Hacker News Reader

Comment by dendory | Hacker News Reader

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 actually bought any of the stuff, just search the web for it). But does it really matter? Whether the feds got the info from Google or Facebook, it still appears to be the case that this family did research online about various items, and then cops went and knocked on their doors. No actual crime, no presumption, purely based on search terms. That's still pretty ridiculous.

View on HN

Yes, the difference between "posted on facebook" and "did research online" is an extremely important distinction to make. One is meant to be seen by others (the exact grouping defined by the privacy setting), the other is not.

"if the FBI knew, then clearly it was a joint operation in some way"

or the FBI can access to police records when necessary, and sometimes checks said records when mass media indicts them in a conspiracy to harass pressure cooker enthusiasts. Of course, this explanation is far less exciting, but it is based on two assumptions we can be reasonably certain are true.

Now how does that sit with the theory Ms Catalano just might have been a little prone to exaggeration or jumping to the wrong conclusions about who was visiting her and why?

The FBI could have easily called and asked local police, since they were getting the heat for it. THe local police would be much more willing to talk to the FBI than reporters, and the FBI wouldn't have to go through PR officers...

> 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.

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 disingenuous to consider ANYTHING done on an online property, that you don't own, is not public.

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.

It's too bad we didn't get her in 2007!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/asv/1244780876/in/photostream/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com