HomeSec Blacklist to be Available to Private Companies

unassimilatible writes "The Washington Times reports that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are developing a database that will allow private companies to submit lists of individuals to be screened for a connection to terrorism. The database will eventually allow private-sector entities, such as operators of critical infrastructure facilities or organizers of large events, to submit a list of persons associated with those events to the U.S. government to be screened for any nexus to terrorism. All of this won't be cheap either; total terror-related IT spending by US federal and state governments will run past $100 billion in 2004. But don't feel left out Europeans, since the EU is considering a terror database as well, although France and UK are reluctant to share intel."

Comments

Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[some2]

The issue with allowing this is that terrorist organizations, who are generally well funded, may be able to check associates against the list and verify they are not listed. They can also get creative and monitor the list to find the leaks of information, such as when a new person in their organization is introduced to one of their existing associates (the leak), and then the new member suddenly shows up on the list. People don't have to be terrorists when they join organizations either (initial screening), they can choose to go that way after they have joined.

Besides, this list has been around for ages, and has been circulated among financial institutions for years. It's not really anything new, it's just more public now.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a good idea to submit your own name for screening. That way you know whether you are on their list!

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American, I, for one, am happy they are doing this. This means it will be easier for me to get a job since I won't have to compete with those with a superior education. There are some things they can't outsource to India, you know.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[ehack]

I wonder what the blacklist equivalent of a googlebomb is ?
How much do you have to pay to get your favorite "friend " listed ?

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Ralph JH Nader]

Somehow, I think if you're on the list, the FBI will be a little more discrete than just return the list to the company and tell the company which people are suspected of being terrorsts. I would expect, instead, that the FBI would probably handle it in a more discrete way. They might do further investigation on suspected terrorists that are attending the event, and might even attend the event and follow them around. I'll leave it up to you to decide if the FBI's secrecy is for reasons of common sense or for evil, but I'd bet that's how they handle it.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Ralph JH Nader]

I doubt they will tell you that they're on the list. The FBI handles investigation into terrorists just like they investigate drug operations. They're not just interested in causing a single person to stop their plans, as a terrorist would do if they found they're on the list. They're interested in following the person around, finding out as much as they can, and then taking down the entire operation.

What this all means is they can't tell terrorists that they're on the list. As such, they would probably have to give false reports of innocence to people who were on the list and did a background check on themselves.

You'll never know you're on their list. It's difficult to find out if you're being watched now, anyways. For example, if your phone was being tapped, the phone company and law enforcement won't let you know you're being watched. And they don't tell you that you're not being watched. They just won't tell you anything. Just the same, you would never be able to find out if you're on the list or you're not.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[saforrest]

Somehow, I think if you're on the list, the FBI will be a little more discrete than just return the list to the company and tell the company which people are suspected of being terrorsts.

As humorous as it is to think of the FBI being discrete (not continuous?):

s/discrete/discreet/g

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he was trying to be ioninc.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they will tell you that they're on the list

Uh, I doubt terrorists would be THAT stupid, call to ask for themselves. No, there will always be ones not on the list (sleepers), and THEY would do request, on behalf of companies they are working for (ie. perfectly legitimate request). Of course they'd need to be careful, and only occasionally check for their "own" people, but still, it should be quite doable. Thus, even one well placed member in, say, CitiBank management, would come in handy.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[WNight]

Just get a low-end job doing something for an airline. Have your terrorists take a flight every now and then. If they're flagged you can find out when the screeners haul them off for a fruitless check (of course on these flights they'd be as clean as a newborn babe) and you remove them from any position they have in your organization. If they aren't on the list they merely establish a background as someone who flies frequently making it even easier to bypass security in the future.

They won't release the list, but if you can watch the use of the list you can figure out who is on it by who gets hassled. If they don't do extra checks based on the list it's not going to stop you from flying with a bomb and won't inconvenience you much.

But the whole idea is pretty lame. Criminals use fake ID. The current crop of religious idiots also uses suicide bombers who only have to sneak past security once, the first and last time.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[cas2000]

> The issue with allowing this is that terrorist
> organizations, who are generally well funded, may
> be able to check associates against the list and
> verify they are not listed.?

yes, that's one of the problems with it.

another problem is "what is the definition of a terrorist?", and the related issue of "who gets to decide?"

will, say, greenpeace be classified as a terrorist organisation because they "cause economic harm" to US interests? what level of dissent, membership of which political and/or protest organisations will cause someone to be classified as a terrorist?

