I'm sure the FBI understands the concept of prioritizing leads when/if they get overloaded. There are generally field offices in most major cities so I doubt they had to travel across the country or anything.

> Information overload that may (will?) miss more significant threats.

Well, that's kinda the point of these follow-ups. How would the FBI know if something is or isn't a significant threat?

Common sense? An 80+ year old man standing on public property taking a photograph of a famous piece of artwork isn't remotely a terrorist threat. Presumably the FBI could have even figured out that he's been a professional photographer for most of his life, and done a little research on their that would make it entirely obvious that there was nothing fishy going on there.

And double shame on the security guards for even reporting him in the first place.

> Common sense? An 80+ year old man standing on public property taking a photograph of a famous piece of artwork isn't remotely a terrorist threat. Presumably the FBI could have even figured out that he's been a professional photographer for most of his life, and done a little research on their that would make it entirely obvious that there was nothing fishy going on there.

Everything you just said here is the point of a follow-up.

All of the above can be determined with 5 minutes of google.

No need for the chilling-effect visit to neighbourhood + knocking on neighbours doors

> All of the above can be determined with 5 minutes of google.

Yes, because everything on Google is factually accurate.

Edit: Why am I getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious flaw in using Google?

Did you read the article? He's published books of photography. His work has been on display at the Smithsonian. Google and Wikipedia (yes, he has a page) might not give final confirmation of these facts, but it would bring them up, and the agents could verify them through other channels.