Surveillance Story Turns Into a Warning About Employer Monitoring 382
rtfa-troll writes "The story from yesterday about the Feds monitoring Google searches has turned into a warning about how work place surveillance could harm you. It turns out that Michele Catalano's husband's boss tipped off the police after finding 'suspicious' searches (including 'pressure cooker bombs') in his old work computer's search history. Luckily for the Catalanos, who even allowed a search of their house when they probably didn't have to, it seems the policemen and FBI agents were professional and friendly. Far from being imperiled by a SWAT raid, Catalano spoke to some men in black cars who were polite and even mentioned to Catalano that 99 times out of 100, these tip-offs come to nothing. Perhaps the lesson is to be a bit more careful about your privacy, so that what you do on the internet remains between you and the professionals at the NSA."
99 out of 100 (Score:5, Interesting)
99 times out of 100, these tip-offs come to nothing
That's not quite what was said. From the original blog ; "they mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing."
So we have three possibilities;
1/ this statistic is a bullshit overstatement, talking up a minimal danger
2/ they are arresting terrorist bombers at a rate of 1 a week
3/ they are prosecuting 1 person a week on an unrelated matter, after gaining access to their house on the pretext of "war against terrorism".
Which do we think it is?
This could well be search suggestions. (Score:5, Interesting)
Typing "pressure cooker" lists pressure cooker bomb as the 3rd suggestion in Google.
Jason.
Re:Alright then. Carry On. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm glad that's all cleared up then.
Snarking is my job on slashdot. If you called up the police and reported suspicious activity, wouldn't you feel better if they showed up and looked around? Of course you would -- that's a stupid question. Emblazoned on the side of almost every police car is the words "protect and serve". A lot of times, that means going out on a wild goose chase, or knocking on the door of a neighbor who doesn't realize his TV's turned up too loud, or even conducting a health and welfare check because some over-protective mother didn't get a call back from her daughter right away and insists "it's not normal". Most of the time, it's nothing -- but that is not time and resources wasted.
It's the job of the police to investigate, and I'm pretty sure you and most everyone else would be blowing fuses left, right, and forward, if you rang up 911 and they said "Yeah, we could come out and have a look around, but you know how expensive gas is right now, so we're gonna pass." Well, I don't know about you, but if the police show up, act in a courteous and polite fashion, ask a few questions, and then leave satisfied nothing bad is going on, I consider that a job well done. They're out in the community, flying the flag, and helping people feel safe.
That's equally important to stopping actual crime; A reputation of a helpless and inadequate police force costs a lot more than a few gallons of gas and some time spent filing a report that says nothing of interest was found. If only every police investigation could be like that...
Use discretion before calling the police (Score:4, Interesting)
You CAN be too careful.
Before calling the police in a non-urgent situation, ask yourself
"If everyone in my exact situation called the police, a few crimes may be prevented but a lot of lives would be intruded on and a lot of police resources and taxpayer money would be spent. Would it be better for society if, as a rule, the police were called in this exact situation or if, as a rule, they were not?"
This goes not just for bombs but for thinks like someone unfamiliar walking around your neighborhood at 3AM, your kid's friend sporting frequent unexplained bruises, and the guy who who hangs round the local kiddie park without kids in tow.
Each of these "no matter what I do, there's a good chance that I could wind up doing the wrong thing" cases and many others like it require a gut-check and a realistic assessment of the situation before calling the police. Sometimes the "best answer" is to call the cops. Sometimes the "best answer" is to talk to the person acting suspicious or get friends and neighbors together and talk to the person. Sometimes the "best answer" is to do nothing.
Finally, if you do make a well-thought-out decision and it turns out to be wrong - if you DON'T turn in the guy who searches for pressure cookers and he turns out to be a bomber, or if you DO turn him in and as a result the police are busy interviewing the person and can't get to an armed-robber-in-progress call in time to avoid bloodshed, don't feel guilty about your decision.
Re:Er, no, that isn't the story (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, a "low-level outside contractor" has been given access to a database which is of critical importance to national security. As well, this fictional contractor also has the keys to Fort Knox and sleeps in the President's bed at the White House. Or, perhaps, since there's no evidence any of this has actually happened
I meant Snowden. The fact that Bolivian president got grounded on a suspicion that he is smuggling Snowden, is quite a bit of evidence that Snowden is not simply lying.
I don't know what exactly is true or isn't, but the manhunt is a rather blatant piece of evidence that cannot be ignored.
If it was100%, then pray tell how have we managed to catch any terrorists?
I have no evidence that we have. There is plenty of anti-terrorism activity and vague announcement of hundreds of terror plots having been stopped. Some, mostly unidentified people were also killed by drones, but I am not aware of any "caught terrorists"
I know you are not a troll, but are you just assuming that we have caught dozens of terrorists?
I'd be interested in hearing about that 1 out of 1,000,000 where they caught someone credible, who could have succeeded.
Yeah... that big story this past April in Boston... something about a bomb... asleep the whole month?
You are taking my sentence out of context. Interested in 1/1,000,000 where surveillance could prevent the terrorist act. Yes, terrorist acts happen (rarely), and law enforcement reacts to them just as they would in previous, less-insane, decades.
However, they were neither able to prevent the act, nor have they used the years and years of indiscriminately stored data.
Tell me, when you go fishing in a lake, do you catch all the fish?
If I bought a fancy lake-scanning sonar, I would expect it to improve my odds. If it didn't, the sonar is a failure.
Look, I am not arguing against hunting terrorists. I am saying that the new monitoring activities do not have any demonstrable benefit (that I am aware of).
If it's not your PC, nothing on it is private. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't use work PCs for anything but that. If I want personal connectivity I can pay for it.
Jobs which do not use computers don't pay for me to surf on their time, either.
A computer is like any other tool, for example a milling machine or a welder. If I want to borrow one of those for a bit, I ASK the shop owner.