12 ms·

The FBI is tracking whom?

54 points by FSecurePal 16y ago

wccrawford 16y ago
So he was the friend of someone that the FBI was concerned about? That's how terrorist cells work. Friends. Yeah, they should have obeyed the law, but I don't have a problem with them watching him, so long as they don't actually disrupt his life. (They failed at that, too, though.)
- loewenskind 16y ago
  When can we stop giving up our rights in exchange for protection from a non-existent boogie man? Which terrorist cells work this way exactly? Al Quieda? Except that's a made up name for an organization that doesn't exist. So where does your insight about how terrorist "cells" work come from exactly?
  - uxp 16y ago
    > Al Quieda? Except that's a made up name for an organization that doesn't exist. Al-Qaeda does exist, but in the same way Athiesm exists as an organization. One doesn't have to attend regular meetings to be considered a "member". Note: I am not comparing the views of either ideas/groups, but the structural nature. I do agree with your point however. Instead of putting a short leash on this kid, DHS or FBI could have easily interviewed him, probably with his permission, and found out that he is no threat to national security. He's here to attend school, and will occasionally send money to only his family, not some large, decentralized terrorist group. This kid wants everything you and I want, with freedom being high on his priorities.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >Al-Qaeda does exist http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-... The name was made up to use the RICO law to charge people who weren't present in the first WTC bombing. The name never existed before that. Bin Laden probably calls himself this now because he thinks it's a fancy western name for Muslim extremists. > Instead of putting a short leash on this kid, DHS or FBI could have easily interviewed him, probably with his permission, and found out that he is no threat to national security. The question is: why was he considered at all? Because he is half Egyptian? Or could it have to do with him pointing out how stupid and fictional the "War on Terror" is?
senki 16y ago
The original Wired article was posted five days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1770444 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1770444
- alecco 16y ago
  Schneier = infosec blogspammer. And very slow at that.
levesque 16y ago
I find this extremely amusing and sad both at the same time. How far will they go to 'prevent' terrorism?
- aristus 16y ago
  As far as necessary until told different by their bosses. I often don't agree with what they do, but law enforcement gets a lot of crap in all seasons. When a terrorist slips through (eg, the underwear bomber) people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind not to follow leads that are obvious in retrospect. When they get caught following up a terrible lead (eg a Reddit post), people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind, and so on.
  - rdtsc 16y ago
    > As far as necessary until told different by their bosses. So if they start slaughtering people tomorrow and bosses don't tell them to stop in time, then they are just "doing their job" right? > ... but law enforcement gets a lot of crap in all seasons. I wonder why that is? Why don't barbers, engineers, firefighters get as much crap? And besides, who are bosses anyway? Aren't people the bosses. If people pay taxes for this "protection" they have all the justification to howl. How is that different than paying for a service, not getting it, and then complaining. > When they get caught following up a terrible lead (eg a Reddit post), people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind, and so on. If people didn't "howl" in that case, then we would have clearly reached some kind of total surveilance stage, where citizens are monitored by law enforcement agencies for any reason, any time, and nobody thinks twice about it. Notice how the traditional media didn't "howl" too much at it. That's a telling lesson of the kind of biases we are dealing with.
    - aristus 16y ago
      I didn't intend to pick a fight, only point out that they take crap on either end of the spectrum. Some people expect everything and anything to be done to prevent terrorism. Others expect a firm line on individual rights. Different people howl for different reasons. That's politics in essence. The priorities law enforcement deals with have fundamental conflicts which are often fueled by outrage and political expediency. It's not a fun situation for anyone. No one wants to be "soft on crime", but neither do they want their malls blown up. I imagine that barbers don't get the same level of crap because their job is not a political football. I am certainly not excusing stupidity or malice.
siculars 16y ago
I hate to play the devils advocate but actually this kid more or less fits the profile of a "person of interest". Let's run through the facts as reported in the wired piece, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device.... - young Muslim male - travels extensively to / lived in a Muslim country - linked to another "person of interes" - has immediate family that currently lives in a Muslim country - sends money to family members in a Muslim country - he returned alone to the US while the rest of his family stayed in Egypt. Now, although traking does seem like an over reaction in this case you gotta ask yourself what job it is the FBI is tasked with. I have yet to see a comment mentioning the end of the article where the FBI agent says to the kid "don't worry you're boring", meaning they figured out he is not a threat. Also, we do not know why the FBI specifically wanted to track this kid. Perhaps the kid knows people even more interesting and they want to use him to get to them. Who knows. I also do not agree with warrantless tracking and if they did need to get a warrant perhaps they would have thought more and decided not to track this kid. That said, the FBI watches potential threats all the time and this kid has all the flags, for better or worse.
- alextp 16y ago
  Replace muslim by whatever (asian, nigerian, haitian, mexican, brazillian) and you have a generic immigrant profile. The only slightly unusual thing about this is being linked to another person of interest, but then with this loose definition almost everybody qualifies.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Replace muslim by whatever (asian, nigerian, haitian, mexican, brazillian) and you have a generic immigrant profile, Yup. The Haitians are especially dangerous, second only to the home-grown Lutheran terrorists. If you're going to complain afterwards that the govt didn't "connect the dots" ....
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
middlegeek 16y ago
"...vaguely bothersome post on an obscure blog..." Hardly obscure: http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-traffic.html http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

