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."
Alright then. Carry On. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I see. The man searched thinks it was all just a misunderstanding. I guess that makes it OK then.
I guess it also covers the costs in time, money, equipment and paperwork spent on a search that should never have happened. I guess it also makes up for any useful work the men involved could have been engaged in like looking for actual terrorists or investigating organised crime in the banks. I would worry about how the NSA's Ur-dragnet/Informer hotline is throwing up so many false flags that law enforcement is now too busy to deal with actual problem, but this splendidly chipper blog post had allayed all of my concerns.
I'm glad that's all cleared up then.
Re:Alright then. Carry On. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even scarier is the acceptance of NSA monitoring as evidenced by the last line:
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."
It's not just /known/ that the NSA is monitoring everyone's conversation, it is seen as a good thing. Of course these "professionals" are listening. It's for the good of the country that the every citizen is monitored, after all.
The bar is being set ever lower and comments like these train people to see it as perfectly alright. Increasingly I am of the opinion that this is not accidental.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah. It's called INFO-OPS. Read Richard Tomlinson's book (google it) on how the spooks try to control public conscience.
Re:Alright then. Carry On. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even scarier is the acceptance of NSA monitoring as evidenced by the last line:
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."
It's not just /known/ that the NSA is monitoring everyone's conversation, it is seen as a good thing. Of course these "professionals" are listening. It's for the good of the country that the every citizen is monitored, after all.
The bar is being set ever lower and comments like these train people to see it as perfectly alright. Increasingly I am of the opinion that this is not accidental.
I took that last line as being sarcastic. Maybe professionals should have been in scare quotes.
You make a good point though. Various organizations actively try to influence the perceptions and attitudes of the public; from advertisers and marketers to political parties and the CIA. And people in the media are trained to use euphemisms and mild language to shape perception. So we get "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" instead of torture and abduction, and "detainee" instead of prisoner. Just last night I had to laugh when Brian Williams described Edward Snowden as having exposed a "massive data-mining effort" by the NSA. Really Brian, is it just a data-mining effort, or is it spying? How something is described matters quite a bit in how it is perceived. Just ask Frank Luntz, he's made a career out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Even scarier is the acceptance of NSA monitoring as evidenced by the last line:
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."
Perception is everything.
You took this quite literally, while I interpreted it as a sarcastic statement by the author.
Re: (Score:2)
I had the impression that the comment was not intended to be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
You may want to look at my signature and posting history (not to mention the recommendation that everyone start's using Tor from the original submission [slashdot.org]). I guess maybe you could say that the editors deleted the part at the end because they didn't get the comment, but I assume they did it because they thought it was obvious.
Generally though I agree people who just accept this are beyond scary to the extent of being a serious threat. There is a definite space for some limited secret monitoring and much p
Re: (Score:2)
Life lesson: Wherever you see the word "professional", always try replacing it with the word "banker".
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...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you called up the police and reported suspicious activity, wouldn't you feel better if they showed up and looked around?
I never feel better around police. They're the predominant remaining natural predator of humans.
Re: (Score:3)
I never feel better around police. They're the predominant remaining natural predator of humans.
Well, if that's how you feel, consider this: Who's better qualified to hunt down other predators than a predator? -_- Not that I agree with your assertion, but logically, your statements aren't consistent.
Re:Alright then. Carry On. (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
You should try living next door to my old neighbour. The problem here is the assumption that people who report things are reasonable and sane people.
The fact is, they should investigate if there is a reason to investigate and it should be more than perfectly normal behaviour (ie shopping and reading material related to recent news articles) to be suspected of anything.
The bigger problem, I think, is this notion that a terrorist attack happening is a failure of the police and intelligence services. In the end, its such a needle in a haystack sort of problem that its entirely unreasonable to think they can ever be prevented, therefore any acceptance of that reasoning that starts with they should be able to catch it, inevitably leads to excessive measures, and guarantees more excessive measures later WHEN the next one happens.
Re: (Score:3)
You should try living next door to my old neighbour. The problem here is the assumption that people who report things are reasonable and sane people.
