Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A tip off could have come from anywhere, that is why it is such a good PR explanation for them:

* A random concerned citizen (so it wasn't them looking, they just acted on behalf of someone genuinely concerned, this makes the thing a bit more noble).

* A scorned lover/an enemy ("oh you think are going to go on a vacation? remember what you did to me, I know exactly how to get back... what is that FBI tip-off number again...?")

* A secret (or not so secret govt.) web searching and filtering program. They don't want to reveal which one it is, but it could potentially just be made to generate "tip-offs" so that it looks like a person noticed, but in fact everything is automated. High profile tip-offs can be filtered through human agents as well.

Some of us who lived repressive regimes know how this works. If the govt. is afraid of X, and sets up an anonymous tip-off line to report X. Then is known to go ahead and blindly act on that tip. It creates an awesome/terrifying tool for everyone to use. X can be anything you like: terrorism, communism, whatever the du jour "War on ..." is waged.

In the Soviet Union we had neighbors denouncing each other for anti-communist activities because they couldn't agree on the color of the fence. This stuff will happen. The crazier and irrational the govt. gets the more potential for abuse it creates. With a bit of work and ingenuity, during certain decades, you could have made your whole neighbor's family disappear into Siberia practically overnight.

In the Soviet Union we had neighbors denouncing each other for anti-communist activities because they couldn't agree on the color of the fence.

That made me laugh. In the USA, we had people denouncing each other as communists for exactly the same frivolous reasons with dire repercussions. There's an entire era of American history dubbed the McCarthy era, where thousands of Americans were (falsely) accused of harboring communist sentiments.

This is not the first time I have drawn parallels (and there are many to be made) between McCarthyism and the current Islamophobia in the ongoing "war on terror." I feel both will be remembered with similar disgust a hundred years from now.

I think that this comment nails it.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether it was a tip-off or it was picked up by some Government threat-monitoring software. The greater end result is the same: a chilling effect on speech. If you aren't careful about how you consider this event, your response is "I'd better be careful what I say."

Edit: I highly recommend Bruce Schneier's "Liars and Outliers", it is a masterful work about the social costs of security.

Have you read it? I just checked, and it's not yet released, though I'm aware Bruce distributed some galley copies for review.

Might wait until the book's actually available before you tease us with it.... ;-)

I pre-ordered the Kindle version and it showed up on my phone about a week ago. Haven't finished it, but so far - excellent.

Yes, its a nice veil they can hide behind.

But what boggles my mind the most is, why did FBI have to deport them? Are they really so irrational that they could not discern genuine threats vs someone who jokingly meant it (and in this case its a brit slang!). This is where I think administration is falling apart. You read those stories about TSA horror stories and all of them indicate a lack of common sense on the administrative side.

I think large bureaucratic network will have this effect (like the movie Brazil). Many little dumb cogs, all "doing their job" can result in horrible things happening.

@rdtsc weird i dont see a reply link to your comment of mine, so replying here -

Yes I agree with you, its almost a "collective failure" that you can expect from a system where each part doesn't have the complete picture (FBI not telling TSA all the protocols, TSA hiding things from police, etc...).

I believe that we're seeing the result of an extreme cover-your-ass mentality.

There is a chance, even though incredibly small, that the person in question really will commit some act of terrorism. What are the payoffs to the individual making this decision of all the possible options?

Not a terrorist, deport him: no cost.

Not a terrorist, let him in: no cost.

Terrorist, deport him: no cost.

Terrorist, let him in: lose your job, your career, get to testify before a hostile Congress, become a national scapegoat, etc. etc.

As far as I know, there are no consequences for deporting someone in a situation like this. Thus, even if the chances that he's a real terrorist are incredibly small, the fact that they're nonzero, and the fact that knowledge of this tweet would inevitably result in massive fingerpointing in that remote event, means that deportation is the obvious best choice. There's no benefit to letting him in, and some benefit to deporting him.

You see this sort of thing pop up in any large bureaucracy. There are rarely penalties for "better safe than sorry", even when taken to an absurd degree, but there are huge penalties for a failing to take that approach in the event that you miss something.

My wife just finished a thorough government background check, including an in-person interview about all of her international travel activity for the last X years, several calls for followup questions about relatives and their jobs and potential ties to foreign governments, etc. The job they're checking her for? Web designer at the Smithsonian. Not exactly a repository of national secrets here.

That background check makes no sense from a cost-benefit analysis, but makes tons of sense from a cover-your-ass bureaucratic analysis. Looks to me like the exact same thing happened with this tweet.

Well put. It is unfortunate that there is no way to have these folks accountable for their actions. I agree the public sentiments will be with them in this case though, but its one step closer to the Orwellian society.

Note: I am not a USA citizen or reside in USA - just so that my perspectives are understood as an outsider.

Common sense and plain human decency. http://rt.com/usa/news/tsa-breast-cancer-dorn-147/

> * A secret (or not so secret govt.) web searching and filtering program.

Does nobody remember Carnivore? Imagine what has been developed since then.

Exactly. Look at the budgets of these kind of govt. agencies. They have shown that privacy or moral concerns against spying or even torture don't hold them back. I would sort of be disappointed if they didn't have this implemented because that means they were also stupid enough to be duped by some contractor who promised they'll do this but have sucked up all the money and hasn't delivered yet.

> Does nobody remember Carnivore? Imagine what has been developed since then.

I believe it got bought by Facebook.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com