Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online | New York | The Guardian

quote:

---

A New York woman says her family's interest in the purchase of pressure cookers and backpacks led to a home visit by six police investigators demanding information about her job, her husband's ancestry and the preparation of quinoa.

​

Michele Catalano, who lives in Long Island, New York, said her web searches for pressure cookers, her husband's hunt for backpacks and her "news junkie" son's craving for information on the Boston bombings had combined somewhere in the internet ether to create a "perfect storm of terrorism profiling".

​

Members of what she described as a "joint terrorism task force" descended on Catalano's home on Wednesday.

​

Catalano was at work, but her husband was sitting in the living room as the police arrived. She retold the experience in a post on Medium.com on Thursday. She attributed the raid largely to her hunt for a pressure cooker, an item used devastatingly, allegedly by the two Tsarnaev brothers, in Boston, but also used by millions across the country to prepare vegetables while retaining most of their nutrients.

​

The story later took on a different complexion when police finally explained that the investigation was prompted by searches a family member had made for pressure cooker bombs and backpacks made at his former workplace. The former employer, believing the searches to be suspicious, alerted police. Catalano said the family member was her husband.

​

In her first post, Catalano, a writer for indie music and politics magazine Death and Taxes wrote:

​

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.

​

"Are you [name redacted]?" one asked while glancing at a clipboard. He affirmed that was indeed him, and was asked if they could come in. Sure, he said.

​

They asked if they could search the house, though it turned out to be just a cursory search. They walked around the living room, studied the books on the shelf (nope, no bomb making books, no Anarchist Cookbook), looked at all our pictures, glanced into our bedroom, pet our dogs. They asked if they could go in my son's bedroom but when my husband said my son was sleeping in there, they let it be.

​

At this point, Catalano said, the police were "peppering my husband with questions".

​

"Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked."

​

It was at this point that the conversation took a delightfully culinary turn, with quinoa making an unlikely appearance in the police inquiries:

​

Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked.

​

The joint terrorism task force did not press Catalano's husband on the dilemma facing liberals over whether quinoa consumption is ethically sound — many Bolivians can no longer afford their staple food now everyone in Brooklyn is eating it.

​

"By this point they had realised they were not dealing with terrorists," Catalano said.

​

Still, she was left worried by the visit, which she attributes to her family's internet history.

​

I felt a sense of creeping dread take over. What else had I looked up? What kind of searches did I do that alone seemed innocent enough but put together could make someone suspicious? Were they judging me because my house was a mess (Oh my god, the joint terrorism task force was in my house and there were dirty dishes in my sink!). Mostly I felt a great sense of anxiety. This is where we are at. Where you have no expectation of privacy. Where trying to learn how to cook some lentils could possibly land you on a watch list. Where you have to watch every little thing you do because someone else is watching every little thing you do.

​

All I know is if I'm going to buy a pressure cooker in the near future, I'm not doing it online.

​

I'm scared. And not of the right things.

​

Late on Thursday, Suffolk County police confirmed its officers had gone to the house, but explained that it was as the result of a tipoff and was not due to monitoring of home internet searches.

​

In a statement, the office of the county's police commissioner said:

​

Suffolk County criminal intelligence detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore-based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee's computer searches took place on this employee's workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms 'pressure cooker bombs' and 'backpacks'.

​

After the visit the incident was "determined to be non-criminal in nature", the statement said.

​

Earlier on Thursday, the FBI told the Guardian that Catalano was visited by the Nassau County police department working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department. "From our understanding, both of those counties are involved," said FBI spokeswoman Kelly Langmesser. She said Suffolk County initiated the action and that Nassau County became involved, but would not elaborate on what that meant.

​

The Nassau County police department said Catalano "was not visited by the Nassau police department" and denied involvement in the situation.

​

In a new post on her Tumblr on Thursday, Catalano said: "We found out through the Suffolk police department that the searches involved also things my husband looked up at his old job. We were not made aware of this at the time of questioning and were led to believe it was solely from searches from within our house."

​

This article was amended on 2 August 2013 to clarify that the Tsarnaev brothers have not been convicted of the Boston bombing. The younger, surviving brother is awaiting trial and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

---

Am I right to be disturbed by this news?

No, you are not right to be disturbed.