Umm, there's no assumption being made by any experienced law enforcement officer. They're trained investigators -- they don't just take people at their word. If they did, the prisons would be empty. The police are well aware of the problem children in the community -- the people who call their neigbor for every little thing. They see it all the time.
But yes, of course they still come out and investigate the report: It's good customer service. Your neighbor might be a paranoid jerkwad, but he's still a tax p
Re:Alright then. Carry On. (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment really surprises me coming from you. Usually you seem to be on the side of good, and of liberty and privacy and presumption of innocence. You seem to be looking at things from the POV of society. I look at things from the POV of the individual, of the innocent victim of such searches. Of course in this particular case the victim was complicit in the violation of their own rights. So I have little sympathy for them.
But in a case where a search warrant is granted when it should not have been because the probably cause was pretty slight I think the victims should be compensated for the mistake. A google search should never, ever, ever be probable cause for a search of someone's home or car. The lack of permission in the constitution itself, as well as the first and fourth amendments should be protecting us from overly suspicious people invading our privacy because of something we said or wrote. An important part of the freedom of speech is that what we say, especially in an environment with at least some expectation of privacy, should not result in persecution by our government. The NSA could easily set up a system to send FBI agents with a signed search warrant, to the home of everyone who searched google for something like, "how to build a nuclear weapon". That is not the kind of society I want to live in.
The fact that it was a work associate who contacted the FBI instead of the NSA does not improve matters in my view. Such calls should simply be ignored. I have little doubt that millions of people every day search for things that other people would find suspicous. The fact that another citizen is suspicious of me does not give the government any additional rights to violate my rights. Unfortunately American society is becoming a place where we are all each other's enemies, working as government informants against each other, potentially bringing down the wrath of government agents down on us with their groundless suspicions. This case should never have happend. The FBI should never have searched anything based on a google search. That is just stupid and a huge waste of resources that would be better spent protecting citizens from real crimes. Ones with actual victims. The government agents in this case should be fired or at least demoted.
Re: (Score:3)
She works with cops. All of her otherwise spot-on insight goes completely out the window when the discussion shifts to law enforcement. It's the cognitive dissonance one must have to work with monsters and still maintain that you are not a monster.
The cops she works with are probably OK guys to her. They're OK guys to each other, too. But then, Mafia thugs drink and play cards together as well. How a group treats its own is not the measure of how good the members are, especially when they can ruin the lives
Re: (Score:3)
Of course in this particular case the victim was complicit in the violation of their own rights. So I have little sympathy for them.
You aren't required to excercise your rights. Nobody puts a gun to your head to demand you vote, for example. It wouldn't be a right if it didn't confer a choice of some kind. Your lack of sympathy here is distressing; What the police did here was not substantially different from a door to door salesman. They showed up, rang the bell, had a conversation, and left. There was no excercise of police authority other than showing credentials, nothing that any other citizen couldn't have done.
But in a case where a search warrant is granted when it should not have been because...
Because what? A sear
and if they were Muslim? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
As a thought experiment, imagine that the couple had been Muslim, but otherwise exactly the same people. Does anyone honestly still think the visit by police would have been so courteous and polite? And yet in the USA we supposedly have freedom of religion, which should guarantee equal treatment by law enforcement whatever one's beliefs.
And it doesn't matter where the tip came from, this kind of thing is wrong, potentially dangerous, and not the way I want my Country to be. So it's just civilians spying on
Re: (Score:3)
Have we become nothing more than paranoid cowards who watch everyone else's moves just because there is a 0.000000000000001% chance that they could be terrorists?
Yes, we have. Not just out of paranoia, but because of the imbalance of our perceived risk. Schneier explains it well [schneier.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Other, actually useful services just keep getting the axe instead.
A different lesson (Score:3)
I take away a different lesson from this: maybe it's a good idea to wait until you have more facts before starting to run around screaming "The sky is falling!!!!111".
The fact that some real shady things in terms of corporate and governmental surveillance do go on is no reason to just give up being rational.
Re: (Score:2)
I take away a different lesson from this: maybe it's a good idea to wait until you have more facts before starting to run around screaming "The sky is falling!!!!111".
Nah, the cool new thing for security theater lemmings is "If you see something, say something."
