3 ms·
I certainly agree with your conclusion that there's a pretty low probability to be "inconvenienced by the FBI", especially compared with other, pretty real, dan
by cnvogel 13y ago
I certainly agree with your conclusion that there's a pretty low probability to be "inconvenienced by the FBI", especially compared with other, pretty real, dangers of our everyday life.
Nevertheless, taking this case as an example, it must be concluded that the FBI would have "inconvenienced" one less citizen if they had applied Occam's razor on some of the evidence, or had not ignored some proof that had ruled out that particular suspect.
Would they constantly do this, their false-positive rate might even be lower(!), they might not have wasted resources on a pointless investigation against this person... But, yes, a further "Uber-Terrorist" which indeed is able to plant false evidence to cast doubt on his guilt might elude them.
What I don't agree with you at all is calling HN user girvo a "fucking dubass", so please leave this community, we'll not miss you.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoInvestigations are about gathering evidence quickly. The trail grows cold very, very fast. Hours, and even minutes, count a lot. By being fast you get inside the other side's decision loop, which is the surest road to victory. The actions were not a pointless waste of resources. If you see a smoking building, you cann the fire department and they haul ass. If it turns out to be dust from renovations, the call out is not a waste. False alarms are the necessary cost of true alarms. I will continue to call a spade a spade. If a worthless political shill posts their insane, childish conspiracy theory, they need to be told to take that shit elsewhere in clear terms. Saying that one mistake means everyone everywhere is in grave danger ranks up there with chemtrails and grassy knolls.