5 ms·

> I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control. The FBI followed up to get the story straight. The FBI

> I thought we were all much more conscious of how these types of programs start to spin out of control. The FBI followed up to get the story straight. The FBI didn't know what the guy was doing or why he wasn't doing it, therefore they went to go find out. They sought out the truth. So please enlighten me as to how this can "spin out of control".

Centigonal 12y ago
To get the story about what straight? The man was taking a picture of a natural gas tank with some art on it. What about that elicits involvement from the FBI? Sure, you could argue the guards were concerned he (some 86 year old guy with a camera) was part of a terrorist plot to blow up the natural gas tank. If you draw the line for suspicious activity there, though, then that time I searched Google Maps for local dairies should be equally concerning, since I could be planning to poison the food supply (I'm not. I am, however, looking for a good source of fresh milk for cheesemaking).
- wfunction 12y ago
  I think if some terrorist actually did try to poison the food supply like that, it could very well make you become a suspect for that too. Except I don't recall anything famous like that actually having happened in the recent past (correct me if I'm wrong).
  - pyre 12y ago
    So you are advocating a reactive approach where we constantly look to the last terrorist attack as the pattern for what the next terrorist attack will look like?
    - wfunction 12y ago
      Yeah, I think the models need to be recent terrorist attacks, not potential ones that people can dream of on a whim. Kind of like how judges work reactively, they don't make rulings on cases they haven't seen yet.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
        > Yeah, I think the models need to be recent terrorist attacks Bruce Schneier disagrees: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/09/terrorists_dont_do_m.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/09/terrorists_...
    - yourad_io 12y ago
      Exactly - if it is good enough for the TSA... </s>
- jonnybgood 12y ago
  > To get the story about what straight? If the security guard suspicion was justified. The FBI found out that is wasn't. Case closed. They did everything by the book. And are you telling me that they shouldn't?
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    I'm telling you they shouldn't. They should exercise some judgment, realize some bored-ass security guards (think about how dull it must be to guard a site like that) made a report just to feel important, and then toss it right in the trash can. It was a guy taking pictures of a structure in public. No, the FBI should not be tracking him down.
    - jonnybgood 12y ago
      So you want the FBI to risk establishing cognitive biases instead of going out and finding the truth?
      - serf 12y ago
        Yes, except I want them to establish cognitive biases. Let's leave off that 'risk' part, as the risk is already inherent when you bark up wrong trees throughout the investigation. (time loss is the result of the risk posed by uncertain guesswork) Let's get rid of that 'instead' you used, too. Sneaky! There's no reason for 'establish cognitive bias' and 'find the truth' to be exclusive from one another, is there? So here's the new cleaned up version I think I can get behind : "I would like the FBI to establish cognitive biases as a tool towards the goal of finding the truth." Much better!
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - serf 12y ago
    Yeah. Exactly. The FBI chased a dead lead instead of investigating (actually) urgent matters, wasting time and taxpayer money in the process. The agents may have acted fine. Whoever told them to act, or decided to act on such flimsy circumstances, are the ones who are wrong. If the agents decided to investigate this at their own discretion perhaps it was a way to instantiate a cross-country vacation within the workplace. That'd be the best we could hope for, because if the agents thought that this guy was a threat (especially given his names' public image and photography portfolio), that's a problem. You're not at all scared that FBI agents interpret the suspicions of a security guard with greater priority than some random person on the side of the road? I've met plenty of security guards, and a number of them were so grossly under qualified that the thought of them as some sort of authority figure is horrifying, doubly so with FBI backing.
- bediger4000 12y ago
  You're pointing down the very best road that all this dragnet surveillance can take us: a war on the unexpected. Once everything we do, on or off net, is observed and recorded, the only thing that Johnny Law can do is try to check out the things that are unusual: looking for fresh milk. Or wait, maybe you're one of the animal rights folks, and you're trying to figure out a way around the "ag-gag" laws. How does Johnny Law know? He or she doesn't. If you're lucky, like the photographer, they come ask. If not, you're on The List. Maybe you don't get to fly any more. Maybe you just can't get a new job.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  We don't know what the security guard told the FBI. They may have exaggerated, lied, or there may have been other circumstances the author of the article didn't mention.
- Natsu 12y ago
  Boston is very touchy and has been, as evidenced by past displays like the Mooninite scare where the called the bomb squad over some cartoon signs with blinking lights. I have to wonder, though, the way things are, if they were protecting the copyright on the building or because it's filled with liquified natural gas? Then again, it could be both...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dontmindifido 12y ago
It is not practical to investigate every instance of someone doing something 'unusual' (even if you can define it well enough). Even if you could investigate every instance of it you still shouldn't because a police state where everything 'unusual' is questioned is a terrible place to live. If you know that you're going to have to answer questions every time you take a photo, you'll stop taking photos.
serf 12y ago
the danger isn't in McCarthyism itself; it's the danger that McCarthyists pose to a society when they make accusations that either a) turn out to be false all together or b) were the result of agent misinterpretation or lies for the sake of personal career advancement. McCarthyists accused and found so many 'red spies' not because they existed (although they did in very limited amounts), but because McCarthyism generated them through false accusation, followed by an unwavering inability to admit wrongdoing or fault.
tehwebguy 12y ago
The FBI follow-up apparently didn't include Googling the guy's name.
virtue3 12y ago
I donno... because a CURSORY google search of his name would reveal his artwork of photographing urban art pieces...
pconf 12y ago
This is a story about what can happen when a governmental agency has: A) too little oversight, B) way too much (taxpayer) money, and C) way, way too little transparency. What can you do about it? A) join the ACLU and donate a little every month, B) actively support open government ordinances and proposals at every level of government, C) support investigative journalism and avoid agenda-driven media outlets and D) vote against surveillance-state supporting politicians (esp Feinstein and Boxer in CA) at every opportunity.

