Comment by contingencies | Hacker News Reader

Comment by contingencies | Hacker News Reader

Access to weapons: most of America, or all of America depending upon whether shopping is considered access and how 'weapons' are defined.

Has 'trained' overseas: anyone with a passport.

Has 'tried to acquire' bomb-making materials: Reading a book is not illegal. Clicked on the wrong torrent?

Using encryption: everyone.

Masking internet browsing: everyone.

Showing an interest in terrorist events: everyone.

"participating in activities that simulate military or operational environments": anyone who has ever been camping/hiking/played an FPS.

Changed appearance or habits? everyone.

Has "experienced a recent personal loss or humiliation"? Many people.

Has a history of mental health problems? A large proportion of the population.

Substance abuse. Almost everyone.

Hold a belief or ideology that supports the use of violence? Oh what, like "are they a current or former member of the military, politics, or big business?"

This is all really disconcerting in its vagary and scope for misapplication.

I really think you overshoot here on almost every point. The ones that stick out for me: * Not everyone has trained overseas. In the west/east bubble maybe that's common, but nowhere else.

* You seriously try defending reading bomb-making books? To imply that reading a book on how to make bombs, without any background need for it like a job related to pyro, etc., is not suspicios is IMHO rediculous.

* Not "everyone" uses encryption. Actually, the majority of web users do not, and less so knowingly.

* Not "everyone" will suddenly and completly change the overall theme of themselves.

* Not "everyone" has recent loss or has been humiliated.

In general, your other points are getting onto something and i somewhat agree.

However, to be honest I don't think a break down approach is the best to gain incite into the FBI's process. The questions are supposed to be treated as a whole, not singulars. Each question is not designed to give a yes/no answer; but rather the end result, suspicion of terrorism, is a complex, non-analytic function of all the answers

You seriously try defending reading bomb-making books? Yes, because freedom to seek and impart information is a human right. More practically, if you start down this path of forbidden knowledge then you wind up at a point where learning or teaching at all is a banned, inherently political act. What about reading about physics or chemistry on Wikipedia? An interest in metalwork, sculpture, jewellery or pottery? Being observed working on "unknown" metal projects at a makerspace, keeping to yourself, and paying in cash? People deserve to be judged for their actions alone and not obtuse, politicized potential interpretations of their interests or past behavior generated by the secret machinations of the state, perversely nominally on their behalf and in the name of 'freedom'.

the majority of web users do not [use encryption]. False.

"You seriously try defending reading bomb-making books?"

I occasionally read bomb-making books. In part because I once had a job that involved explosives, so I'm interested in high energy engineering, and in part because I'm curious about how IEDs are constructed, so as to consider how one might detect and defeat them.

I don't have a current employment need for this information. I'm simply curious as a matter of physics, engineering, and keeping myself informed about technology that influences events to some degree.

Given my interests, it appears that you'd shop me to the authorities because you regard those interests as suspicious.

That's unhelpful to society, to say the least. And illustrative of your misapprehension of actual risk.

>> Showing an interest in terrorist events: everyone.

What they meant by the question is not what you believe it to be... interest != concern. I would say almost everyone has a concern but not an interest.

>> Substance abuse. Almost everyone.

Sure. I wouldn't say almost everyone.

Depends on your definition of abuse. I would consider many people's caffeine, alcohol, nicotine or sugar habits to be abusive to their overall health.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com