Re:A different lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
I take away a different lesson from this: maybe it's a good idea to wait until you have more facts before starting to run around screaming "The sky is falling!!!!111".
Clearly, this middle manager only watches CNN and FoxNews. And let's be honest: It's the only thing playing in most break rooms, and middle managers aren't known for their critical thinking and investigative talents.
The fact that some real shady things in terms of corporate and governmental surveillance do go on is no reason to just give up being rational.
Neither is it a reason to ignore the fact that the police showed up, were polite and courteous, asked a few questions, and left satisfied. Now look, I'm no more happy having the police show up at my door than anyone else -- but by and far, the experiences have been professional, as this person learned. I've had people call in all kinds of things to the police about me; I know because they keep records of that kind of thing and I know the right people to ask to get them.
Every one of you past the age of 30 has something in their police file from a "concerned citizen." All of you. Yes, even you, Mr. Above Average Driver who pays all his bills on time and even helps his land lady carry out the garbage. But most of you don't know about it because the police conducted their search discreetly, found nothing, and moved on. Which is exactly how surveillance should work. And most of the time, that is how it works; you guys only hear about the 1 in 10,000 case where they screw it up, not the other 9,999 where nothing newsworthy happened because they did it right.
This wouldn't be news if it wasn't for the news agencies creating a story where there really isn't one to sell more advertising. "Over-zealous middle manager of questionable technical ability reports ex-employee after searching internet history and finding a few keywords and deciding it's a matter of national security..." is not exactly interesting to me, and it wouldn't be if not for the drum beat of "NSA... NSA... NSA..." all over the news right now. Please. Former employers are like ex-boyfriends -- take everything they say with a biiiig grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Every one of you past the age of 30 has something in their police file from a "concerned citizen."
I sure as hell hope I've got a police record, and one day I hope to be able to look at it, and see what I've been accused of.
Malign (Score:3)
So, this story turns out to be nothing to do with the NSA but you think what the hell, I'll add a sarcastic sentence about the NSA to the summary to make it look like its malign.
I don't know which is worse. (Score:2)
A nice friendly just acting on a tip search where "nothing really happened" or a full on uncalled for swat raid.
For the affected family directly, sure the nice friendly one is better, but more attention is drawn by the swat raid and the public reacts more. This shit can't be tolerated without something really solid, and researching on the subjects of recent news items isn't anywhere near solid.
Er, no, that isn't the story (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I know you're being snarky, Slashdot, but I'd trust the professionals at the NSA over middle management any day of the week. The NSA doesn't ruin your life if it goes through your google history and finds a few keywords. It doesn't assume the worst. The NSA gathers up the data, forwards it to a team of analysts, and, seeing this kind of thing every day, make an informed and reasoned decision to either forward it up the chain, or bin it. And as your own article says: 99 times out of 100, it's nothing. That's probably a conservative estimate; There have only been a few dozen acts of bona fide terrorism in the past year or so, and if the tin foil hat crowd is right, the NSA is monitoring everyone pervasively, so it's more like 999,999 times out of a 1,000,000.
The moral of the story here is that people who aren't law enforcement are really, really, epic bad at being judges of character. Especially when you're dealing with someone whose job is often earned on something other than critical thinking skills, investigative talent, and attention to detail... three things I think most will agree you don't find in most mid-level managers. It's like how during the midst of the Boston bombing, the internet armchair sleuth crowd wrongly identified many innocent people and forced the police to divert valuable resources to take those people into protective custody while the real bomber was left unidentified. The professionals, meanwhile, correctly identified them hours later, and then took them down without any innocent people getting caught in the cross fire.
I know it's politically popular right now to say law enforcement is a bunch of clueless, authoritarian, surveillance-happy asshats, but that's a slanted view. On the whole, they know what they're doing, and most of the time they get it right. You only hear about the times when they screw up. Now, considering how low of esteem they're held in for that track record, ask yourselves about the track record of middle managers, internet armchair pundits, and vigilantes have had doing the same things... and I'm betting their reputation with you is a lot better.
