
Google Pressure Cookers and Backpacks, Get a Visit from the Feds - pg
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/
======
sethbannon
Our government is sending gangs of armed men to perfectly innocent citizens'
doors to interrogate them, simply because the authorities don't like what the
people are looking at online. Chilling. Now that PRISM and XKeyscore are being
reported on in the main stream media, I hope we'll hear many more stories like
this and that this will cause folks to realize that it could easily be their
door next time.

~~~
eksith
Wait a moment. Before you get carried away, we still only have her word. Also
on the piece :

    
    
      In a conversation with The Atlantic Wire, FBI spokesperson Peter Donald 
      confirmed The Guardian's report that the FBI was not involved in the 
      visit itself. Asked if the FBI was involved in providing information 
      that led to the visit, Donald replied that he could not answer the 
      question at this point, as he didn't know
    

So at the moment, we still have hearsay. It's from the original source and I'm
not calling her a liar, but I still don't know what exactly happened. Just
_who_ came to the residence beyond some scary looking guys in SUVs who said
they were FBI.

Edit: Interesting that asking for evidence warrants downvotes.

~~~
griffordson
Did you read the Guardian report?

[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)

    
    
      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."

~~~
eksith
That wasn't the linked story on this thread, but I found this bit interesting
:

    
    
      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.
    

But it was only after the story ran that she Tweeted this :
[https://twitter.com/inthefade/status/362707932586053633](https://twitter.com/inthefade/status/362707932586053633)

So FBI became JTTF, which in turn became Nassau cops?

This is why we should all stop listening to the 24 hour news machine and wait
a while before everything is cleared up and fully presented. This is a
developing story and clinging to one or two tidbits finagled from the
authorities here and there aren't going to cut it.

~~~
griffordson
Who would the JTTF be made up of?

~~~
ethomson
While I see where you're going with this, let's take a moment to remember that
the Joint Terrorism Task Force is made up of individual law enforcement
officers, not agencies. That is to say that not all members of the Whatever
County Sheriff's Department are inherently part of the Joint Terrorism Task
Force.

So it's certainly _possible_ that three black SUVs worth of the local
sheriff's deputies, all of whom were members of the Joint Terrorism Task
Force, showed up to question her about her internet searching.

Or this fiction writer is not portraying an accurate version of the events.

------
foobarbazqux
Alright, let's do a group experiment. Choose one of the links below:

[http://www.google.com/search?q=pressure+cooker+backpacks](http://www.google.com/search?q=pressure+cooker+backpacks)
(insecure)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=pressure+cooker+backpacks](https://www.google.com/search?q=pressure+cooker+backpacks)
(secure)

and report back if you get a visit from a squadron of men dressed in green
wearing helmets and holding guns. If any reporters clicked on the https link,
it's PRISM because the leak is from inside Google, otherwise it's XKeyscore.
If we get results from both we are really fucked.

Or were you too scared to search? I know I was...

~~~
a3n
I have considered completely leaving the internet. To live a modern life,
especially in a technical field, makes that a ludicrous and unlikely choice.
And I'm very unlikely to actually do it. But I've considered it, and I'm not a
nut.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Just don't go cold turkey, eliminate a piece at a time. You probably don't
need a smartphone, for example.

~~~
a3n
I don't have a smartphone. :)

------
DanI-S
There is only one solution to this. It is fairly low tech, and it's not a
popular one around here.

Get involved in politics.

It's tempting to believe you can enact change from your desk chair, writing
smart code and angry tweets to outwit the spies and inform the people. Well,
we're not there just yet.

The people making the decisions that lead to these events - the most powerful
people in the world - grew up in an age where, to produce change, you would
get out into the streets and stir things up. Step out of your comfort zone,
address the public and bring them to your side. Many people don't see the harm
in a surveillance state. To prevent one, you must show the public why it is a
bad thing and how they can speak out.

Democracy only works when your views are heard by those with the power to
bring change. Not the background rumble of a subjugated people, but the
articulate demands of an informed electorate with high-profile spokespeople
and popular support.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Politics is a life-consuming activity. It's not one you can make a significant
difference in by taking a few minutes or hours every once in a while. (Sure,
you can send a letter or call a relevant elected official, and by all means do
so, but that's not the level of "get involved in politics" that will actually
get non-trivial things changed unless there's already a strong push to do so,
led by people who have more time.) Unless you're prepared to spend your life
tilting at your chosen windmills, "get involved in politics" is not really an
option.

~~~
DanI-S
This is patently untrue. Political progress inherently involves the combined
minor effort of numerous people. Campaign volunteers regularly do everything
from making a few cold-calls every night to fixing bugs in the web apps that
are used to manage the campaign.

