Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#21

Post by MrKurtz »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #18
MrKurtz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor have there been reports to support her claim. As to the police visit, there are plenty of other speculative reasons for it: https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...

No .. just stop it. What a strange tactic to try and bring truth to a truly peculiar story by introducing another completely uninformed person's ramblings and insinuations. Here are two facts: 1) She searched for pressure cookers 2) The police officer asked her if her and her husband own a pressure cooker and/or knew how to make a bomb with it Trying to start a conversation around a picture of fireworks she had on he…

She also says:

"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

There is no proof it was a result of her searches.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#22

Post by jack-r-abbit »

Is it possible that the picture on FB led someone to "tip off" the police, who in turn began looking into the matter and (legally) discovered that there had been some searches for pressure cookers and backpacks and then continued to look into the matter by paying them a very civil police visit?

The police look into leads all the time and a lot of them turn out to be people totally unrelated to the matter, or people that have actually done no wrong. But the police can't tell the future. They don't know ahead of time which tip is legit and which one is a dead end. They go down a few dead ends before finding the right one. Wouldn't it be nice if every thing was solved on the very first lead or inquiry.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#23

Post by corresation »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #18
MrKurtz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor have there been reports to support her claim. As to the police visit, there are plenty of other speculative reasons for it: https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...

No .. just stop it. What a strange tactic to try and bring truth to a truly peculiar story by introducing another completely uninformed person's ramblings and insinuations. Here are two facts: 1) She searched for pressure cookers 2) The police officer asked her if her and her husband own a pressure cooker and/or knew how to make a bomb with it Trying to start a conversation around a picture of fireworks she had on he…

You realize that the Boston bombers gathered normal fireworks, which they then used in a pressure cookers, right?

Some hysterical Facebook user saw that she had posted a picture of a bunch of fireworks (in classic statistical failings, so many are claiming that no one could possibly call in for hers given that there are many other pictures of fireworks on the tubes. Those people have no understanding of odds), and in the shadow of Boston felt that this was a critical thing to tell the police about. The police pretty much have to follow up on all such things, so they go and talk to them, again in the shadow of the Boston bombings, asking about Boston bombing type things (because street-level law enforcement is often looking backwards, assuming the same crimes are the new norm).

Yes, a picture of fireworks absolutely explains why they would ask about a pressure cooker. Whether she had previously been looking up pressure cookers or backpacks (if that is actually true at all) almost certainly has nothing to do with this, but she knew where to go with it for maximum interest.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#24

Post by MrKurtz »

thezilch wrote: post #19
MrKurtz wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference! if they visited her because of her web searches which are private then it's a big deal, if on the other hand the visit was due to her profile picture which is public then it's not as big of a deal.

What's private about a web search, exactly? For unauthenticated sessions, Google does not use HTTPS by default. If I click through to a SERP link, my search referrer is passed to that party. They can do what they want with it, including alerting authorities. Not that authorities need alerting or warrant to capture all non-secure traffic. I'm not convinced we know any of the reasons for the visit yet, but it's fairly…

The distinction between public and private in this scenario is the difference between pictures posted so that everyone can see versus a string that only two parties can read directly or others might sniff indirectly.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#25

Post by grauniad »

dendory wrote: post #9

I don't see how this is busting her story much. The FBI confirmed that cops went to her house, just not FBI agents, but local ones. Still, if the FBI knew, then clearly it was a joint operation in some way. Then, the WP says that the reason they went could be something other than Google searches, and instead something that they posted on Facebook or a jumpy neighbor (although that's doubtful because they never actual…

> purely based on search terms.

I got the impression from the blog post that a son may have clicked on links possibly relating to how bombs are made. Perhaps the FBI were monitoring who clicks on those links, and then checked for further search activity etc.

I'm not suggesting any of this is warranted obviously (Terrorism isn't a real threat at all), but it does look like it was more than 'just' search terms.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#26

Post by mladenkovacevic »

MrKurtz wrote: post #21
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No .. just stop it. What a strange tactic to try and bring truth to a truly peculiar story by introducing another completely uninformed person's ramblings and insinuations. Here are two facts: 1) She searched for pressure cookers 2) The police officer asked her if her and her husband own a pressure cooker and/or knew how to make a bomb with it Trying to start a conversation around a picture of fireworks she had on he…

She also says: "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 There is no proof it was a result of her searches.

What exactly is your point?

Well in any case, at least we're back to the original claims so let's try and get to the bottom of it:

The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure cooker bomb related questions?

Again how is this statement supposed to do to dispel the original Google search = police visit suspicion. The cop probably doesn't want the suspected terrorist to get too jumpy. In any case.. who cares how the cop is trying to justify his strange visit to this particular household. He's certainly not going to explicitly say "Well we know you searched for pressure cookers so we wanted to see what that's all about". Or is that the kind of "proof" you're hoping to see here.

The goal here should be to try and verify the woman's claims. Not try and find 100 reasons to dismiss it in the fastest manner possible.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#27

Post by untog »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #7

Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title. There is basically nothing the writer cites to absolutely negate the claim that a Google search possibly resulted in a visit from the police? She searched for pressure cookers, and police came to her house asking her, among other things, whether they own pressure cookers and if they know how to make a bomb out of pressure cookers. Those are the facts.

Maybe not and maybe yes?? What a stupid title.

Accurate. The word you are looking for is accurate. At the current time, we don't know why they visited her house for sure.

We don't know that she was asked about pressure cookers because she googled them. That's inference, not fact.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#28

Post by untog »

northwest wrote: post #4
MrKurtz wrote: post #2

It's shameful how many publications ran with this story on face value.

Yes, but this fact needs a lot less attention than the state we're currently in, given the ignorance and resulting apathy of the general public.

So, the news needs to be hysterical to make up for people's lack of hysterics?

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#29

Post by MrKurtz »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #26
MrKurtz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She also says: "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 There is no proof it was a result of her searches.

What exactly is your point? Well in any case, at least we're back to the original claims so let's try and get to the bottom of it: The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure cooker bomb related questions? Again how is this statement supposed to do to dispel the original Google search = police visit suspicion. The cop probably doesn't want the suspected terrorist to get too jumpy. In…

The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure cooker bomb related questions?

Evidently in Boston they do.

I agree completely, the goal is to verify the claims, and thankfully someone is trying to: http://twitter.com/kashhill

Re: Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.

#30

Post by thecabinet »

jlgreco wrote: post #17
moocowduckquack wrote: post #5

Is interesting that the FBI have said there was a police visit from specific departments, although those police departments themselves are dancing round the issue. I wonder if the police misrepresented themselves. “They were officers from the Nassau County Police Department who identified themselves as such,” said Kelly Langmesser, the FBI spokeswoman. But mysteriously, neither the Nassau nor Suffolk County Police wo…

The FBI, for all their faults, are professionals. Local police? Ha!

Professionals!? You mean the guys who refuse to record interviews with suspects? Now what reason could they possibly have for refusing to record an interview...
Post reply on HN