Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Big Boss, Not Big Brother, Spotted Long Island Family's 'Suspicious' Google Searches [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)126. You're trying really, really hard to protect someone who admitted she lied.
No, she never said Google turned her history over to anyone. She imagined the task force looked at her Google history.
Which they got from magic pixie fairies. Or perhaps the implication she was going is Google turned it over.
She tweeted "Pro tip: don't do a search for pressure cookers right after your spouse does a search for backpacks if you don't want the FBI at your door". Yes, it was her husband's former employer - and he was never told that. She called it a joint task force - and the FBI thinks it was too:
Do you always provide links and quotes that destroy your own argument? Because that link says the FBI didn't think it was the JTF nor the FBI as she claimed.
Where does the company say they fired him? The police statement calls him "a recently released employee". There is nothing about his behavior.
There are various statements from various papers claiming he was either fired or laid off. Technically, both of those are "being fired", which is probably what is causing the confusion among the media.
You're still claiming it was innocuous search terms that had the police show up
And that's what the police claim too.
And that's what the police claim too.
You skipped over the word "innocuous". Her story is that it was "pressure cooker" and "backpack" searches which triggered the investigation. We have no reason to believe that is actually the case - she lied about where those search results were from. So why should we believe that just those search terms were the case?
Oh, her husband didn't tell her exactly who was at the house and why they were there? Well of course we should believe her first story. It's not like the husband could have any possible motivation to lie.
You're also trying to paint a SWAT-team raid picture with "6 armed men!!!!"
No, I've never said anything about 'SWAT'.
No, I've never said anything about 'SWAT'.
Do I really need to link the definition of "paint a picture" as a literary device?
But these are not uniform police, one blocks in their car, and 4 of them go round the house, to surround it:
Oh look! You're quoting her story again. You know, the one she admitted was bullshit.
This woman is a right-wing blogger. She is lying in order to make herself more famous and to drive a wedge between Democrats.
You are doing an excellent job helping her reach her goal.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
127 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Big Boss, Not Big Brother, Spotted Long Island Family's 'Suspicious' Google Searches [View all]
sufrommich
Aug 2013
OP
The company owns their computers and is responsible for them. So that's a difference. And
pnwmom
Aug 2013
#112
One reason (among many) why all the facts should be known before conclusions are drawn. . .
Journeyman
Aug 2013
#2
The Guardian lately is starting to resemble the other London rags, unfortunately. n/t
pnwmom
Aug 2013
#113
So your position is that HS is supposed to be actively searching all US Google queries for content?
Thor_MN
Aug 2013
#88
We see whose side you instinctively take in employer-employee relations
muriel_volestrangler
Aug 2013
#122
I believe the woman who started this whole story has written for Forbes.com
KittyWampus
Aug 2013
#19
The only bad information is from Catalano. Her story is bullshit. End of discussion. nt
geek tragedy
Aug 2013
#44
I didn't see where he was mentioned. But as a free lance writer, she should be aware that
Autumn
Aug 2013
#60
Yes, the part about the son being the ex employee. I haven't seen that in the articles
Autumn
Aug 2013
#69
I think she does cooking so they probably purchased her recipes or something.
reusrename
Aug 2013
#95
Why did they interview the husband and not her if the searches were on her work PC
TriplD
Aug 2013
#43
"Don't suspect your neighbor; turn them in!" ~Public sign in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". n/t
Fire Walk With Me
Aug 2013
#47
Good thing TPTB had all their content handy to search right away (son & husbands)
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
Aug 2013
#56
But if they were just scanning network end points meta then it would look like a single user
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
Aug 2013
#70
You should try reading the post before offering factually false commentary. Nt
geek tragedy
Aug 2013
#90
That the government would think searches for "pressure cooker" and "backpack"
killbotfactory
Aug 2013
#92
If it was his home computer with company-required monitoring software
PowerToThePeople
Aug 2013
#117