It disturbs me and I live in another country almost.You can not be free if there is some authority that has the right to investigate the books that you have been reading or consider the pictures on your wall. Sure, they asked nicely if they could come in but I wonder what they would have done if he had declined the warrant-less search.Terrorism is a heinous thing and we are right to stamp it out as we can but this approach is a massive breach of civil rights.Freedom and privacy are bound together and we shouldn't let fear erode them.

Why would I have any worry about searching on most anything?

Like jar said, you needn't be concerned because this is a non-issue as far as privacy is concerned. This was due to an overzealous coworker or boss trying to be a hero.

quote:

---

Late on Thursday, Suffolk County police confirmed its officers had gone to the house, but explained that it was as the result of a tipoff and was not due to monitoring of home internet searches.

---

(bolding mine)

That's what they SAID.The woman is also a journalist, ... so it could be journalists are given special attention, or, it could be, because of her being a journalist, some yo-yo was being vindictive to a public figure, and it was a coincidence.I would not be surprised at either scenario

I think we should distinguish between the right to investigate and the ability to investigate effectively.In Canada, we keep all of our national secrets in the trunk of a car parked outside a hockey arena. If our security agencies are trying to investigate you, they're liable to wind up in my back yard by mistake.In other words, I'd worry more about stupidity than about intentional violation of rights.Edited by ringo, : pelling.

Our civil rights are there to protect us from the random stupidity and the ever creeping zeal of the authoritarians and the 'safety firsters'. There are some things more important than the illusion of security and freedom is one of them.It starts with things like arbitrary traffic stops to see if you are wearing your seatbelt or to sample your breath and leads to things like the RCMP searching your house without warrant or cause and taking your guns after you have been subject to a mandatory evacuation.It is frightening because after it goes far enough the only way back requires violence.

There's a saying that, "Nothing is ever foolproof because fools are so ingenious." Unfortunately, random stupidity often trumps the best-laid plans of civil rights advocates. Oh oh. You're not one of those "They're going to take our guns!" nuts, are you? Frankly, I find your attitude - the "requirement" for violence - more frightening.

Sure it does and that is why we shouldn't let it slide. But they are taking away the guns!No, I would be just as disturbed had they taken bicycles or lawn chairs or all the copies of 50 Shades of Grey. It is the broader principal of not having to sacrifice your civil rights in order to assuage someone else's fear regardless of whatever it is that they are afraid of. It is not an attitude Ringo its an observation. I offer my feeble protest here in the hope that my children or grand-children never have to violently resist oppression.How else do you wrestle freedom back from decades of erosion and the relentless pursuit of absolute security? The peaceful means are available now but they wont always be if we do not exercise them.

Shall I quote Martin Niemoller?

quote:

---

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

​

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

​

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

​

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

---

It's easy to sacrifice somebody else's freedom to protect our own security. That isn't likely to change. Do you have an example from history where that has happened? I can't think of one off-hand. Most of the Great Losses of Freedom that I can recall came from revolutions, the very thing you're advocating.

Isn't that what civil rights are meant to prevent? But that is my point. Even though they are not searching our houses yet doesn't mean that we shouldn't protest the violation. Hang on again. I am not advocating violent revolution (especially given all the security bots and nervous public servants that are listening). I am merely pointing out that violent revolution is the near inevitable result of ever decreasing freedom.The problem is that, after generations of freedom, we begin to take our freedoms for granted and we are increasingly led by our fears. We begin to prosecute people for things that they might do. It becomes a crime to possess the ability to commit a crime. We become liable for failing to prevent other people from doing stupid things.We end up with a grey world full of big warning stickers advising us about the dangers of string and plastic bags and where you get sued for serving coffee that is too hot. A world where we can not be trusted with lawn darts and perhaps, before long, pressure cookers and back packs.

I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm saying we don't. Niemoller wasn't refering only to one specific situation. It seems to be human nature not to oil the wheel until the squeak annoys us personally. I asked you for an historical example where that worked.If we "should" protest threats to our freedom, maybe we "should" also protest the idea that freedom can be won through violence. Well, that slope is slippery in both directions. Should we let people drive drunk because they haven't killed anybody yet?

trade unionists??

I don't think trade unionists won the freedom to bargain collectively, etc. by violence. Violence was used against them and sometimes violence was met with violence but labour rights were gained through democratic means.