Big Brother is Watching You

[Ombudsman]

I always eat them after someone else killed them.

According to the book about him, he does too. He's apparently big on harvesting roadkill.

[Bungalow Bill]

I'm surprised stop and frisk went on as long as it did, but from my understanding
it will continue, but just be monitored more closely. It should be completely out-
lawed period. Maybe one day it will.

[O Really]

I'm not sure the point is changed by which agency made the visit or by who first reported the suspicions. Many are making the point that Big Brother is a federal-local-corporate entity.

Of course it matters. The first story was all about the feds spying. The real story had nothing to do with them. You don't think a former, possibly unhappy, employee who you found was googling pressure cooker bombs from the office is suspicious enough for somebody to go look? And would you send Barney by himself to knock on the door and say, "excuse me, Mr. possibly disgruntled employee with a behaviour pattern similar to those who engage in workplace violence, but do you happen to have a pressure cooker bomb in here?" What would it take to justify the employer's suspicion, googling "how to kill your boss?"

[O Really]

Custom adverts in your face, tracked from your phone...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... picks=true

Not so fast, Grasshoppah... http://www.informationweek.com/security ... picks=true

Now that was easy, wasn't it? So why can't we get rid of billboards? Oh yeah, Republicans.

[O Really]

C'mon, Vrede - you're losing focus on cause here. It doesn't matter if there is a joint fed/state/local consortium. I hope there is. It should have worked better before 9/11. But the initiator of this entire event was the employer who reported the pressure cooker bomb to the cops, who decided who they would send out. Those cops probably did report it to the feds. Why wouldn't they? But the cops nor the feds got their first whiff by spying on citizens sitting in their homes googling. Following Boston, how many people do you suppose googled something about pressure cooker bombs? I'll bet a lot. How many got visits from the Gestapo? Or let's look at another possibility - the employer didn't really think the guy was a potential bomber, but found the search and just decided to make his life miserable by turning him in to the cops. Either way, it wasn't some spy scheme that got him.

[O Really]

It was a "spy scheme", just an employer one. We don't know from the reports whether there was anything else, anything at all, that caused the employer to be trolling the search history of a guy that no longer worked for it, or for the cops to take the report seriously. Probably not since one visit from the cops eased any fears. Though it wasn't the feds that did the snooping or raid, rstrong's point still stands about the cops responding in ways that corporations cannot.

And, whether it was the JTTF doesn't make much difference to me, it seems unlikely that the Catalanos just made up the fact that the cops said they were. It also seems unlikely that they invented the cops telling them:

They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing...

One hundred times a week, groups of six armed men drive to houses in three black SUVs, conducting consented-if-casual searches of the property perhaps in part because of things people looked up online...

52,000 such heavily armed visits a year, or more depending on who the "They" described is, for how many actual terrorists caught this way? And, how many of these would have been resolved by a phone call, a request for the employee to come to the station, or the Barney and Andy visit? What do you suppose would have happened if the Catalanos did not consent to the search and invoked their right to remain silent on principle?

It's not a loss of focus for me. I oppose what we've allowed corporations to intrude upon and what government is doing, you're the one that's been arguing that the former makes the latter not so bad. And, as we now know, it's often corporations and government working together to make a mockery of our privacy and chill our activities.

You ducked my question. Given that you're a former radical activist that travels a lot and has posted "pressure cooker bombs" multiple times, is that sufficient reason for your home to be searched and your family to find half a dozen cops at your door? Why not, if you think that what the Catalanos faced was peachy keen?

No comment on what was done to Laura Poitras?

T'was not a spy scheme. Practically every employer in the world has some policy that goes something like this: "Use of Company technology, networks, and Internet services does not create any expectation of privacy. The Company reserves the right to search and/or monitor any information created, accessed, sent, received, and/or stored in any format by any Company employee on Company equipment or any equipment connected to the Company’s network." The company had every right to look at the machine, and to report what it believed to be suspicious activity - and activity that it (the company) could be liable for. OTOH, whether the report from the company was maliciously done just to get back at a former employee, we don't know.

Vrede: "You ducked my question. Given that you're a former radical activist that travels a lot and has posted "pressure cooker bombs" multiple times, is that sufficient reason for your home to be searched and your family to find half a dozen cops at your door? Why not, if you think that what the Catalanos faced was peachy keen?"