Chew on that for a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I know you're being snarky, Slashdot, but I'd trust the professionals at the NSA over middle management any day of the week. The NSA doesn't ruin your life if it goes through your google history and finds a few keywords. It doesn't assume the worst. The NSA gathers up the data, forwards it to a team of analysts, and, seeing this kind of thing every day, make an informed and reasoned decision to either forward it up the chain, or bin it.
And, they've never caught a single terrorist. Pretty impressive results.
Re: (Score:3)
And, they've never caught a single terrorist. Pretty impressive results.
Yup. They're going to track you down personally and inform you of the results of any investigation that results in finding a terrorist straight away! The fact that they didn't is proof that no terrorists have ever been found.
What makes you think that law enforcement would advertise every capture of a terrorist, thus turning him/her into a martyr for his/her cause? If it were me, I wouldn't be making a press release on every terrorist I caught... I'd quietly take them into custody and interrogate the shit o
Re: (Score:3)
My tiger^Wterrorist repelling rock has prevented thousands of deaths in the U.S. this year alone. I need funding to maintain it though, 5 mil a year should cover it. Contact your Congressman now and urge him to fund my tiger^Wterrorist repelling rock now before it's too late!
Re:Er, no, that isn't the story (Score:4, Insightful)
The NSA gathers up the data, forwards it to a team of analysts, and, seeing this kind of thing every day, make an informed and reasoned decision to either forward it up the chain, or bin it.
Your cute and idealistic assessment is at odds with (at least) the fact that the gathered NSA data was dumped into a huge database where a low-level outside contractor could access all of it. I'd feel better if the data went to a team of professional analysts and not into an easily abusable database which may or may not be studied by analysts.
There have only been a few dozen acts of bona fide terrorism in the past year or so, and if the tin foil hat crowd is right, the NSA is monitoring everyone pervasively, so it's more like 999,999 times out of a 1,000,000.
It is more likely to be nothing 1,000,000 out of 1,000,000 times. A "terrorist" that relies on google and pressure cookers to plan their act is a pathetic basement dweller that lacks the resources to actually do anything. I'd be interested in hearing about that 1 out of 1,000,000 where they caught someone credible, who could have succeeded. And (in TFA case) that same person would have to lack the capacity to not answer the door and move to another city after a visit from government agents.
Boston bombing ... The professionals, meanwhile, correctly identified them hours later, and then took them down without any innocent people getting caught in the cross fire.
However, they were neither able to prevent the act, nor have they used the years and years of indiscriminately stored data. They used current recordings from volunteers, I believe. So the result of the Boston bombing would have been the same without preventative surveillance.
They are competent, but NSA's total surveillance has not improved their ability to do their job.
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).
Re: (Score:2)
You must have very little real world experience... and few interesting friends.
Perhaps my experience lies in actually working with police, instead of reading about it on CNN. But I can empathize with Plato, stuck in his cave... such is the nature of the internet: Upon being enlightened, you return to it to find yourself thought stupider than before by the fellow inmates.
Re: (Score:3)
Supporters of the government can validly use the "rule of law" argument when and only when the government actually starts following the law. That includes, in the US, the Bill of Rights. If the government is f
Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Prediction: this article will not get 850 comments [slashdot.org], and many people will continue pointing to this story as proof that Google lets the federal government rifle through all of everyone's data.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
i choose option 4.
4. they are trying to justify the massive amount of money that has been put into pointless SWAT teams.
Re: (Score:2)
4. they are trying to justify the massive amount of money that has been put into pointless SWAT teams.
Here [wsj.com] is a recent article in the WSJ that discusses this.
Re:99 out of 100 (Score:5, Insightful)
None of the above. It is the equivalent of Columbo's 'oh, you know, headquarters makes me ask these questions, nothing to worry about'. It puts the person at ease, and maybe they let their guard down a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
4/ The guy being interviewed was trying to illustrate in layman's terms how un-newsworthy a police investigation like this really is, and how most of his job consists of investigations just like this.
Why do you expect this to be some kind of scientifically rigorous statement, is the better question. It clearly isn't. But in spite of the obviousness of this, you go on to weave a tapestry of half-truths and assumptions and then act like these are the only possible conclusions. False dichotomy, anyone?
