We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers(outsidethebeltway.com) |
We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers(outsidethebeltway.com) |
Edit: Misunderstood the parent's comments. Yes, this is what happened.
So they went to someone's house because of "suspicious internet searches". The fact that the search wasn't detected using an automated system doesn't diminish my point that they think it's ok to turn up on your doorstep if they don't like the searches you're making.
But this has always been true. If your neighbor gets robbed, you're going to get a knock on your door to see if you saw anything. They could stop by and ask for a glass of lemonade. Who cares? You seem to imply that there was some intimidation, but I read nothing to indicate that.
If anything it is a stark foreshadowing of how we will be shamed and mocked into the status quo not by our government but by our peers, eased into it like an old man gently lowering his body into an uncomfortably warm bath.
The reason her story was denounced by a few people is because those people had not let their ability to think critically be clouded by the current NSA/Snowden frenzy.
Remember the story of the Child Who Cried Wolf.
Point taken though.
Here we have another win for tptacek in the "common sense and reason" column.
'Common Sense and Reason' belongs only to those who read the story and waited to hear more before posting. But I'm biased. :-D
I also didn't comment on the thread as I didn't know what exactly was going on. But I was very sure that it would be something along the lines of what tptacek himself predicted so why say anything anyways? I just upvoted and moved on.
Do you have to search something like "I want to _____ (insert terrorist action) on _______ (insert date) at ______ (location)" in order to actually trigger something?
From there you can determine "who's who in the zoo" of extremist cells for use in other intelligence collection schemes. E.g. if someone receives messages from known intermediaries of an AQ bomb makers and then 'drops off the grid' it may be a good time to step up to video/satellite surveillance.
Simply doing random searches isn't tracked by PRISM (though it might be from systems that use wiretap features). But even random searches like those are likely to simply be filtered out outright by the NSA, they are simply too common (even without pranksters who run the search thinking they're Sticking It to The Man) to be worth following up individually.
Even the NSA doesn't have infinite resources after all, and they are still dependent on other agencies for follow-up activities, and those other agencies are certainly more resource-constrained than NSA is.
My company does the same thing, turns out one of the managers had been downloading porn onto their computer for months and the first time we installed it we noticed. When we checked out his computer he had over 200 Gb of the stuff... so yeah, he was fired, clearly he wasn't doing his job to the best of his performance.
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130611/11122823408/senato...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-syria-cong...
[3] http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/02/national-inte...
Common sense indicates that this was not part of a dragnet of people searching pressure cookers and backpacks. If it was: where are the reports of the certainly dozens (hundreds/thousands?) of people who have made similar searches?
The police have no right to "ask" you for permission to search your home, as there is an implied threat of deadly force. (Cf everybody who gets shot for flinching while in view of a cop.)
Sadly, the old white rich person judges pretend that this doesn't happen, and allow this unconstitutional activity to continue.
If the police are asking instead of saying "we have a warrant" and kicking the door down, it's because they don't have the necessary evidence and are fishing for some.
There is no implied threat of anything to those with the slightest bit of knowledge of how law enforcement works. This whole story could have just as easily went the other way.
>May we come in?
>I'd rather you didn't. Do you have a warrant?
>No we do not. What do you have to hide?
>I would rather not speak with you any further until you both have a warrant and I have a lawyer present. Good day sir. door shut
Respectful, yet assertive.
The fact was something in between, of course, it was computer searches but they weren't passed on from the NSA to some JTTF agents.
I am not implying this happened here, but we don't know what's the story behind this guy being fired. There are remote chances that the company tried to be vicious with him after letting him go. It happened many times before.
This could be similar situation to the one where A starts beating B, out of nowhere, and then A calls cops before B had a chance to do so. Cops show up and A says: "look at my bruises" and B gets arrested.
The problem is people making bad tips to the police; if the intent is malicious, they should be prosecuted.
Sounds like the problem here was the employer, not the cops. Heck, it sounds like they didn't even have a warrant to search - they asked if they could come in and the person said yes.
Why must we either mock or promote it. Just look into it, settle what the truth is, and move on.
It's the same result in the end (no one believes you when it's most important), which is why it's necessary not to jump to conclusions that are not supported by evidence, especially conclusions that naturally mesh with your worldview.
Now what if the child had cried wolf for the very first time and some of the villagers were all like "Shuttup you stupid kid, who do you think you are that the wolf would wanna eat you anyways! OOH LOOK THE WOLF IS GONNA EAT MEEEHHH! Stupid idiot."
Then once it was determined that there was no wolf, those same villagers proceeded to deride and mock the few people who actually tried to shine a light into the forest to see if there was a wolf in the first place: "I can't believe you fell for that you stupid idiots. Told ya there was no wolf!"
In conclusion, let's not allow our relationships and decisions rely TOO much on children's tales.
The difference isn't meaningless; it's useful to spotlight point-scoring goalpost-moving when it occurs.
The worst I can possibly think of to accuse the cops with in this case is showing up with too many people. One or two uniformed officers was all that was necessary.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7I0...