You're right that getting things started is non-trivial, but as other
commenters have pointed out there are a fair number of organizations already
driving for change who would appreciate "a few minutes or hours every once in
a while". Here are a few:

[http://1984day.com/](http://1984day.com/)
[https://www.eff.org/](https://www.eff.org/)
[http://www.restorethefourth.net/](http://www.restorethefourth.net/)

Please add more if you know any!

~~~
JoshTriplett
> You're right that getting things started is non-trivial, but as other
> commenters have pointed out there are a fair number of organizations already
> driving for change who would appreciate "a few minutes or hours every once
> in a while".

That's exactly the type of thing I meant when I said "Sure, you can send a
letter or call an elected official". On a smaller scale, you can also vote;
worth mentioning because a shockingly high number of people don't. However,
all of those actions only add momentum to efforts started by others.

------
declan
I just posted this on G+:

A Long Island woman named Michele Catalano posts photos of M-66 explosives
(that look to me like extra-large firecrackers) publicly on Facebook. A few
weeks later the local cops show up and ask her husband if they have any bomb-
making equipment. Instead of drawing the most likely conclusion, she instead
blames this on local Long Island cops MONITORING HER GOOGLE SEARCHES:
[https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...](https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN64h)

~~~
tptacek
Of course we could expect this kind of behavior for you, as one of Hacker
News' most notorious government apologists.

~~~
sneak
seriously irlollin'. :D

------
clarkmoody
The family should have refused to answer questions without an attorney
present, as this could easily fall under a 4th Amendment violation on the part
of the government.

How to resist warrentless searches (roadside checkpoints):
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg)

~~~
Florin_Andrei
I wish there was a text version of this thing, in simple and concise
sentences.

~~~
redblacktree
You may find this to be helpful. (and entertaining at the same time)

[http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/LJ56-2_M...](http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/LJ56-2_Mason_Article.pdf)

------
csense
> Correction: After confirmation from the FBI that its agents weren't involved
> in the visit, the headline of this piece was changed to "Visit From the
> Cops" instead of "the Feds."

In the interests of accurate reporting, perhaps the HN headline should be
corrected as well?

------
s_q_b
The specific type of explosive used the Boston bombings, the pressure cooker
devices, was originally from Anwar al-Awlaki's Inspire magazine. The Feds,
based on DC hearsay, may be a little embarrassed they didn't catch the
association right away, so they're overreacting.

Of course, the bigger story is that Googling anything shouldn't lead to a
visit from domestic law enforcement, because access to search records of
American citizens should be protected by the Fourth Amendment.

~~~
dictum
Is there anything to protect access to search records of foreign citizens?

What rights FISA, Patriot Act and the other laws regarding surveillance from
US agencies give to non-Americans?

I don't want to carp at Americans, I'm just genuinely curious of what exactly
generates the distinction between Americans and non-Americans.

~~~
rayiner
> what exactly generates the distinction between Americans and non-Americans.

It is generally assumed, that a country's law applies to two groups of people:
those in its territory, and citizens of the country. The Constitution is
American law, therefore it applies to two groups of people: those in the U.S.,
and citizens of the U.S. abroad.

~~~
dictum
Of course—and it wouldn't make sense to expect the law of the United States to
apply to foreign citizens.

Here's where I'm getting confused: if the laws of a country do not apply to
someone who is not a citizen of that country, why do the laws of the United
States let the US spy on non-Americans? (Or any other country, for that
matter)

~~~
dasil003
Because a country is sovereign. It can do whatever it wants unless it steps on
the toes of another sovereign actor at which point a diplomatic incident
ensues. But by default a state is the highest human authority so it doesn't
need permission to do _anything_.

~~~
s_q_b
Right. Sovereign states exist in a state of anarchy. They can do whatever they
want, and the only ultimate way for one state to stop another is through
force.

Of course, this is the traditional Westphalian model that is beginning to cede
to voluntary associations of sovereign states that solve their disputes in
freely associated bodies, e.g the WTO, the United Nations, the International
Criminal Court.

These bodies really ultimately have no binding authority except that granted
to them by the states of which they are composed, but reciprocity and social
norms are starting to give us a ladder out of pure anarchy. That's really been
the project of international relations of the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries.

~~~
dasil003
Sure, but it only tells states what they can't do, by default they can do
anything.

------
yarianluis
Don't like how they use one image at the top which is from a completely
different event, as explained at the bottom. The image seems to be chosen to
generate a specific emotional response but I'm not sure it actually represents
the events covered in the story very honestly.

------
reader5000
This is the media trying to sell pageviews. We know virtually nothing about
the facts of this incident, yet the media is trying to sell the story "if you
google for pressure cookers you will be visited by law enforcement." That is
clearly preposterous.