(this is not as ridiculous as it sounds - i've already heard several oil & forestry industry representatives refer stridently to environmental activists as "terrorists")

what happens to an individual who is a member of so-called terrorist organisations like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or some other moderate activist group? will they be able to get a job? will they be able to buy a plane ticket or a train ticket? will they be able to go to public events, e.g. purchase tickets to a concert? will they be refused a bank account because the govt checks says "Yes -- they are associated with terrorist groups"?

say goodbye to the right to dissent. going, going....gone.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Zeinfeld]

another problem is "what is the definition of a terrorist?", and the related issue of "who gets to decide?" will, say, greenpeace be classified as a terrorist organisation because they "cause economic harm" to US interests?

No it is not such a bad question because some groups such as Earth First, some of the anti-abortion activists and some anti-vivisectionists crossed the line long ago. Earth First does things which are very likely to kill people, like spike trees.

There certainly are radical terrorists who champion those causes, the problem is that the line is usually abused. The current UK foreign secretary was under MI5 surveillance when he was a student. So Blair's number one man in the war on terra was once on a blacklist.

I have seen this happen personally in the UK. A group associated with the UK conservative party called the Economic League maintained a blacklist of 'left wing sympathizers' that they sold to an undisclosed list of employers. I got listed for saying that there was no way I was going to have anything to do with any group that used those tactics. In case people are wondering how privately educated sons of the establishment like myself turn on the tory party like I did, well that was the Damascus moment for me.

You can easily verify this claim further with a small amount of Googling. The list itself collapsed in irrelevance after Bob Maxwell bought a copy and set up a stand at the Labour party conference. There were more Tories on it than left wing radicals. They used to list each other when they got into faction fights.

Given the treatment meeted out to Richard Clarke in the past few days, there is no way that John Ashcroft or George Bush can be trusted with such a power. They are now talking of selectively declassifying intelligence for the sole purpose of being able to punish Clarke with a specious perjury prosecution. They went after Wilson by illegally uncovering the fact that his wife was a covert CIA operative. The continued to threaten O'Niel with prosecutions even after it was admitted that the Whitehouse had cleared all his documents for release.

And you know what? At this point I'm not really sure that Ashcroft's excuse for holding Padilla without indictment or trial is going to turn out to be valid when we find out what it is.

In the past few days Bush has shown more energy and passion in his efforts to crush Clarke than he ever has in his pro-forma attempts to track down and eliminate al Qaeda. I simply cannot believe that any other major party candidate in that race on either side would not have invaded Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda and stayed there focused on that single task until it was complete. Forbes, Keyes, Gore, Bradley, I can't believe a single one would not have invaded (they would have been impeached anyway so it would not matter) and I can't believe any other candidate would have finished the job.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I know people who work in the phone company, and they can listen to your line whenever they want--for "testing" purposes of course.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[swschrad]

"deer mr. Security:

I know a bunch of peeple who is terrorists, they terorize me all the time in 8th Grad. shoot them all, maybe by friday, so they can't mess me up in taking the tests again................"

just how many of those bogus "tips" are they going to get? and after fifty years of fighting, how many "skanky Sue" and "billy bob of 666 Nowhere Lane, East Bottomsup, RI" types are still going to be blacklisted and chased like diseased rabbits?

the plan to allow anybody to tip the list directly sucks.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[hypermod]

All major hotel chains are required to check all names on lists provided. I have a friend who is doing database work for one of these chains, and he says it gets comical when a very common name such as "Jose Gonzales" comes up. The poor guy is then forced to undergo a thorough check before he can check in.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[mpe]

another problem is "what is the definition of a terrorist?", and the related issue of "who gets to decide?"

There can also be time factors involved. e.g. The US was quite happy with Bin Laden and co when they were attacking the USSR in Afghanistan. The definition the US Government uses means that "friends" are never "terrorists". (But they can be if they stop being "friends".)

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[mpe]

Just get a low-end job doing something for an airline. Have your terrorists take a flight every now and then. If they're flagged you can find out when the screeners haul them off for a fruitless check (of course on these flights they'd be as clean as a newborn babe) and you remove them from any position they have in your organization. If they aren't on the list they merely establish a background as someone who flies frequently making it even easier to bypass security in the future.

