Couple Visited by Feds After Google Search for Backpacks and Pressure Cookers

[Renegade]

I think the only thing needed is the title and the last line of the article.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/01/innocent-couple-gets-visited-by-feds-aft

Innocent Couple Visited by Feds After Google Searching for Backpacks and Pressure Cookers
...
Another reason to switch to DuckDuckGo.

[wraith808]

From the article...

Addendum 1: In a Twitter discussion, tech policy reporter (and libertarian) Declan McCullagh suggests that the visit may not have been a result of the couple's Google history. Tweets McCullagh: "Tip from nosy neighbors is likely source, or IP datadump from http://buypressurecookers.com."

[Tinman57]

  All the fools people that say they don't care because they're not doing anything illegal should read this....

[Renegade]

Here's her blog post on the raid:

https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724

Again, the last couple lines is all anyone needs to read:

All I know is if I’m going to buy a pressure cooker in the near future, I’m not doing it online.

I’m scared. And not of the right things.

[tomos]

Update from reason.com -
it appears the details were very different:

Yes, the Catalano's Long Island home was searched, but by the Suffolk and Nassau County Police Departments, not the Feds. Yes, the police asked Catalano's husband what he knew about making a pressure cooker bomb, not because the NSA had seen his Google history, but because his ex-employer had.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/02/the-nsa-wasnt-spying-on-couple-who-searc

[wraith808]

Well, different.  Not very different.  She just didn't have all of the information as *surprise* the police don't tell it to you.  And they didn't until people started to question.

A very teachable moment about searching from your work computer and your computer activities being monitored at a place of work.  On such specious evidence, it seems strange that his former workplace called the police, however...

[cyberdiva]

On such specious evidence, it seems strange that his former workplace called the police, however...

Yes, probably, but if the ex-employee left the company on very unfriendly terms, the ex-employer could have feared retaliation in the form of a bomb. 

[wraith808]

On such specious evidence, it seems strange that his former workplace called the police, however...

Yes, probably, but if the ex-employee left the company on very unfriendly terms, the ex-employer could have feared retaliation in the form of a bomb. 

A day later... definitely.
A month later... perhaps.
A year later... Whisky Foxtrot Tango.

[Stoic Joker]

And this is the classic downside of idiotic policies like "If you see something say something". All you end up with is a bunch of tattle-tails that suddenly realize that their own dark agendas can now be safely (for them) pushed off on an overzealous branch of enforcement ... That will then happily and brainlessly destroy any unwanted competition for them.

This is why witch-hunts are considered to be bad.

[wraith808]

This is why witch-hunts are considered to be bad.

QFFT

[Renegade]

And this is the classic downside of idiotic policies like "If you see something say something". All you end up with is a bunch of tattle-tails that suddenly realize that their own dark agendas can now be safely (for them) pushed off on an overzealous branch of enforcement ... That will then happily and brainlessly destroy any unwanted competition for them.

This is why witch-hunts are considered to be bad.

Couldn't resist...

[attachimg=#]

Full sized:
[attachurl=#]

[Stoic Joker]

And this is the classic downside of idiotic policies like "If you see something say something". All you end up with is a bunch of tattle-tails that suddenly realize that their own dark agendas can now be safely (for them) pushed off on an overzealous branch of enforcement ... That will then happily and brainlessly destroy any unwanted competition for them.

This is why witch-hunts are considered to be bad.

Couldn't resist...
(see attachment in previous post)
Full sized: (see attachment in previous post)

Damn those pesky two edged swords.

[Renegade]

Damn those pesky two edged swords.

Hehehe! We have MOAR of them... and they are VERY sharp!

CAUTION - The following 3-edged sword cuts very deeply and WILL offend some people. (But it's just so much damned fun~! )

The first edge...

It is immoral/wrong to steal. i.e. Theft is wrong.

"Stealing" is taking something from someone against their will.

Silence is not consent. e.g. It is still wrong to take something from someone even if they don't know that you are taking it from them.

"Robbery" is using force to steal from someone. e.g. It is wrong to threaten someone and coerce their consent in order to take something from them.

The second edge...

Tax is taking wealth from people.

Governments use the threat of force (fines or imprisonment) to take wealth from you without your consent. They call this (mis)appropriation of wealth "tax".

Tax is theft/stealing/robbery.

The third edge...

Governments and central banks steal wealth from you through inflation.

By giving central banks control of the money supply (through adjustments of interest rates and the Orwellian-named "Quantitative Easing" [i.e. printing money or counterfeiting]), governments and banks devalue your savings (purchasing power).

For example, in the US, the CPI roughly doubled between 1774 and just after the Central Banksters usurped the nation's currency in 1913. i.e. It took over 140 years. In the 100 years since, prices haven't doubled, they've skyrocketed over 22x.

http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-research/sahr/infcf17742007.pdf
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp

Central banking is theft/stealing/robbery.

In the abstract, the first blade illustrates a universal principle that everyone agrees with. Well, there are a few sociopaths/psychopaths that don't, but your average Joe on the street agrees with blade #1. It's safe to read. The next 2 aren't safe...

Blades #2 and #3 apply the universal principle to 2 cases with bland, everyday, boring facts that anyone can see are true.

This is where people get offended to the point of being angry, screaming, and the name-calling starts because they create cognitive dissonance. Every single argument against #2 and #3 ends in name calling or calls for violence. Without exception.

Look for which questions you aren't allowed to ask...

[Renegade]

^^ Just as a quick note, you can pretty much sub anything you want into #1. It doesn't really matter. The process is simply one of the universal application of a moral law/principle. Works pretty much every time.

[app103]

Update from reason.com -
it appears the details were very different:

Yes, the Catalano's Long Island home was searched, but by the Suffolk and Nassau County Police Departments, not the Feds. Yes, the police asked Catalano's husband what he knew about making a pressure cooker bomb, not because the NSA had seen his Google history, but because his ex-employer had.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/08/02/the-nsa-wasnt-spying-on-couple-who-searc

Ok, so an ex-employer has access to search history, because the husband was an ex-employee, who then made a search using his ex-employer's computer, followed by his wife doing a search using this same ex-employer's computer? Something doesn't seem quite right there.

[wraith808]

The whole year after thing was the biggest thing that didn't pass the smell test to me... (or it could be 4 months, re-reading, the article isn't clear.  Last april means April 2012 to me... but I suppose they could mean 2013)

Oh, and I didn't get this on first read... it's pretty hilarious.

Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb? My husband, ever the oppositional kind, asked them if they themselves weren’t curious as to how a pressure cooker bomb works, if they ever looked it up. Two of them admitted they did.