This wasn't an instance of posting "pressure cooker bombs." But I bet I could post or search for something on the office machine that would get the IT department's attention and - if it looked actually serious, could get me turned in. I've gotten inquiries from LexisNexis over searches I've done. But forget Google and the computer. If the employer had found an envelope of suspicious looking powder stuff in the guy's locker, would it have been OK with you for them to ask the cops to look at it? Even without knowing if it might just be Gold Bond powder for the guy's poison ivy?

Employers are at significant risk of workplace violence. And it's usually somebody who doesn't work there anymore. If something went boom, they wouldn't have wanted to be one of those who said, "well, we thought it was funny he was searching "pressure cooker bombs" at the office, but we just figured he was curious."

The law that allows for Poitras to be harassed is despicable. But she's on the "watch list" which also contains a lot of other people that got there by some fluke, and it's hard but not impossible to get off of. Ted Kennedy I think had to die to get off it. Overall, it's probably better for her career to be on it and write about her experiences. I'll bet her films are really good.

[O Really]

The issue is not so much the employer's response. As you say, it could have been either realistic concern or maliciously done, we don't know. Rather, it's what that leads to.

Poitras' experience was almost certainly not the result of some fluke. Rather, it was because she was successful at disseminating info. embarrassing to the national security state, exactly the government power of repression that this thread is about.

What should the report have lead to? Telling the employer, "oh, don't worry about it, we get this stuff all the time and it's nothing." Or calling him up and asking him if he's thinking about making a bomb? Or saying nothing but start surveillance and investigation of him? Sending Barney is definitely not the answer, since that would be the same as discounting the possibility of a bomb - therefore they'd have been better off to do nothing. Or sending four or five guys to the house, but without protective equipment?

And no, I don't think Poitras' membership on the watch list is a fluke, either.

[O Really]

If there was nothing more than a report from an employer about a recently popular search topic that could have been either realistic concern or maliciously done I'd go with a phone call, a request for the employee to come to the station, or the Barney and Andy visit. Otherwise, "the possibility of a bomb" justifies anything the national security state does.

Historically, building security personnel and cops have taken bomb threats seriously, even though they know that most of them won't turn up a bomb. Even though this wasn't an actual bomb threat, given the recent Boston events, I don't think they could ignore it. But if I had been in charge, I probably would have opted for more investigation before doing anything drastic. And then would probably have caught him away from his house, with lesser costumed people, to question him. But those SWAT guys do love a good show. They used to scurry past my house in Florida several times a year, looking for somebody. Or maybe just "training." We never knew for sure.

[rstrong]

Fwiw, rstrong's link does not say how the 6 cops were dressed. The pic is a stock image, not from the visit to the Catalanos.

From the original source:

What happened was this: At about 9:00 am, my husband, who happened to be home yesterday, was sitting in the living room with our two dogs when he heard a couple of cars pull up outside. He looked out the window and saw three black SUVs in front of our house; two at the curb in front and one pulled up behind my husband’s Jeep in the driveway, as if to block him from leaving.

Six gentleman in casual clothes emerged from the vehicles and spread out as they walked toward the house, two toward the backyard on one side, two on the other side, two toward the front door.

A million things went through my husband’s head. None of which were right. He walked outside and the men greeted him by flashing badges. He could see they all had guns holstered in their waistbands.

[O Really]

Good article, but I'd like a better or more specific definition of "whistleblower" before I'd jump for better protection.
For example, a "whistleblower" in Sarbanes-Oxley is defined as one who is protected (1) to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders, when the information or assistance is provided to or the investigation is conducted by--

`(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
`(B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; or
`(C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee (or such other person working for the employer who has the authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct);
http://www.sox-online.com/act_section_806.html

Notice that the protection applies to certain types of information with a reasonable belief of violation, and protects disclosure (whistleblowing) to specified entities.

Not included in SOX is the right to publicly disclose corporate proprietary information to a newspaper. Not that the laws covering governmental whistleblower have to mirror SOX, but there ought to be a better definition than there is now.

[homerfobe]

Here Are All Of The Nations That Incarcerate More Of Their Population Than The U.S.

Just like the rest of your posts. Blowin' in the wind.