This is basically the "Carnival Booth" method of identifying who is on the list. Except that there is no need for an "inside man". Since the people who get searched know they have been searched. An insider on the airport/airline staff is something a terrorist organisation would need in order to bypass security. e.g. get people/weapons on planes without any record of how they got there.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Earth First does things which are very likely to kill people, like spike trees."

The F.B.I. does things which are very likely to kill people, like drive cars.

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[MrBobDobalina]

Want to know if you're on the list? I can't prove it's part of THE list, but when I enter the name of recently-arrested "Abu Maryam" it returns an interesting record. Here's the URL for my sample search, you can paste in your own name if you like:

http://www.bridgertracker.com/CheckNamesResults. as p?Name=Abu%20Maryam&Address=Address%20%28optional% 29&Country=Country%20%28optional%29

Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway.

[rtb61]

The best way to kill lists like this is to poisen them. Once to many people are on the list it dies because it becomes unusable and ignored i.e. is it going to be rated as cool in the fringe community to be on the list. The inevitability of a list like this becoming corrupted with the personel vendettas of petty burecrats, is to be expected add to that people who want to be on the list for personel ego and it wont take long for it to become flooded. Of course foreignors not wanting to travel to the US and who wont suffer any repercusions within their home countries for being on the list can help to flood it for fun. Of course the existance of such a list will lead to an interesting range practical jokes i.e. treat the list as a joke and it will become one.

Do You Remember?

[ackthpt]

Remember that off-the-cuff troll you fired off on some blog or newsgroup years ago?

The one where you joked about blowing something up, poisoning the town watersupply or leaving a flaming bag of poop on the mayor's doorstep? It was just a youthful indiscretion, which anyone could make after a few beers or a blunt. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously. There were not pipe bombs under your bed or fatigues and a gun in your closet. You'd rather be shooting the shit with friends at the mall than shooting people from the trunk of a parked car. Years pass and you have met that special someone and settled down to a mortgage, a couple auto loans, putting some money away for college funds and that sporty little red "mid-life crisis" Then one day you're called into the Human Resources department. There are a couple serious looking men in suits waiting there to meet you. It seems on a routine check your name came up. You had started or participated in a thread that someone else did. That someone else just blew up a bus in Tel Aviv.

Remember that off-the-cuff troll you fired off on some blog or newsgroup years ago? Someone did.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. bomb threats are felonies. It's been that way for decades.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

shit! you had me on the edge of my seat.

that would make a great movie.

we'll call it "brother of mein"

Re:Do You Remember?

[mantera]

you're not kidding... this stuff is for real... i know someone whose step-daughter is a 16 year old mtv-styled greenpeace-enthausiast white kid with a website... and on account of this he's been put on some list and it showed up when he failed to get clearance from the government for a job he was applying to...

Re:Do You Remember?

[Liselle]

Time for a Karma-flush. On the one side, we have people scaring the hell out of everyone talking about terrorists, making you paranoid about your next-door neighbor, frightened to take public transportation, nervous in broad daylight.

On the other side, we have people wielding Orwell. Big Brother is watching you, the government is evil and corrupt, you can't take a piss off-center without a dozen people knowing about it. Here's a hypothetical story I made up, complete with a series of lottery-scale unlikely events, leading to a conclusion that mostly just serves make you scared of your own shadow. That's my evidence.

It really sucks to be caught in the middle of those camps. One of these days I'm just going to tear off into the woods and live Thoreau-style, because it seems like the radicals are the only people having fun these days.

Re:Do You Remember?

[ackthpt]

One of these days I'm just going to tear off into the woods and live Thoreau-style, because it seems like the radicals are the only people having fun these days.

Careful, that's how Ted Kaczynski got started.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Liselle]

Careful, that's how Ted Kaczynski got started.

I should be okay, I'm not much for huge dark sunglasses or hoodies. My vanity will keep me on the Light side.

Re:Do You Remember?

[AndroidCat]

Tear off into the woods Thoreau-style? Man, Walden wasn't exactly the wilderness back-woods. It wasn't a major trip into Concord for groceries and partying.

Re:Do You Remember?

