> It is absurd to claim that this should not have happened. All detection methods have a false positive rate
Getting a partial match is a false positive. Using that partial match to investigate the 20 people who have a partial march is the consequence of that false positive.
To then say that he travelled as a terrorist u der a fake passport because they doscovered that his passport had lapsed and that he hadnot travelled abroad - that should not have happened and I do not feel absurd for saying that.
Surveilling someone so poorly that they know you're following them, and using their awareness of being surveilled as evidence of their guilt should not have happened.
Locking him up for 2 weeks should not have happened.
The article claims they deduced he was an international spy. But the article is a political hatchet job. It is entirely likely that "we put a lot of effort into investigating how he could have traveled" was ninja translated to "we knew he was flying under false papers".
His awareness was not used as evidence of guilt, silly. Not even that idiotic article said that. It was used as evidence that he was a flight risk.
Getting a partial match is a false positive. Using that partial match to investigate the 20 people who have a partial march is the consequence of that false positive.
To then say that he travelled as a terrorist u der a fake passport because they doscovered that his passport had lapsed and that he hadnot travelled abroad - that should not have happened and I do not feel absurd for saying that.
Surveilling someone so poorly that they know you're following them, and using their awareness of being surveilled as evidence of their guilt should not have happened.
Locking him up for 2 weeks should not have happened.