As far a
Re: (Score:2)
2/ they are arresting terrorist bombers at a rate of 1 a week
For some reason, I think that a terrorist bomber will not answer the door in this situation.
Since this is a "friendly" visit, I assume they have no warrant and would need to come back later.
It did seem a little peculiar. (Score:3)
If there was some sort of massive sifting of google terms by local law enforcement, or the NSA were passing on every single combination of "pressure cooker + backpack", there wouldn't be an isolated incident, there would be tens of thousands of these investigations. How many other terms would get similar scrutiny? Would local police act on all of the millions of searches that would throw up a red flag?
The police might be increasingly militarized, but they aren't limitless in either manpower or funding, as much as they would have you believe otherwise.
What I'd like to know from all this is why the police are now so frequently travelling around in armed units just to conduct inquiries.
moron (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I, for example, never saw such a thing. And now I am afraid even to make a search to have a look at its image. But how I will recognize one to save my colleagues or bystanders when I see one?
Re: (Score:2)
This could well be search suggestions. (Score:5, Interesting)
Typing "pressure cooker" lists pressure cooker bomb as the 3rd suggestion in Google.
Jason.
Re: (Score:3)
It's his boss nosing around on his old computer. It doesn't really matter which one of a dozen completely reasonable explanations it is. Hell, the guy could have been innocently looking up pressure cooker bombs. Certainly a lot of people did when it was in the news. But his boss has no clue what he's doing. He's not a trained investigator or analyst of any kind. He sees some things that look to him like a search for a "pressure cooker bomb" and he calls the police.
Oh shit! (Score:2)
I googled 'pressure cooker bomb' recently because I didn't even know they existed until I heard about them on the news.
Moral of the story: don't be curious about Bad Things.
Or maybe the moral is "ban the news." It just spreads information about Bad Things.
Non story is still a story (Score:3)
A surveillance society is still a surveillance society and this story simply reveals how this is done in the real world. While lots of people have fantasies about the NSA reading their email or looking at their porn habits in the real world this is done by peoples employers day in day out.
Put down the tin foil hats, have a wake up call and realize that your employers are the ones performing the real world surveillance on the contents of your browsing, email and other habits.
Re: (Score:2)
Put down the tin foil hats, have a wake up call and realize that your employers are the ones performing the real world surveillance on the contents of your browsing, email and other habits.
If this is anything to go by, I can rest easy knowing that middle management is exactly as incompetent as Dilbert portrays them to be. I'd rather have the NSA going through my browsing history than these marginally competent people who aren't exactly known for their critical thinking and investigative talents. Plus, over-zealous middle managers have ruined my life plenty of times. To date, no men in black appearing out of cadillacs to "ask me a few questions" have exacted that level of devastation on my lif
Re: (Score:3)
No. Even if the employer submitted half of the search info, the info on the backpacks had to be provided by another source and then had to to matched. Where did that info come from? Google? NSA backdoors on home computers? The interesting part of the story (if indeed true) is the other half of the info.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the story went like this, "NSA Surveillance matches a person who has traveled out the country, possibly foreign national living in Long Island that did a Google search for pressure cookers and backpacks. It is learned that these searches were done on a corporate asset. NSA contacts corporation and explains that under FISA law they are (gagged) not allowed to talk about the incident and would be shielded from legal harm resulting in any future lawsuits, oh and thanks for the tip."
I protest (Score:2)
so that what you do on the internet remains between you and the professionals at the NSA
That is a disheartening line, to say the least. It implies that I, a citizen ( not of the USA, but that does not matter anything at all in the current security craze context ) should take the NSA's simply for granted.
Nothing to see here (Score:2)
SiMplY put, this was a sIlly MisunderstAnding, nothing More. WEll it remiNds me of this Time we TOok the dc MEtro from Crystal City to Archives AND ALong the way somehow we got Lost Inside the pentaGOn sTop. We ended up ASking THIS poLice Officer for instrUction. SuddenlY there was a BOoMing voice on the speaker nearBy adVising pEople to STay with their belongings. Then we noticed ALL of the trAins tHere were not rUnning. And Know why? BAckpack we had left in a caR!
oops!
