3 ms·

> The 9/11 hijackers and the Boston marathon bombers where both flagged yet the attacks still happened because there was simply far to much noise and not enough

by acqq 11y ago

> The 9/11 hijackers and the Boston marathon bombers where both flagged yet the attacks still happened because there was simply far to much noise and not enough signal. I've never read that this was a typical "noise": "NBC News said the Russian intelligence agency FSB cabled the FBI about its concerns in March 2011, warning that Tsarnaev was known to have associated with militant Islamists." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326#KLiMs6ZeKSVHdwtB.97 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosions-boston-cong...

maxerickson 11y ago
The gp isn't calling that noise, it's the thousands of other things that they track that don't lead to anything that are noise.
- acqq 11y ago
  And my argument is that the Boston bomber warning from the Russian authorities doesn't appear like a typical "noise," at last for somebody just reading the news, like me. I admit I don't know how many such warnings come from Russia, but I doubt it's really something overwhelming, especially compared to collecting every phone record of everybody, if you know more I'm surely interested.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    I do not know the internal workings of the FBI but am willing to believe that they are on point enough that such a warning either didn't particularly stand out from others or that it did not get looked at due to a shortage of resources.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Sure, and in this case they actually conducted an interview. So, we had an FBI guy in the same room with a future terrorist. But, the attack still happened. Which points to a wider issue, sure he was suspicious, but then what?
    - acqq 11y ago
      > Which points to a wider issue, sure he was suspicious, but then what? That's exactly the question to which Europe also searches for the answer now. One of the reasons everybody bends over backwards to avoid saying anything against the religions in different countries is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law "In some European countries is the crime of "religious insult", which is a subset of the crime of blasphemy. It is forbidden in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.[30]" "The report noted that, in Europe, blasphemy is an offense only in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and San Marino.[contradiction]" Human rights be damned as long as the religions teach against them, you can't call a spade a spade. It would be insulting.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        I'm quite ashamed to see NL on that list. Really, we should know better than this. But then again, we're also still a monarchy so we have a bit of a history of believing fairy tales.
        maxerickson 11y ago
        The date of the most recent prosecution would be a little bit more telling about the cultural atmosphere than just having the law on the books. For example, only recently did my state repeal some stupid laws, removing them from the state code: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/20/it-s-almost-legal-to-swear-in-front-of-your-kids-in-michigan.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/20/it-s-almost... Still, it was big news 15 years ago when someone was prosecuted under the swearing law, and the courts eventually tossed the law: http://lubbockonline.com/stories/040102/upd_075-8555.shtml http://lubbockonline.com/stories/040102/upd_075-8555.shtml I label that unsurprising inertia more than I label it embarrassing.
        jacquesm 11y ago
mtgx 11y ago
I think he meant it in the sense that "we have 10,000 other people who are associated with militant Islamits in our database, why should we care about these guys?" That's the noise he's talking about. The reason you can't "prevent" terrorism, is because there are way too many people who "act a certain way", whatever that way may be. This isn't helped by the fact that agencies like TSA and whatnot have huge lists or vague descriptions of what describes "suspicious behavior" that pretty much cover everyone who goes through the airport. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141024/14222128933/guidelines-who-might-be-suspicious-too-nervous-too-calm-blending-standing-out-its-all-suspcious.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141024/14222128933/guide... That's noise. You're giving these agents exponentially more factors to consider that makes it impossible for them to find the real terrorist. It really is "making the haystack bigger" (as a counter-argument to NSA's opinion that mass surveillance helps them "find the needle in the haystack").
- acqq 11y ago
  > "we have 10,000 other people who are associated with militant Islamits in our database "And for who even Russians spent their energy to notify us"? I'd expect that most of the 10,000 others aren't on the list because Russians notify the FBI. Or you know more than I do, and I'd be glad to learn. Or maybe the warning was ignored because of the Tsarnaev's uncle? http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/04/5090/former-cia-officer-absurd-to-link-uncle-of-boston-suspects-agency-over-daughters-brief-marriage/ http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/04/5090/for... Interestingly, the "Terrorist Watch List" reached 1 million in 2009: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-10-watchlist_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-10-wa... It seems your estimate was two orders of magnitude off.
  - barrkel 11y ago
    Interestingly, the "Terrorist Watch List" reached 1 million in 2009: [...] It seems your estimate was two orders of magnitude off. This doesn't strengthen your assertions.
    - 11y ago
barrkel 11y ago
Unless you know how many other people FSB cabled the FBI about, and how many other sources of information that the FBI would give similar levels of weight to, you can't properly describe this as noise or not.