Centigonal 12y ago

To get the story about what straight? The man was taking a picture of a natural gas tank with some art on it. What about that elicits involvement from the FBI? Sure, you could argue the guards were concerned he (some 86 year old guy with a camera) was part of a terrorist plot to blow up the natural gas tank. If you draw the line for suspicious activity there, though, then that time I searched Google Maps for local dairies should be equally concerning, since I could be planning to poison the food supply (I'm not. I am, however, looking for a good source of fresh milk for cheesemaking).

wfunction 12y ago
I think if some terrorist actually did try to poison the food supply like that, it could very well make you become a suspect for that too. Except I don't recall anything famous like that actually having happened in the recent past (correct me if I'm wrong).
- pyre 12y ago
  So you are advocating a reactive approach where we constantly look to the last terrorist attack as the pattern for what the next terrorist attack will look like?
  - wfunction 12y ago
    Yeah, I think the models need to be recent terrorist attacks, not potential ones that people can dream of on a whim. Kind of like how judges work reactively, they don't make rulings on cases they haven't seen yet.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
      > Yeah, I think the models need to be recent terrorist attacks Bruce Schneier disagrees: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/09/terrorists_dont_do_m.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/09/terrorists_...
  - yourad_io 12y ago
    Exactly - if it is good enough for the TSA... </s>
jonnybgood 12y ago
> To get the story about what straight? If the security guard suspicion was justified. The FBI found out that is wasn't. Case closed. They did everything by the book. And are you telling me that they shouldn't?
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  I'm telling you they shouldn't. They should exercise some judgment, realize some bored-ass security guards (think about how dull it must be to guard a site like that) made a report just to feel important, and then toss it right in the trash can. It was a guy taking pictures of a structure in public. No, the FBI should not be tracking him down.
  - jonnybgood 12y ago
    So you want the FBI to risk establishing cognitive biases instead of going out and finding the truth?
    - serf 12y ago
      Yes, except I want them to establish cognitive biases. Let's leave off that 'risk' part, as the risk is already inherent when you bark up wrong trees throughout the investigation. (time loss is the result of the risk posed by uncertain guesswork) Let's get rid of that 'instead' you used, too. Sneaky! There's no reason for 'establish cognitive bias' and 'find the truth' to be exclusive from one another, is there? So here's the new cleaned up version I think I can get behind : "I would like the FBI to establish cognitive biases as a tool towards the goal of finding the truth." Much better!
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- serf 12y ago
  Yeah. Exactly. The FBI chased a dead lead instead of investigating (actually) urgent matters, wasting time and taxpayer money in the process. The agents may have acted fine. Whoever told them to act, or decided to act on such flimsy circumstances, are the ones who are wrong. If the agents decided to investigate this at their own discretion perhaps it was a way to instantiate a cross-country vacation within the workplace. That'd be the best we could hope for, because if the agents thought that this guy was a threat (especially given his names' public image and photography portfolio), that's a problem. You're not at all scared that FBI agents interpret the suspicions of a security guard with greater priority than some random person on the side of the road? I've met plenty of security guards, and a number of them were so grossly under qualified that the thought of them as some sort of authority figure is horrifying, doubly so with FBI backing.
bediger4000 12y ago
You're pointing down the very best road that all this dragnet surveillance can take us: a war on the unexpected. Once everything we do, on or off net, is observed and recorded, the only thing that Johnny Law can do is try to check out the things that are unusual: looking for fresh milk. Or wait, maybe you're one of the animal rights folks, and you're trying to figure out a way around the "ag-gag" laws. How does Johnny Law know? He or she doesn't. If you're lucky, like the photographer, they come ask. If not, you're on The List. Maybe you don't get to fly any more. Maybe you just can't get a new job.
Houshalter 12y ago
We don't know what the security guard told the FBI. They may have exaggerated, lied, or there may have been other circumstances the author of the article didn't mention.
Natsu 12y ago
Boston is very touchy and has been, as evidenced by past displays like the Mooninite scare where the called the bomb squad over some cartoon signs with blinking lights. I have to wonder, though, the way things are, if they were protecting the copyright on the building or because it's filled with liquified natural gas? Then again, it could be both...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dontmindifido 12y ago

It is not practical to investigate every instance of someone doing something 'unusual' (even if you can define it well enough). Even if you could investigate every instance of it you still shouldn't because a police state where everything 'unusual' is questioned is a terrible place to live. If you know that you're going to have to answer questions every time you take a photo, you'll stop taking photos.

serf 12y ago

the danger isn't in McCarthyism itself; it's the danger that McCarthyists pose to a society when they make accusations that either a) turn out to be false all together or b) were the result of agent misinterpretation or lies for the sake of personal career advancement. McCarthyists accused and found so many 'red spies' not because they existed (although they did in very limited amounts), but because McCarthyism generated them through false accusation, followed by an unwavering inability to admit wrongdoing or fault.

tehwebguy 12y ago

The FBI follow-up apparently didn't include Googling the guy's name.

virtue3 12y ago

I donno... because a CURSORY google search of his name would reveal his artwork of photographing urban art pieces...

pconf 12y ago

This is a story about what can happen when a governmental agency has: A) too little oversight, B) way too much (taxpayer) money, and C) way, way too little transparency. What can you do about it? A) join the ACLU and donate a little every month, B) actively support open government ordinances and proposals at every level of government, C) support investigative journalism and avoid agenda-driven media outlets and D) vote against surveillance-state supporting politicians (esp Feinstein and Boxer in CA) at every opportunity.