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

We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

outsidethebeltway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#21

Post by gohrt »

jrkelly wrote: post #11

The bigger point is that the general public is starting to get worked up about this stuff - I could see lots of people retelling the "can you believe you can't google pressure cookers anymore?" story. Even though the NSA isn't related here people are starting to assume the worst. Hopefully this will start to make the general public more upset which is only way to ultimately change anything.

The general public will realize that these complaints are unfounded, because the most famous ones all turn our to be false, and starts trusting the government over the privact advocates. And maybe the general public is right... HN has gone from skeptic to full nutter over the NSA recently, accusing the NSA of doing excessively expensive and complicated secret projects for no benefit, not even their own benefit, and of ignoring cheap, easier, well-dcoumented, more obvious techniques to achieve the same results.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#22

Post by joering2 »

I hate to be this guy, but knowing this [1] and this [2] and this [3], I think that news release from Suffolk Police is not sufficient enough. I mean there are bigger scandals full of lies coming from official officials, how can I be assured local Suffolk Police tells the truth?

[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...

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#23

Post by PebblesRox »

phpnode wrote: post #17
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was (or at least I wasn't) claiming 100% that this was the result of NSA spying. My big frustration was that in a matter of half an hour, 2 very viral denouncement posts appeared from honest-to-god journalists, basically belittling this woman's claims implying that she is an idiot, an attention whore or a hoaxer, without any additional facts or insights. If anything it is a stark foreshadowing of how we will b…

I'm confused by your point. Are you suggesting that we should assume everything we read is true until we have 'more facts' or 'additional insight'? 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.

I think the point was that while skepticism is good, assuming the worst of someone is bad. It's not good to default to belief, but defaulting to abusive disbelief is also a problem. I think it is good to point out what we don't know and ask questions, but not to accuse someone of being a malicious liar. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they at least mean well, even if they are probably mistaken.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#24

Post by gohrt »

grimtrigger wrote: post #6
superconductor wrote: post #2

Who are you to tell me it's okay to compromise my privacy?

The home owner voluntarily agreed to a search. Not sure what the privacy violation was... unless you think internet searches on your employer's network falls within your domain of privacy?

It it legally impossible to consent under duress. (for example, this is why rape is still illegal, even if she says "yes" after the perpetrator pistol-whips her.) No contract would be upheld if the court found out that one of the parties was weilding a gun during the negotiation.

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.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#25

Post by auctiontheory »

superconductor wrote: post #2

Who are you to tell me it's okay to compromise my privacy?

What you do on your employer's computer on your employer's network isn't private. Maybe it should be, but we all know that it isn't. We may even have signed a form to that effect.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#26

Post by Karunamon »

joering2 wrote: post #18
jaredmcateer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They received a tip form a employer that they discovered some suspicious searches on their former (fired?) employee's work computer. These sort of tips kind of have to be followed up on.

Seriously? Officials needs to follow up every time a company is pissed at the employee and they fire employee and that's not enough for them so lets report him/her on some "suspicious activity"? 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.…

Fine, but as law enforcement, if you receive a tip that someone is acting suspiciously, it is downright irresponsible for that tip to not be followed up on.

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.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#27

Post by mladenkovacevic »

gohrt wrote: post #19
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was (or at least I wasn't) claiming 100% that this was the result of NSA spying. My big frustration was that in a matter of half an hour, 2 very viral denouncement posts appeared from honest-to-god journalists, basically belittling this woman's claims implying that she is an idiot, an attention whore or a hoaxer, without any additional facts or insights. If anything it is a stark foreshadowing of how we will b…

If we don't mock the hoaxers, we run the risk of genuine stories getting politely ignored along with the hoaxes. Remember the story of the Child Who Cried Wolf.

It wasn't a hoax. She genuinely believed the visit resulted from her search.

Why must we either mock or promote it. Just look into it, settle what the truth is, and move on.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#28

Post by Karunamon »

gohrt wrote: post #24
grimtrigger wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The home owner voluntarily agreed to a search. Not sure what the privacy violation was... unless you think internet searches on your employer's network falls within your domain of privacy?

It it legally impossible to consent under duress. (for example, this is why rape is still illegal, even if she says "yes" after the perpetrator pistol-whips her.) No contract would be upheld if the court found out that one of the parties was weilding a gun during the negotiation. 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…

>The police have no right to "ask" you for permission to search your home, as there is an implied threat of deadly force.

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.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#29

Post by saalweachter »

joering2 wrote: post #18
jaredmcateer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They received a tip form a employer that they discovered some suspicious searches on their former (fired?) employee's work computer. These sort of tips kind of have to be followed up on.

Seriously? Officials needs to follow up every time a company is pissed at the employee and they fire employee and that's not enough for them so lets report him/her on some "suspicious activity"? 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.…

I think this was a mostly appropriate response. In my opinion (and it wouldn't surprise me if this was the opinion of the law) police are obligated to follow up on more or less ever tip. I think if it had just been a couple of cops instead of the reported multitude, that would have been better.

The problem is people making bad tips to the police; if the intent is malicious, they should be prosecuted.

Re: We Can All Resume Googling Backpacks And Pressure Cookers

#30

Post by grimtrigger »

joering2 wrote: post #22

I hate to be this guy, but knowing this [1] and this [2] and this [3], I think that news release from Suffolk Police is not sufficient enough. I mean there are bigger scandals full of lies coming from official officials, how can I be assured local Suffolk Police tells the truth? [1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130611/11122823408/senato... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-syria-cong... [3]…

When authorities make small claims that make common sense, they require less discretion.

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?

Post reply on HN