by acqq 11y ago

maxerickson 11y ago

The gp isn't calling that noise, it's the thousands of other things that they track that don't lead to anything that are noise.

acqq 11y ago
And my argument is that the Boston bomber warning from the Russian authorities doesn't appear like a typical "noise," at last for somebody just reading the news, like me. I admit I don't know how many such warnings come from Russia, but I doubt it's really something overwhelming, especially compared to collecting every phone record of everybody, if you know more I'm surely interested.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  I do not know the internal workings of the FBI but am willing to believe that they are on point enough that such a warning either didn't particularly stand out from others or that it did not get looked at due to a shortage of resources.
- Retric 11y ago
  Sure, and in this case they actually conducted an interview. So, we had an FBI guy in the same room with a future terrorist. But, the attack still happened. Which points to a wider issue, sure he was suspicious, but then what?
  - acqq 11y ago
    > Which points to a wider issue, sure he was suspicious, but then what? That's exactly the question to which Europe also searches for the answer now. One of the reasons everybody bends over backwards to avoid saying anything against the religions in different countries is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law "In some European countries is the crime of "religious insult", which is a subset of the crime of blasphemy. It is forbidden in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.[30]" "The report noted that, in Europe, blasphemy is an offense only in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, and San Marino.[contradiction]" Human rights be damned as long as the religions teach against them, you can't call a spade a spade. It would be insulting.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      I'm quite ashamed to see NL on that list. Really, we should know better than this. But then again, we're also still a monarchy so we have a bit of a history of believing fairy tales.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        The date of the most recent prosecution would be a little bit more telling about the cultural atmosphere than just having the law on the books. For example, only recently did my state repeal some stupid laws, removing them from the state code: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/20/it-s-almost-legal-to-swear-in-front-of-your-kids-in-michigan.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/20/it-s-almost... Still, it was big news 15 years ago when someone was prosecuted under the swearing law, and the courts eventually tossed the law: http://lubbockonline.com/stories/040102/upd_075-8555.shtml http://lubbockonline.com/stories/040102/upd_075-8555.shtml I label that unsurprising inertia more than I label it embarrassing.
        jacquesm 11y ago

mtgx 11y ago

I think he meant it in the sense that "we have 10,000 other people who are associated with militant Islamits in our database, why should we care about these guys?" That's the noise he's talking about. The reason you can't "prevent" terrorism, is because there are way too many people who "act a certain way", whatever that way may be. This isn't helped by the fact that agencies like TSA and whatnot have huge lists or vague descriptions of what describes "suspicious behavior" that pretty much cover everyone who goes through the airport. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141024/14222128933/guidelines-who-might-be-suspicious-too-nervous-too-calm-blending-standing-out-its-all-suspcious.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141024/14222128933/guide... That's noise. You're giving these agents exponentially more factors to consider that makes it impossible for them to find the real terrorist. It really is "making the haystack bigger" (as a counter-argument to NSA's opinion that mass surveillance helps them "find the needle in the haystack").

acqq 11y ago
> "we have 10,000 other people who are associated with militant Islamits in our database "And for who even Russians spent their energy to notify us"? I'd expect that most of the 10,000 others aren't on the list because Russians notify the FBI. Or you know more than I do, and I'd be glad to learn. Or maybe the warning was ignored because of the Tsarnaev's uncle? http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/04/5090/former-cia-officer-absurd-to-link-uncle-of-boston-suspects-agency-over-daughters-brief-marriage/ http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/04/5090/for... Interestingly, the "Terrorist Watch List" reached 1 million in 2009: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-10-watchlist_N.htm http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-10-wa... It seems your estimate was two orders of magnitude off.
- barrkel 11y ago
  Interestingly, the "Terrorist Watch List" reached 1 million in 2009: [...] It seems your estimate was two orders of magnitude off. This doesn't strengthen your assertions.
  - 11y ago

barrkel 11y ago

Unless you know how many other people FSB cabled the FBI about, and how many other sources of information that the FBI would give similar levels of weight to, you can't properly describe this as noise or not.