worthy of follow-up?

It seems to me you are bending over backwards to make this story seem less
worrisome than it is. But like others who have replied to your post, I don't
find a whole lot of comfort in your alternate scenario even if it turns out to
be more in line with what actually happened.

But anyway, you're a journalist, aren't you? Do you have any plans to try to
get to the bottom of what actually happened here? Or do you just plan to stand
on the sidelines and try to pooh-pooh the whole thing?﻿"

To which good ol' Declan responds: "Alas, I'm working on an unrelated story
today."

Well that settles that.

~~~
abalone
Asking about pressure cookers is probably a standard question these days, for
obvious reasons. It doesn't mean they were monitoring Google searches.

~~~
falk
Bullshit. A pressure cooker is probably one of the most common kitchen
accessories ever. Anyone who planned to use one for malicious intent would
just deny that they have one.

~~~
jgross206
cops also ask you if you have drugs in your car.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
I'm sorry I can't tell if your response is written in a joking manner or if
you are serious but while reading it I got this funny visual of a cop
responding to a routine noise disturbance by asking the offending homeowner
"any pressure cookers in the house?"

~~~
jgross206
i am not joking

------
joshdance
This is in reference to HN item -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140545](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6140545)
right? So is the question why are police visiting her house about fireworks,
or why she thought they connected her pressure cooker and backpack Google
searches? Or is the question about why are news establishments doing little to
no fact checking before they publish something?

------
minimax
It's sounding more and more like the cops were just following up on a "see
something, say something" report from the public.

------
mdesq
A picture of consumer-grade fireworks posted on July 4??

~~~
muyuu
Celebrates July 4? must be a terrorist.

------
oelmekki
That's quite disturbing. Ok, it was posted on a social media, which may not be
perceived as needing as much quality work than a press paper, etc.

But how could a journalist be such on the affirmative without presenting any
source ? We can't even see the facebook post he's talking about. The guy
reacts to a shitstorm by providing unsourced opinion with a well established
media name to link a cop operation with a stock firework picture supposed to
be posted in USA on 4th.

That's at least lacking rigorous work.

~~~
declan
Yes, it's lacking "rigorous" work. It's a G+ post, which is almost by
definition not "rigorous." Sheesh. Would you like a refund on your
subscription fees?

~~~
oelmekki
Thanks, but I'm not subscribed. Actually, I wouldn't mind if it was not making
HN home.

And yes, I think with your reputation, you're expected not to have weak public
opinion. That's a responsibility which come with social weight, sorry about
that (and to be clear : I'm ok with you having unsourced opinions, just not
when it implies influencing people).

~~~
declan
Um, Google+ doesn't have subscription fees. It was a joke.

~~~
oelmekki
But it has subscription via circles. It was disarming the joke.

------
declan
Thanks, tptacek, for posting this. Though now I'm participating here and it's
taking time away from my surveillance article for tomorrow! :(

------
vectorpush
Hmm, not a bad hypothesis as far as completely baseless speculation is
concerned.

