Hacker News Reader

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 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.

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.

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.