> After interviewing the company representatives, Suffolk County Police Detectives visited the subject’s home to ask about the suspicious internet searches.
So they went to someone's house because of "suspicious internet searches". The fact that the search wasn't detected using an automated system doesn't diminish my point that they think it's ok to turn up on your doorstep if they don't like the searches you're making.
They received a tip form a employer that they discovered some suspicious searches on their former (fired?) employee's work computer. These sort of tips kind of have to be followed up on.
Seriously? Officials needs to follow up every time a company is pissed at the employee and they fire employee and that's not enough for them so lets report him/her on some "suspicious activity"?
I am not implying this happened here, but we don't know what's the story behind this guy being fired. There are remote chances that the company tried to be vicious with him after letting him go. It happened many times before.
This could be similar situation to the one where A starts beating B, out of nowhere, and then A calls cops before B had a chance to do so. Cops show up and A says: "look at my bruises" and B gets arrested.
I think this was a mostly appropriate response. In my opinion (and it wouldn't surprise me if this was the opinion of the law) police are obligated to follow up on more or less ever tip. I think if it had just been a couple of cops instead of the reported multitude, that would have been better.
The problem is people making bad tips to the police; if the intent is malicious, they should be prosecuted.
Exactly my point so what I want to see from Suffolk is their follow up and thorough investigation into said computer of fired employees and some hard proof of what they searched for.
Fine, but as law enforcement, if you receive a tip that someone is acting suspiciously, it is downright irresponsible for that tip to not be followed up on.
Sounds like the problem here was the employer, not the cops. Heck, it sounds like they didn't even have a warrant to search - they asked if they could come in and the person said yes.
I think the point is that this didn't used to constitute suspicious activity. The range of suspicious activity is growing and growing. Something that no one has really talked about yet is the effect recent revelations have had on the overton window (the narrow range of opinions the public will accept)[1]. Having such extreme behaviour exhibited by governments has the effect of making previously questionable policies seem more moderate and acceptable.
I'm not so sure, really. If a reasonably well respected employer phoned in a tip about an employee looking up what they thought were terrorist-y things on a work computer (we'll never know what they actually phoned in, I'd love to know though!), I'd have expected that to generate an investigation for quite some time now.
The worst I can possibly think of to accuse the cops with in this case is showing up with too many people. One or two uniformed officers was all that was necessary.
We don't know the whole story, when the police interviewed the employers they may have described the employee as unstable or disgruntled which, with the internet searches, warranted a visit to the former employee. This story reminds me of a story by Adam Savage [1] where he was ordering a movie prop and received a call by the FBI and it was quickly dismissed but the agent still had to follow up the tip.
So they went to someone's house because of "suspicious internet searches". The fact that the search wasn't detected using an automated system doesn't diminish my point that they think it's ok to turn up on your doorstep if they don't like the searches you're making.