Surveillance Story Turns Into a Warning About Employer Monitoring

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."

Comments

Alright then. Carry On.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

[Somebody Is Using My]

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:Alright then. Carry On.

[odigity]

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:Alright then. Carry On.

[kilfarsnar]

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:Alright then. Carry On.

[TheCarp]

> 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:Alright then. Carry On.

[0111 1110]

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.

Er, no, that isn't the story

[girlintraining]

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:Er, no, that isn't the story

[Mitreya]

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.

Prediction

[swillden]

Prediction: this article will not get 850 comments, and many people will continue pointing to this story as proof that Google lets the federal government rifle through all of everyone's data.

Re:Devices which have only one purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

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:A different lesson

[girlintraining]

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:99 out of 100

[bws111]

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:How will they be compensated?

[jemenake]

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:Private browsing

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Private browsing

[Anonymous Coward]

eavesdropping on employee's communications is illegal in civilized countries.

Readers in the United States can safely ignore that comment, it does not apply to them.

Re:Private browsing

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Devices which have only one purpose

[spacepimp]

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:How will they be compensated?

[cellocgw]

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:How will they be compensated?

[hacker]

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?

and if they were Muslim?

[almechist]

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 other civilians, that somehow makes it OK for a squad of armed police to show up at someone's home on the basis of a Google search term? Seriously??? Is this really the kind of society you want to live in? This is simply NOT acceptable police behavior, and never will be, regardless of who sends in the tip. A society in which an online search for anything at all, legal or otherwise, causes the police to knock on the door is simply not a free society, no matter how you want to spin it.