54 points by FSecurePal 16y ago

So he was the friend of someone that the FBI was concerned about? That's how terrorist cells work. Friends. Yeah, they should have obeyed the law, but I don't have a problem with them watching him, so long as they don't actually disrupt his life. (They failed at that, too, though.)

loewenskind 16y ago
When can we stop giving up our rights in exchange for protection from a non-existent boogie man? Which terrorist cells work this way exactly? Al Quieda? Except that's a made up name for an organization that doesn't exist. So where does your insight about how terrorist "cells" work come from exactly?
- uxp 16y ago
  > Al Quieda? Except that's a made up name for an organization that doesn't exist. Al-Qaeda does exist, but in the same way Athiesm exists as an organization. One doesn't have to attend regular meetings to be considered a "member". Note: I am not comparing the views of either ideas/groups, but the structural nature. I do agree with your point however. Instead of putting a short leash on this kid, DHS or FBI could have easily interviewed him, probably with his permission, and found out that he is no threat to national security. He's here to attend school, and will occasionally send money to only his family, not some large, decentralized terrorist group. This kid wants everything you and I want, with freedom being high on his priorities.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >Al-Qaeda does exist http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-... The name was made up to use the RICO law to charge people who weren't present in the first WTC bombing. The name never existed before that. Bin Laden probably calls himself this now because he thinks it's a fancy western name for Muslim extremists. > Instead of putting a short leash on this kid, DHS or FBI could have easily interviewed him, probably with his permission, and found out that he is no threat to national security. The question is: why was he considered at all? Because he is half Egyptian? Or could it have to do with him pointing out how stupid and fictional the "War on Terror" is?

senki 16y ago

The original Wired article was posted five days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1770444 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1770444

alecco 16y ago
Schneier = infosec blogspammer. And very slow at that.

levesque 16y ago

I find this extremely amusing and sad both at the same time. How far will they go to 'prevent' terrorism?

aristus 16y ago
As far as necessary until told different by their bosses. I often don't agree with what they do, but law enforcement gets a lot of crap in all seasons. When a terrorist slips through (eg, the underwear bomber) people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind not to follow leads that are obvious in retrospect. When they get caught following up a terrible lead (eg a Reddit post), people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind, and so on.
- rdtsc 16y ago
  > As far as necessary until told different by their bosses. So if they start slaughtering people tomorrow and bosses don't tell them to stop in time, then they are just "doing their job" right? > ... but law enforcement gets a lot of crap in all seasons. I wonder why that is? Why don't barbers, engineers, firefighters get as much crap? And besides, who are bosses anyway? Aren't people the bosses. If people pay taxes for this "protection" they have all the justification to howl. How is that different than paying for a service, not getting it, and then complaining. > When they get caught following up a terrible lead (eg a Reddit post), people howl, asking how they could be so stupid and blind, and so on. If people didn't "howl" in that case, then we would have clearly reached some kind of total surveilance stage, where citizens are monitored by law enforcement agencies for any reason, any time, and nobody thinks twice about it. Notice how the traditional media didn't "howl" too much at it. That's a telling lesson of the kind of biases we are dealing with.
  - aristus 16y ago
    I didn't intend to pick a fight, only point out that they take crap on either end of the spectrum. Some people expect everything and anything to be done to prevent terrorism. Others expect a firm line on individual rights. Different people howl for different reasons. That's politics in essence. The priorities law enforcement deals with have fundamental conflicts which are often fueled by outrage and political expediency. It's not a fun situation for anyone. No one wants to be "soft on crime", but neither do they want their malls blown up. I imagine that barbers don't get the same level of crap because their job is not a political football. I am certainly not excusing stupidity or malice.

siculars 16y ago

I hate to play the devils advocate but actually this kid more or less fits the profile of a "person of interest". Let's run through the facts as reported in the wired piece, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device.... - young Muslim male - travels extensively to / lived in a Muslim country - linked to another "person of interes" - has immediate family that currently lives in a Muslim country - sends money to family members in a Muslim country - he returned alone to the US while the rest of his family stayed in Egypt. Now, although traking does seem like an over reaction in this case you gotta ask yourself what job it is the FBI is tasked with. I have yet to see a comment mentioning the end of the article where the FBI agent says to the kid "don't worry you're boring", meaning they figured out he is not a threat. Also, we do not know why the FBI specifically wanted to track this kid. Perhaps the kid knows people even more interesting and they want to use him to get to them. Who knows. I also do not agree with warrantless tracking and if they did need to get a warrant perhaps they would have thought more and decided not to track this kid. That said, the FBI watches potential threats all the time and this kid has all the flags, for better or worse.

alextp 16y ago
Replace muslim by whatever (asian, nigerian, haitian, mexican, brazillian) and you have a generic immigrant profile. The only slightly unusual thing about this is being linked to another person of interest, but then with this loose definition almost everybody qualifies.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Replace muslim by whatever (asian, nigerian, haitian, mexican, brazillian) and you have a generic immigrant profile, Yup. The Haitians are especially dangerous, second only to the home-grown Lutheran terrorists. If you're going to complain afterwards that the govt didn't "connect the dots" ....
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

middlegeek 16y ago

"...vaguely bothersome post on an obscure blog..." Hardly obscure: http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-traffic.html http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]