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....

- 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.

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.

> 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" ....

No you're coyly leaving out one of the elements of the compound set of factors: that he was Egyptian+Muslim in addition to having those other factors. It wasn't just that he was an immigrant or traveller.

  Replace [Egyptian-]muslim by whatever (asian, nigerian,
  haitian, mexican, brazillian) and you have a generic
  immigrant profile.

I completely fail to understand your point.

You're correct, but that says more about the definition of "person of interest" than it does about the kid's dangerousness. For example, my parents came to the US from Lebanon. Aside from the fact that my family isn't Muslim, the profile fits me perfectly. I'd bet good money that it fits the vast majority of immigrants who still have family in the old country.

The other thing worth remembering is how the person of interest to whom the kid is linked became a person of interest. He posted a comment on reddit speculating about how easy it would be for terrorists to wreak havoc by hitting arbitrary soft targets throughout the country.

Like hiring, catching terrorists is a game where you should be willing to take a lot of false positives to avoid one false negative. But it can go too far, and people's worry is that it has done here.

And forgive me for pointing this out...I don't want to be labeled stupid for relaying this...but the kid's posting on reddit was NOT an original idea.

Alex Jones or one of his affiliates posted an essay stating that if there truly were terrorists in America, they could suicide bomb 200 malls in a day for less than $200,000 -- and surely this would terrify the populace. We'd demand metal detectors at all public facilities. There could be a follow up attack every day. (with a "package left behind").

The end of the article goes to conclude that this doesn't happen, because the threat is not significant.

That this kid (or rather, the kid's friend) quoted a 'radical' libertarian on reddit (and didn't cite sources) HARDLY makes him a threat. Somebody at the FBI should be fired for the sheer idiocy of their profiling programs.

Whoever made that post on Reddit was unwise, but he was not incorrect. I'm also of the belief that if there truly were a very large organized effort to terrorize the US there would have been at least 10x more events that have occurred. Therefore, while there may be an effort, it seems to be a fairly small or pathetically weak one, in relative terms. Can't believe the hundreds of billions they're spending in the name of fighting it. Though at least UAV/robotics is getting lots of funding and advancing steadily -- the one bright spot in the CS industry that has been positively impacted by it all.

And I agree with you. Should the FBI have known that this kid is not a threat before deciding to track him? Probably. Do we really know why they decided to track him? Probably not.

Having the background you have I'm sure you know which groups are more of a concern and which groups are less of a concern and to whom under certain circumstances.

By your definition of "person of interest" this more or less fits "racial profiling" and discrimination based on religion

Replace Muslims with Catholics or White Supremacists Militia members or Jews if it makes you feel better. I have no problem with that. Maybe nobody should be investigated because it would require "profiling" and discrimination. You do know that the FBI and Police use "profiling" extensively to find potential suspects in a crime? Maybe they should stop doing that too.

Sure, but there's "profiling" and there's "racial profiling." One of them is expected, the other starts riots.

Also, FWIW, "criminal profilers" were recently featured in cracked.com's "The 6 Most Statistically Full of Shit Professions" http://www.cracked.com/article_18380_the-6-most-statisticall...

> Sure, but there's "profiling" and there's "racial profiling." One of them is expected, the other starts riots.

In some places printing pictures of historical figures causes riots. In other places beheadings go unnoticed. So, what's your point?

What makes this racial profiling? The fact that there is a where or group by clause in the query which uses religion as an argument for matches? I would have a problem if that were the only criteria, clearly it is not because if it were all people of that religion would be under surveillance.

I would argue that those that are tasked with our security should most definitely keep an eye on and know what is going on with Muslims both home and abroad. This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorists are Muslims. To discount the fact that we are currently persecuting a war against Islamic extremists would be foolish.

It would be the height of politically-correct-group-think to not watch this group and single out individuals for investigation specifically when there are multiple flags. By "watch this group" I specifically mean using it as a flag in their decision matrix when combing through their vast databases. We can argue as to which flags or combination of flags warrant further action but that does not negate the fact that it should be done.

> sends money to family members in a Muslim country

If he supports his family financially, surely that makes him less likely to become a suicide bomber (or other terrorist)?

This fits about about 95% of Muslims I know (granted I'm a science/engineering grad student = I know young males).

Ask American Muslims you know if they know anyone that the FBI has talked to in some capacity or if the FBI has shown up at the local mosque. You'd be surprised.

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

Schneier = infosec blogspammer. And very slow at that.

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

How far will they go to 'prevent' terrorism?

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.

> 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.

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.

So they get in trouble for doing a shitty job and they also get in trouble for not doing their jobs? Wow, that's a catch 22.

If the FBI is investigating them, either all REAL counter terrorism safeguards have failed, or its that "very special" kind of terrorist that's more likely to shoot himself because he can't figure out which way to point his AK.

The CIA no longer operates its intelligence-sharing and counter-intelligence programs exclusively abroad. The whole "rendition/torture/secret prison" thing is a fact of life.

Their job is to make sure we never even hear about the terror plot. They have no real oversight by "we the people". They're driven and good at what they do and this is not a new game to them.

We only hear about law enforcement, and I like said, they're our last line of defense, just after the boys brigade and the league of woman's voters.

I love how this is being downvoted. Is the truth so hard to hear?

The truth? You spewed out a fantasy 007 yarn that has nothing to do with reality.

Reality: every terrorist that actually tried anything has reached their target (though most blow it and fail to do any damage). The CIA isn't a super group that's swatting down terrorists like flies and we only hear of the 1 or 2 that get through while thousands are blocked. That's pure fantasy.

Sorry, not a 007 fantasy yarn.

wtf. Any evidence what so ever for your magical elite force that sneaks in, cleans up massive rings of terrorists without us poor slobs even noticing it? I think you need to cut back on the comic books. The US gov people you're talking about are no where near competent enough to pull things like this off without blowing it and it getting out.

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

Hardly obscure: http://blog.reddit.com/2010/07/experts-misunderestimate-our-...

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.)

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?

> 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.

>Al-Qaeda does exist

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?