~~~
sillysaurus
Actually, the story is that the government knew they googled for pressure
cookers and backpacks. That must mean there's a tool that someone can type
your name into and get a list of everything you've searched for online.

------
sneak
Remember: it can't happen here.

[http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html)

------
mikegreen
I am skeptical of how real this is... If this really happens this often,
wouldn't we be seeing reports of this all the time? "They mentioned that they
do this about 100 times a week."

------
bowmessage
Thanks pg, glad to see this article has some actual verification in it.

>The Guardian confirmed with the FBI that the agency was aware of the visit,
but that it was conducted by local police on Long Island.

------
abalone
Terrible reporting. It's unlikely that Google searches are the reason.

1\. There's no confirmation that Google searches led to the visit, yet the
article reports it as fact (headline).

2\. Most if not all Google searches are encrypted over HTTPS nowadays.

3\. It's local law enforcement, and while NSA info may be shared, it's
unlikely that an illegal top secret NSA program targeting citizens would be
shared in this manner, 100 times a week.

4\. As user declan noted, the more likely cause is other information PUBLICLY
SHARED ON FACEBOOK, such as this image one of them posted of high-powered
fireworks:
[https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...](https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN64h)

------
alexhawdon
How long before kids start playing "Google 'jihadist bomb manual' three times"
instead of "say 'Bloody Mary' three times into a mirror at midnight"?

Real soon, I hope!

------
chadrs
> What the hell is quinoa, they asked.

Their culinary ignorance is nearly as upsetting as their disregard for
citizens privacy.

~~~
philwelch
Well this is embarrassing. I just had to google quinoa myself.

------
declan
The photo used to illustrate the Atlantic article is a stock photograph taken
from the Boston bomber hunt -- and used to make their unverified report seem
more incendiary.

You can see it published in April by the Las Vegas Review Journal (click their
right arrow on the slideshow a few times):
[http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/boston-bomb-suspect-
hospit...](http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/boston-bomb-suspect-hospitalized-
under-heavy-guard)

~~~
MichaelApproved
What a disgustingly misleading photo. You have to read into the article to
find out that the photo isn't directly related to this story. It's not even in
a caption associated with the photo.

Use of the extremely misleading photo makes me question the integrity of the
rest of the article.

------
jggonz
Unfortunately, it looks like our law enforcement agencies won't stop harassing
us for the things we do in the 'privacy' of our homes. Perhaps companies like
"Google" should help them with some intelligence by making it easier to catch
the 'right' guy while providing more transparency in doing so. The thought
behind this is that the government will continue to collect information, and
we might as well help them find the 'right' information by providing
intelligent analysis of the data. This in turn would help reduce these life-
ruining experiences as the ones reported in this article...

I don't even like what I just said, but it's an idea.

The conditions for this kind of help from the tech world, would be

1\. They access bits of information without receiving a full copy from the
origination source.

2\. They allow congress to pass privacy laws that make sense for the country.

3\. They must provide an API to your own data... after all, they do use your
personal email address as the search key......

Or, they need to shut down.

------
nhance
Quick question: What if News corp was fed the details of voicemails that they
"hacked" through government agencies in an effort to keep the public placated
through meaningless news stories?

I know it's not on topic, but with everything coming to light, it would not
surprise me. Was it ever discovered how News Corp got the private voicemails
for their stories?

~~~
boingy
They exploited the fact that people didn't change the default passwords on
their voicemail (e.g. 1234) and so were able to access them remotely using the
same system a legitimate user who needed to access their voicemail remotely
would use.

------
foobarqux
I thought we didn't have to worry if we had nothing to hide.

~~~
maqr
I'm wondering if this kind of thing will be met with outrage or understanding.
It seems plausible that the general public could feel more secure as a result
of this, as it shows that the government is actively trying to stop terrorism.

------
janj
Is it a dumb idea to to see if I can get visited after doing some Google
searches? Is there a law against trying to get noticed by authorities in this
way?

~~~
jey
It might even be a nice way to get "standing" so you can qualify to sue the
government on these issues. (IANAL, but in the past I've seen "standing" being
an issue that disqualifies lawsuits, and people doing stunts like this to get
standing so they can then sue.)

------
mladenkovacevic
But everything was conducted with accordance to both our official as well as
secret laws right??!! Phew, ok good. As long as everything is on the level.

------
foobarqux
At least he was confronted immediately. Can you imagine if this was used
against him at some time in the future as a "pattern of suspicious activity"?
Or worse if he was selected via data-mining when looking for suspects of a
bombing? It's like finding secret messages in every eight words of the Bible.

~~~
yk
Or he just randomly fails a background check.

