The "original report", the Catalano blog post on Medium, overtly said that the US Government was monitoring her family's Google searches, and she followed that up on Twitter with a direct accusation that the FBI was behind it, followed by a "correction" that it was "the JTTF".
That original report has now been debunked. But it won't be retracted. Print a retraction and the NSA wins.
Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history.
Nothing overt about USG watching Google's query IO. I don't think it's a stretch to confuse the FBI with the JTTF, nor that it's a huge leap between the efforts taken against her family and "someone [...] [piecing] together things people do on the internet." Everything she said happened, you just interpreted it incorrectly and started us down the wrong conversation.
Frankly, I think it's pretty telling that we're so on edge about how we are interpreting these findings.
She didn't confuse FBI with JTTF, she confused local Police Detectives with JTTF (which includes the FBI).
This is the part where she suggests the government is watching her entire family (herself, her husband and her son):
"search for a backpack set off an alarm of sorts at the joint terrorism task force headquarters."
and
"I imagine [...] Lots of bells and whistles and a crowd of task force workers huddled around a computer screen looking at our Google history."
"The Government" isn't spying on her to make sure she isn't a terrorist, the software an employer has to monitor the disclosure of trade secrets and disgruntled employees flagged risky behavior. The employer then contacted local police, who visited and did an amazingly lack-luster investigation of the situation (as she states in her story).
Frankly, I think it's pretty telling that we're so on edge about how we are interpreting these findings.
Well, you might be. I just got bored of seeing the headline, which I dismissed as implausible immediately and didn't bother clicking on the linkbait. So I haven't been able to join in the circus act here on HN.
Well, the author was at work? Her husband was at home?
Ergo, the author didn't have all of the information available when the article was written.
Shall I post a retraction with an equally misinformed slant, or can we agree that the wholesale collection of a great percentage of the electronic communications on Earth is an egregious breach of the public trust?
Note that she has now posted a "retraction" which, impressively, manages not to retract the money claim of her whole story (which is that the government was monitoring her family's Internet searches); no, instead, she's corrected it to (paraphrase) "unbeknownst to us, the government wasn't solely relying on my family's Internet searches".
Yet, in light of the current situation, considering the hyperbole surrounding this issue, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, whereas I am much less willing to grant the same amount of forgiveness to the US government.
The track record is not in the government's favor, unless you support the many questionably unconstitutional programs perpetuated by the US government, from seemingly innocuous "hoovering" of electronic communications the world over, to extra-judicial executions of Americans suspected of "terrorism," to endless proxy wars which only serve to enrich a few "vendors" while simultaneously depleting our national resources.
I refuse to adhere to the Bushism "yer either with us, or yer against us..."
It is not so cut & dried. Not so black & white.
It is possible to be anti terrorist while also being anti conflict proliferation.
I refuse to adhere to the Bushism "yer either with us, or yer against us..."
Funny, if anyone expresses skepticism about that anti-government narrative then they are labeled as NSA shills - exactly as in "you are either with us or against us".
Comments
The "original report", the Catalano blog post on Medium, overtly said that the US Government was monitoring her family's Google searches, and she followed that up on Twitter with a direct accusation that the FBI was behind it, followed by a "correction" that it was "the JTTF".
That original report has now been debunked. But it won't be retracted. Print a retraction and the NSA wins.
Link to that diff? Her medium blog reads...
Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history.
Nothing overt about USG watching Google's query IO. I don't think it's a stretch to confuse the FBI with the JTTF, nor that it's a huge leap between the efforts taken against her family and "someone [...] [piecing] together things people do on the internet." Everything she said happened, you just interpreted it incorrectly and started us down the wrong conversation.
Frankly, I think it's pretty telling that we're so on edge about how we are interpreting these findings.
She didn't confuse FBI with JTTF, she confused local Police Detectives with JTTF (which includes the FBI).
This is the part where she suggests the government is watching her entire family (herself, her husband and her son): "search for a backpack set off an alarm of sorts at the joint terrorism task force headquarters." and "I imagine [...] Lots of bells and whistles and a crowd of task force workers huddled around a computer screen looking at our Google history."
"The Government" isn't spying on her to make sure she isn't a terrorist, the software an employer has to monitor the disclosure of trade secrets and disgruntled employees flagged risky behavior. The employer then contacted local police, who visited and did an amazingly lack-luster investigation of the situation (as she states in her story).
FWIW, she cross-posted to here http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/08/01-8 , and I don't see any significant changes.
Well, you might be. I just got bored of seeing the headline, which I dismissed as implausible immediately and didn't bother clicking on the linkbait. So I haven't been able to join in the circus act here on HN.
Well, the author was at work? Her husband was at home?
Ergo, the author didn't have all of the information available when the article was written.
Shall I post a retraction with an equally misinformed slant, or can we agree that the wholesale collection of a great percentage of the electronic communications on Earth is an egregious breach of the public trust?
Note that she has now posted a "retraction" which, impressively, manages not to retract the money claim of her whole story (which is that the government was monitoring her family's Internet searches); no, instead, she's corrected it to (paraphrase) "unbeknownst to us, the government wasn't solely relying on my family's Internet searches".
Touché.
Yet, in light of the current situation, considering the hyperbole surrounding this issue, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, whereas I am much less willing to grant the same amount of forgiveness to the US government.
The track record is not in the government's favor, unless you support the many questionably unconstitutional programs perpetuated by the US government, from seemingly innocuous "hoovering" of electronic communications the world over, to extra-judicial executions of Americans suspected of "terrorism," to endless proxy wars which only serve to enrich a few "vendors" while simultaneously depleting our national resources.
I refuse to adhere to the Bushism "yer either with us, or yer against us..."
It is not so cut & dried. Not so black & white.
It is possible to be anti terrorist while also being anti conflict proliferation.
Funny, if anyone expresses skepticism about that anti-government narrative then they are labeled as NSA shills - exactly as in "you are either with us or against us".