TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:Seems like some people are missing the part where the officers said they do the same thing about 100 times a week and 99% of the time (and I suspect that number is generous) find nothing worth investigating.

And regardless of where the tip came from the response is absurd; as is the notion that free people get visits from the police for internet searches, especially when the search involves big events that people are naturally curious about. Gee, I've done searches for suppressors and machine guns, a combination far more deadly than a backpack and a pressure cooker. If the police have the time to run down "tips" as ridiculous as this then they've got way more resources than they actually need, and huge budget cuts are in order.

You're making the assumption that we're still a free people. Recent events bring that assumption into question.

I'll let you know if I get a visit. I told my son about this and he immediately got on google and searched how to make a pressure cooker bomb.

Jaguar wrote:I'll let you know if I get a visit. I told my son about this and he immediately got on google and searched how to make a pressure cooker bomb.

[ Image ]

FREE JAGUAR

gigag04 wrote:

Jaguar wrote:I'll let you know if I get a visit. I told my son about this and he immediately got on google and searched how to make a pressure cooker bomb.

[ Image ]

FREE JAGUAR

Got a warrant?

Jaguar wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Jaguar wrote:I'll let you know if I get a visit. I told my son about this and he immediately got on google and searched how to make a pressure cooker bomb.

[ Image ]

FREE JAGUAR

Got a warrant?

Yes, but you can't see it.

EEllis wrote:

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:Unless you were googling it from a place that just fired you I don't think you have to worry. Oh and congrats on spreading the parranoia to the next generation. JK

It's not a question of PARANOIA, EEllis....it's your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT under the 4th Amendment.

What not to have people watching how you use their stuff? It was the IT department checking out a turned in laptop that got nervous when there were bomb making searches. Big shock they mentioned it to the cops. It makes no sense to believe that would be a constitutional violation. If fact that anyone even tried to make such an argument is amazing. I'm not feeding into the absurdity I'm done with this crap.

Don't act obtuse...her comment was about not allowing a search of her home without a warrant...and you know full well that's what my 4th Amendment comment referenced. Regardless of where a "TIP" comes from, there's no right to search without a warrant.

gigag04 wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

Jaguar wrote:I'll let you know if I get a visit. I told my son about this and he immediately got on google and searched how to make a pressure cooker bomb.

[ Image ]

FREE JAGUAR

Got a warrant?

Yes, but you can't see it.

Touché

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:Unless you were googling it from a place that just fired you I don't think you have to worry. Oh and congrats on spreading the parranoia to the next generation. JK

It's not a question of PARANOIA, EEllis....it's your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT under the 4th Amendment.

What not to have people watching how you use their stuff? It was the IT department checking out a turned in laptop that got nervous when there were bomb making searches. Big shock they mentioned it to the cops. It makes no sense to believe that would be a constitutional violation. If fact that anyone even tried to make such an argument is amazing. I'm not feeding into the absurdity I'm done with this crap.

Don't act obtuse...her comment was about not allowing a search of her home without a warrant...and you know full well that's what my 4th Amendment comment referenced. Regardless of where a "TIP" comes from, there's no right to search without a warrant.

Don't even try TT, I've given up, when he enters a discussion I leave, he takes all the fun out of it.

EEllis wrote:
What not to have people watching how you use their stuff? It was the IT department checking out a turned in laptop that got nervous when there were bomb making searches. Big shock they mentioned it to the cops. It makes no sense to believe that would be a constitutional violation. If fact that anyone even tried to make such an argument is amazing. I'm not feeding into the absurdity I'm done with this crap.

It seems like every thread I read lately degenerates into stuff like this. Makes it not even worth posting. But hey, thanks, I was spending too much time on this forum anyway.

Not sure why people are so upset.
The stupid husband used his work computer to search stuff that he should have been searching for on his personal computer.
The IT department simply reported suspicious activity on a former (disgruntled?) employees computer.
The local police department sends a few officers (probably much fewer than reported in the blog) to talk to the guy.
The husbands invites the officers into the house.
The officers look around, ask a few questions, and leave.

Should we be angry? Maybe. Who should we be angry at? Lets aim our anger at the proper targets:
1. The idiot that used his work computer to look this stuff up. (I have a work computer that is used for my work and a personal computer that is used for my business.)
2. The idiot that invited the cops into his house. Cops without warrants are kinda like vampires, they can't come in unless you invite them. (No reason for the cops to have a warrant at this point because there isn't enough evidence to obtain one.)
3. The idiot wife who mislead all of us in her blog by suggesting that unrelated google searches by 3 different people in the house was the reason behind the visit of multiple NSA agents.

What if the husband had been up to no good and the IT department had failed to report what they had found or the police department failed to investigate and the husband blows up a bunch of his former coworkers. People would have been up in arms saying that the IT department or the police department knew this guy was a problem and failed in their duty to do anything to stop this tragedy.

Catch 22 I guess.

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:

talltex wrote:

EEllis wrote:Unless you were googling it from a place that just fired you I don't think you have to worry. Oh and congrats on spreading the parranoia to the next generation. JK

It's not a question of PARANOIA, EEllis....it's your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT under the 4th Amendment.

What not to have people watching how you use their stuff? It was the IT department checking out a turned in laptop that got nervous when there were bomb making searches. Big shock they mentioned it to the cops. It makes no sense to believe that would be a constitutional violation. If fact that anyone even tried to make such an argument is amazing. I'm not feeding into the absurdity I'm done with this crap.

Don't act obtuse...her comment was about not allowing a search of her home without a warrant...and you know full well that's what my 4th Amendment comment referenced. Regardless of where a "TIP" comes from, there's no right to search without a warrant.

Here's where some of those "tips" come from: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-direc ... 43729.html

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.

More evidence that they aren't just reading metadata, since without reading the content, they wouldn't know there was anything to investigate.

bdickens wrote:"Do you have a warrant?"

"No."

"Have a nice day." *SLAM*

Correct scenario.