A question worth asking, other half of Google info (Score:3)
So dad searched pressure cookers at work and the employer allegedly turned this over to the cops, but who turned in mom's Google search history? How was the match made? Was there a request made too Google? Did the Feds hack the computers using a MS-NSA or Apple-NSA backdoor? According to the article, the task force didn't even look at the computers or confiscate them.
This is only half a story, (if it is indeed true about the employer turning over the suspicious weblogs). How did the Feds/Police/Joint Task Force get the other half of the info.
And according to the article this occurs 100 times per week and we are just hearing about it.
There is more to this story and this simple explanation is only half of it.
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.
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.
Re: How will they be compensated? (Score:2)
Are you sure? Please remember that in any case they are not impacting their bottomline but yours.
Re: (Score:2)
you just described police work and baseball
90% of failing to do anything while shooting for that one hit
Re: (Score:2)
If the victims of government failure were properly compensated every time, I think we would find that these commonplace "mistakes" would quickly become the exception rather than the rule.
Hardly.
Who do you think covers such pay-off? The guy/gal who made the mistake or the taxpayer? (hint: it's the taxpayer)
If people responsible were required so much as to come over and apologize to the victims, then you might see a reduction in mistaken visits. But a compensation (assuming you mean money) only causes the agency's budget to increase, so there will be no disincentive.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, imagine how different your anecdote would be if while the fire department was checking your car for an abandoned child they broke every window and cut the roof off?
Nobody gives a shit if the authorities are respectful and don't break your shit, it is when they break your shit that people get pissed off. So since the fire department did not break your car you have no reason to complain, so you don't. But there are people who do have a reason to complain, and we should listen to them and do something ab
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody gives a shit if the authorities are respectful and don't break your shit,
I would. If I have done nothing wrong I expect my privacy to be respected regardless of what other peoples nutty suspicions may be.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone once called the fire department thinking I had recklessly left my kids in a hot car without supervision.
Unless they mistook some inanimate object in your car for children, then you fucking did.
Everyone should see this PSA about leaving kids in cars. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Key points you're missing:
1) Suffolk county police claim the wife searched for pressure cooker bombs, and the husband searched for backpacks.
2) According to the wife, she was shopping for pressure cookers, and the husband was shopping for backpacks.
The important detail missing is that the couple wasn't searching for bombs. It appears the police added the word "bombs" to cover up their amateur-hour faux pas so that an investigation sounds reasonable.
Now, perhaps the wife is just bullshitting people to say th
Re:How will they be compensated? (Score:4, Informative)
The important detail missing is that the couple wasn't searching for bombs. It appears the police added the word "bombs" to cover up their amateur-hour faux pas so that an investigation sounds reasonable.
That doesn't appear to be correct according to the fine article [wired.com]:
The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms ‘pressure cooker bombs’ and ‘backpacks.’
Re:How will they be compensated? (Score:4, Insightful)
The former employeeâ(TM)s computer searches took place on this employeeâ(TM)s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms âpressure cooker bombsâ(TM) and âbackpacks.â(TM)
Yeah, because there's zero chance he was just searching for news stories about the Marathon bombing and possible copycats. Or because he was just plain interested, as an intellectual exercise, in the relative efficacy of pressure cookers as a bomb containment device vs., say, a layer of ball bearings embedded in a core of C4.
Come and get me, you NSA assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
That "fine article" is paraphrasing other sites, which are paraphrasing other sites. They're claiming the searches were for pressure cooker bombs based on statement from the police, which conflicts with that of the couple, but their slapdash editor didn't even notice.
This is the site owned by the wife, where she explains from her perspective: https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724 [medium.com]
This is the original breaking story from Gizmodo that Wired is just paraphrasing:
http://whitenoise.gizmodo.com/ye [gizmodo.com]
Re:How will they be compensated? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if she was searching for 'pressure cooker bombs', because that is not illegal!
She has not committed any crime, nor should she be suspected of one. In fact, she shouldn't have let them in the house, because they have no warrant, nor any valid reason to suspect her of doing anything against the law.