If the US would enforce the death penalty, we wouldn't have the dubious honor of being #1.
The whiny-ass liberals had rather see a raping child murderer put in prison for the rest of his life, then whine and piss because of prison populations;
they would rather see those who kill in self-defense be locked up, then whine and piss because of prison populations;
they would rather see drug dealers who sell to children not be charged with "a harmless crime";

Weird bunch of idiots.

[Boatrocker]

As usual, you are full of shit. No surprise, there.

[neoplacebo]

If drugs were legal and regulated like alcohol, the drug cartels and everything associated with them or that spawns from them would cease to exist. And I bet the NSA knows this and isn't telling. Crack cocaine only exists because cocaine is illegal. Duh. "Meth" exists only because Desoxyn is not available. The NSA definitely knows this, as they are likely the biggest consumers of Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride).

[homerfobe]

Just like the rest of your posts. Blowin' in the wind.

Nope, fact which you can't dispute. You've screwed up, again.

If the US would enforce the death penalty, we wouldn't have the dubious honor of being #1.

Nope, wouldn't affect the overall prison population much. You've screwed up, again. Plus, few of the world's nations, all of which have a lower incarceration rate than ours, have the death penalty at all. You've screwed up, again.

The whiny-ass liberals had rather see a raping child

homerfobe is obsessed with child rape, again.

murderer put in prison for the rest of his life,

It costs less. homerfobe, the career socialist worker, is liberal with our tax dollars.

then whine and piss because of prison populations;

Highest rate in the world, that's the "freedom" homerfobe deluded himself that he was defending.

they would rather see those who kill in self-defense be locked up,

Nope, not for true self-defense. You've screwed up, again.

then whine and piss because of prison populations;

Highest rate in the world, that's the "freedom" homerfobe deluded himself that he was defending.

they would rather see drug dealers who sell to children not be charged with "a harmless crime";

No one says that about kid sales. You've screwed up, again. That said, the utter failure of the drug war, including in preventing sales to kids, is a huge part of the problem. homerfobe, the career socialist worker, is liberal with our tax dollars.

Weird bunch of idiots.

homerfobe, the career socialist worker, has unwavering faith in government. Weird idiot.

here Vrede, Vrede

[homerfobe]

As usual, you are full of shit. No surprise, there.

Oh, ain't you so intelligent. How long did it take you to come up with that utterly intelligent reply?
Is that why your mind is southeast of disorder, and you proudly wave the republican flag? You're good.

[rstrong]

As usual, you are full of shit. No surprise, there.

Oh, ain't you so intelligent. How long did it take you to come up with that utterly intelligent reply?

You give him too much credit. It wouldn't take much intelligence at all to figure out that you're full of shit.

Is that why your mind is southeast of disorder, and you proudly wave the republican flag? You're good.

[Boatrocker]

As usual, you are full of shit. No surprise, there.

Oh, ain't you so intelligent. How long did it take you to come up with that utterly intelligent reply?
Is that why your mind is southeast of disorder, and you proudly wave the republican flag? You're good.

Butt Rockets are your favorite toy, aren't they? I bet you also use them as Throat Rockets.
And probably in that order.

[neoplacebo]

I would imagine a butt rocket would become a throat rocket if you were lying down straight, and vice versa.

[Boatrocker]

I would imagine a butt rocket would become a throat rocket if you were lying down straight, and vice versa.

Nuthin straight about Homofob- even lying down.

[rstrong]

First Lavabit and Silent Circle. Now Groklaw, the award winning legal journalism website that played a pivotal role in the SCO vs GNU/Linux case and others, shutting down over the revelation of widespread, deep email surveillance.

Groklaw's background has far more to do with corporate leaks, espionage and legal issues, rather then NSA leaks and espionage and legal issues. (Such as the HP's trying to find the source of a leak by spying on reporters for CNET and other organizations, reading their emails and obtaining their phone records and those of the reporters' relatives. Which in turn meant - because of ethics rules - that some reporters could no longer cover HP. If you are a tech reporter, and now you can't cover a major tech company, your career is badly damaged. THAT is how you stop leaks.)

But Groklaw deals a lot with international corporations and issues, so the NSA is free to read their email. And spy agencies in the US, Canada and elsewhere have a history of passing along information to corporations based in their home countries.