

The FBI is tracking whom? - FSecurePal
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/the_fbi_is_trac.html

======
siculars
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
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
> 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"
....

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

~~~
alecco
Schneier = infosec blogspammer. And very slow at that.

------
levesque
I find this extremely amusing and sad both at the same time.

How far will they go to 'prevent' terrorism?

~~~
aristus
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
> 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
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.

------
middlegeek
"...vaguely bothersome post on an obscure blog..."

Hardly obscure: [http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-
our-...](http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-
traffic.html)

------
wccrawford
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
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
> 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
>Al-Qaeda does exist

[http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-
al-...](http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-
a-complete-fabrication.html)

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?