Since when was curiosity or knowledge seeking a crime? Is that where we are now? Living in fear of learning more, because those who think they're holding the power, are looking at everything we do?
Re:How will they be compensated? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hm? RTFS... the boss sees someone searching for bombs, thinks "hey, this could be bad", tip the police, turns out it is nothing.,,
From the aricle, they specify that it's a former boss, and there's no mention of how amicable the termination was. So, it's also possible that the employer, due to a grudge, discovered the suspicious searches and decided that it would be an easy way to make their life difficult for a little bit.
Actually, we'll probably never know they entire story. The employer, no matter what their motivation, is going to stick to "Hey... if you see something, say something...".
Re: (Score:2)
It's very unlikely that an employer would hold a grudge against a former employee to the point of sending the cops after him. That would be terrible for business.
Except in cases where they get to come off looking like a concerned, patriotic part of the community. Like I said, whether their motivations were honest or malicious, they're going to stick to the "see something, say something" story.
It seems more likely that they were simply concerned that a disgruntled former employee was looking into making bombs. Insecure people who are fired do tend to lose their minds.
The story says that the searches took place on the employee's "workplace computer". That leads me to believe the searches happened before he left the company, so I don't think I'm buying the "Dude was researching bombs after he got fired" notion. Also, I don't know what articl
Re:Private browsing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You should run an ssh tunnel through the corporate proxy to your own installation of an apache proxy running on your home server. Then use that as your proxy for firefox. At least then you'll be spared the embarrassment of a SWAT team turning up at work.
End Run (Score:3)
This is why when in the past I worked for others I always surfed via my own personal hotspot, not the corporate network. Yes, it does not help you with the NSA, but it at least avoids the entire issue of corporate IT.
Re:Private browsing (Score:5, Informative)
If your work browser is configured to accept certificates from the proxy server, SSL might not give you privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
If your work browser is configured to accept certificates from the proxy server, SSL might not give you privacy.
Right. Unfortunately the Slashdot Editors seem to have started editing (I can see why the trolls keep complaining that this place is going downhill) and deleted my my sarky suggestion to use tor from [torproject.org] my submission [slashdot.org].. If you want to do anything from work you wouldn't want to know then make sure you use someone else's IP address to do it from. Alternatively buy an Android tablet and a data subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, eavesdropping on employee's communications is illegal in civilized countries.
I'm going to guess you were making a play on words regarding the uncivilized behavior commonly practiced by many employers in what people like to think of as "first world" countries.
Re:Private browsing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Private browsing (Score:4, Informative)
A good proxy server is going to allow your system administrators to decrypt your SSL connection.
Yes and no. Yes, a proxy can do MITM attacks, but no, barring a key compromise, it can't do so undetectably. A computer-savvy employee who is concerned about a MITM attack can do some testing beforehand and on an ongoing basis to assess his risk.
Some things an employee who doesn't 0wn his own box probably cannot check for is a keyboard logger. Employees probably cannot check for other things like hidden cameras and other off-the-computer surveillance.
Re: (Score:3)
This is true, but only if your employer has or otherwise gains access to your computer's certificate store and installs a root certificate whose private key is known by the proxy. The proxy can then sign fake SSL certifi
Re:Private browsing (Score:4, Insightful)
One or two rules in the firewall and no OpenVPN for you.
Seriously, do your private shit from your home - or at least from your phone with your own data plan - instead of wasting your and sysadmin's time playing tag with network policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In these times, where trust between employer and employee is largely a one-way-street, it's a simple matter of common-sense and self-preservation. Sure, a monthly data traffic allowance on your phone b
Re:Private browsing (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! So, shut the fuck up, slaves. Employers pay for your time, not your work. Employers OWN you for the duration of that time. You have no rights beyond that which your employer affords you. You should act like the good little worker machines that you are unless your employer gives you permission to do otherwise.
God damn these lazy employees these days, thinking they can be human on an employer's dime.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not certain if you're trolling... Expectations are a two way street. Within reason, there is a right of the employee to receive a personal call or to send a personal email during work hours. This is doubly true considering the work day no longer ends when you leave the office. Since the work life pours into our personal, the personal has to pour into our work.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a truly frightening testimony against the American employer culture.