------
fotoblur
Why couldn't we simply flood the systems being tracked with more noise thus
reducing signal to noise ratio. This sort of thing could be simply thwarted by
a system of bots creating a large number of false positives. Any ideas?

~~~
freshhawk
Most likely, if this became a common thing, you would have your ISP take
action because you are running a "server".

------
T_T
Minority Report, everybody.

------
AznHisoka
Day 1 of using DuckDuckGo... starts now.

~~~
angersock
You do realize that this is a silly, dumb sentiment, right?

The idea that switching one black box for another black box will save you from
this is absurd.

~~~
raldu
Then let's think about decentralized search engines powered by p2p...

~~~
diydsp
[http://yacy.net/en/index.html](http://yacy.net/en/index.html) tri-platform,
penta-language

[http://www.faroo.com/hp/p2p/p2p.html](http://www.faroo.com/hp/p2p/p2p.html)
windows-only

------
CurtMonash
Let's assume that this kind of aggravation is necessary to defend against
terrorism in an imperfect world, which in particular has imperfect systems and
government employees.

Is there anything EXCEPT terrorism we'd want to have cracked down on that
closely??

[http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/what-our-legislators-
should-...](http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/29/what-our-legislators-should-do-
about-privacy-and-arent/) spells out some consequences of this reasoning.

------
goshx
I hope they are enjoying all the porn I've been watching.

------
syjer
I thought that now all the google search were over https, so how they were
able to track the guy (without direct access to the search data from the
google server)?

------
asabjorn
This makes current intelligence practices seem reactionary, and maybe it has
fallen pray to some of the weaknesses Bruce Schneier pointed out in TSAs
procedures. Have anyone seen a comparative analysis of cost towards success of
targeted local investigation vs investigations prompted by big data analysis
intelligence programs?

------
riggins
I'm worried.

Presumably there are few people comfortable with the government having such
fine grained detail on your activities.

~~~
angersock
Oh, no, not _my_ activities--but I can absolutely understand the public
utility in allowing them such exhaustive resources in verifying the activities
of others.

What's that? The infrastructure is indistinguishable? Pshaw.

------
fnordfnordfnord
They are lucky they weren't harmed.

------
Zelphyr
Seems to me a member of a terrorism "task force" wouldn't need to ask whether
a rice cooker can be used to make a bomb.

Note, I'm not questioning whether these men were members of such a task force.
I'm questioning whether they're capable of asking non-stupid questions.

------
PencilAndPaper
Who cares if they showed up as a swat team or as one 'friendly' sheriff. Thats
not the point. The point is that we are being surveilled in the most creepy
way.

Mount your ipad on your wall and start calling it a telescreen.

------
anigbrowl
Topping the article with a photo of a SWAT team without a caption is rather
disingenuous on the Atlantic's part. At first I thought these were the people
that showed up on her doorstep.

------
damon_c
What about the underwear bomber?

Why are we allowed to search for underwear without federal scrutiny, and why
are we still allowed to wear underwear on planes?

Is there a line somewhere?

------
nakedrobot2
Fuck this. I never want to live in the usa.

------
datums
Is this a terrible joke ? [http://bit.ly/1ctfYJ8](http://bit.ly/1ctfYJ8)

------
frogpelt
Wow. Does journalistic integrity also extend to pictures?

The picture has NOTHING to do with the story.

------
crististm
Hey, Bing even suggests "pressure cooker bomb". Let's see...

------
MrKurtz
There is no actual proof that this was due to web searches, also the picture
the atlantic is using is misleading and terrible, and the article was silently
changed after someone else pointed that the alleged visit wasn't actually from
the FBI but from local law enforcement:

[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)

The story boils down to: "a lady claims to get a visit from the feds after
googling some stuff".

She herself says that:

 _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)

This is lazy and exploitive reporting by all parties.

~~~
gruseom
No, the story doesn't boil down to "a lady claims". The fact that the Guardian
followed up and confirmed that there _was_ a visit is significant. That takes
this out of la-la land.

~~~
jmduke
That claim has three parts:

\- She was visited by government authorities.

\- Those government authorities were federal agents.

\- She was visited because of what she searched.

Of those three parts, the first was the only one confirmed (the second, I
believe, was proved false.)

~~~
darkarmani
The second could be true, if the local police where deputized by the feds like
they are when the act as part of the JTTF.

------
superconductor
Next time the cops are slow to respond to my noise complaint, I'll know what
to do.

------
superconductor
You'd have to be a fool to use Google nowadays. You might as well cc the NSA
when gmailing somebody.

~~~
a3n
How would you do that? cc the NSA I mean?

~~~
stefantalpalaru
[http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/contacts/index.shtml](http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/contacts/index.shtml)

Maybe the "Public and Media Affairs" department is the most appropriate for
some honest self-snitching: nsapao@nsa.gov

