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".
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).
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.
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...
Bruce Schneier disagrees: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2005/09/terrorists_...
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.