(Assuming you are an American, which is probably a safe bet here).
Re: (Score:3)
An employer needs to follow the guidelines outlined in the Human Rights Act and respect the private life of an employee. This means that throughout the working day, employees are allowed by law to use telephone and email for private purposes, not only during break times but throughout the day. I am not a lawyer, but when recently writing a new IT Policy/Employee handbook we employed legal counsel to guarantee all employee rights were respected and protected.
Re:Private browsing (Score:5, Informative)
Once upon a time those jobs were restricted to the heads of the company and they were awarded accordingly. Now those jobs are everywhere unless you're literally the bottom rung on the ladder.
The working climate in the US is dismal.
Re: (Score:2)
Men in black cars are scarier than SWAT teams. SWAT teams can only shoot you.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I get it. Now I see why "chicks with dicks" never turned up funny pictures of girls with their boyfriends.
Re:Devices which have only one purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people might want to search for news stories pressure cooker bombs, or information about what they look like so they might be able to identify one if they see it on the sidewalk.
Re:Devices which have only one purpose (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the bigger issue with the surveillance state. In a free society you can read what you want, think what you want and say what you feel: WITHOUT FEAR OF RETRIBUTION. The chilling effect that occurs, that even searching for a news item such as this flags you and puts you on a watch list. It is a direct assault on personal liberties.
When you say that "aside from self-educating concerned citizens, no one other than an engineer should be searching for such a thing" I find it truly offensive. No one has the right to tell you what you should think, what you can read or what can be said. There is no humanity or dignity in a world where the level of control and power has shifted to allowing for this. No person should be afraid of retribution for free thinking, learning or reading what they want for whatever reason they want. The mere fact that you can justify the infringement of these liberties shows how far the ideals this country was founded upon have slipped away.
Re: (Score:3)
The devices might only have one purpose, but there might be other purposes for searching for it other than to build one. Reading this story made me want to google "pressure cooker bomb" just to see what it is. So then I would be searching for simple curiosity. A week from now, if I were trying to find a link to this story about a man being investigated for terrorism, I might google "pressure cooker bomb" because it's a detail I remember from the story. So then my interest might be in electronic privacy,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily blame the employer for reporting it, since he may have had legitimate reasons for concern. I don't blame the FBI for investigating it, because they kind of have to investigate something like this once it's reported.
Really? I blame them all.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly be careful about search strings which have no other determinable purpose than terrorism. A search for "chainsaw" could imply running a muck thru a bus station but might also relate to tree clearance. "Shot gun" might mean references to hunting or skeet shooting. But what would someone use a pressure cooker bomb or a ammonium nitrate bomb for other than blowing up people. Its not like one would run around the woods with a pressure cooker bomb to hunt deer or a car bomb as a party favorite.
The pressure cooker is out in left field, unless you are a curious person who follows current events and wants to know what the government is doing with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev these days (he pleaded not guilty on July 10th, is being represented by the Federal Public Defender's office, and is in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day to segregate him from the rest of the population at FMC Devens, a federal prison medical facility).
For ammonium nitrate, and nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer + diesel fuel explosives,
Re: (Score:2)
May I ask why you consider burning a stump risky?
The same saltpeter used as stump remover will leave you with a nice dry and very flammable stump.
Re: (Score:2)
Ammonium nitrate explosives are used in mining and often illegally to remove tree stumps.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on state and local laws, it may actually be perfectly legal to build and set off a bomb for fun. Private land where nobody is close enough to be harmed is usually a good starting point, but be sure to do your research first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am confused. Which 'false accuser' are you speaking of? The guy who told the cops that he saw some searches for pressure cookers on the guys work computer? That wasn't a false accusation, it was a true statement. Or maybe you are referring to the hundreds of people who were accusing the goverment of doing deep packet inspection of all traffic, accusing Google of forwarding all searches, in real-time, to the goverment, etc. Those, as far as we know, were actually false statements.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be willing to bet that even of the 1% that resulted in some sort of action, almost all of them involved grow ops.
On the other hand, if the police then turn around and sell all that confiscated pot, it might actually be an efficient use of police money. No, wait.