[ackthpt]

a 16 year old mtv-styled greenpeace-enthausiast

Years ago, when I lived in the home city of a large multi-national corporation, there was a Green Peace protest. A few GP folk set up shop in town to protest various past and/or present activities of the giant. Seems a local sheriff and the corporation shared some intelligence information while investigating these people. Who they were, who the were known to sleep with, what they ate, etc. A serious gaffe. Heads rolled (probably a few just for appearances) and Green Peace brought their lawyers in (who are no strangers to this sort of thing.) Suits filed, etc. Terribly ugly stuff.

That was then, 20 years ago or so. Now business and government are unabashed about doing something like this. How far we've come.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GhostOfUsenetPostingsPast

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Remember that off-the-cuff troll you fired off on some blog or newsgroup years ago? Someone did.

well put. It can even be worse than that: do you
remember all the public places you have happened to visit? are you absolutely positively sure you never ever was seen (or photographed) with someone on that list? are you sure your name (or your social security number for that matter) is really unique and cannot possibly be confused with someone else? (dunno about your name, but no, SSN are not guaranteed to be unique); without any way to know about what information this list may or may not hold about you and some way to appeal/correct the information it contains, we are about to get really screwed.

The good news though is that being paranoid is increasingly looking like a sign of sanity.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anne_Nonymous]

I love how the "sweatshirt" has been remarketed as the "hoodie".

Kaczynski wore a sweatshirt, not a hoodie. Sweatshirts are for psychopaths. Hoodies are for mall rats. Like I was saying sweatshirt/hoodie, psychopath/mall rat. The difference is but nomenclature.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that off-the-cuff troll you fired off on some blog or newsgroup years ago? Someone did.

Hell, I'm sure John Kerry is kicking himself these days over all the anti-American protests he participated in during the 1970's. Now the assclown wants to be President. I'm sure Kerry has been on watchlists for decades which is why he's been trying to cover up his past. Decorated war hero my ass... 30 years ago he would've been burning flags and passing out literature on how Osama Bin Laden is just a misunderstood freedom fighter.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Jadrano]

I don't think this kind of spying on citizens is something new, and I suppose it was rather an exception when it was treated as a gaffe. McCarthyism is known, but most of such activities probably never came to light.

In Switzerland, during the cold war, the police spied on environmentalists, members of leftwing parties, people who traveled to Eastern Europe, people who shared houses (possibly a revolutionary commune?), etc... They were supported by many hobby spies, and the data were shared with some companies - some people found out only much later because of which fact or misunderstanding they had big difficulties to get a job. During an investigation into something else in the department of justice and police in the end of the eighties, a parliamentary commission discovered the huge amount of files that had been collected. There was a big scandal, but a few years later when there was a vote on an initiative for the abolition of the secret police, most of it was forgotten, and then they have just computerized their data collections, and now this subject is not debated much any more. I suppose that such activities by the police went on in many countries.

The new European anti-terrorism database that is planned does not sound very new to me, either. I heard a story about Germans being arrested, and later it turned out that it was because they had exchanged addresses with someone in Spain when they were there on holidays. This person in Spain had contacts with ETA, and probably everyone in his address book ended up in a database, which lead to the arrest of the Germans much later. As far as I know, this is not an untypical case, just in most cases, there were no arrests and therefore people do not know in which secret databases they are registered.

What is new is only a reorganisation of this spying activities. Possibly, it becomes more dangerous because of that, but it rather seems to me that the secret police still does what they always did, and the aim of all these talks about new databases is just to make the public believe that they are 'doing something'.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember and now I am considered a terrorist in a country that my Uncle gave his life for serving in the Armed Forces.

I want to blow up Lake Powell and flush Hoover Dam and Las Vegas down the drain. Why?

Because our government has contracted a monopoly out to run all the Marinas on Lake Powell where my family settled for five generations and now I can't even get a job there. Aramark Industries sucks and has ties to the Mob.

http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/v9/9.11/5aramark. ht ml

There's no difference today between the FBI and the Mafia.

Also this idea of protecting us from terrorists don't mean a dam thing as long as our borders aren't secure.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Jadrano]

One of these days I'm just going to tear off into the woods and live Thoreau-style, because it seems like the radicals are the only people having fun these days.

There is probably a database of people who do so, at least if they are as thorough as the police in Switzerland during the cold war. Apart from members of leftwing parties and environmentalists, etc. they also had a special file with all dairymen and shepherds in the mountains. There were of course "harmless" people in Alpine dairies, which had grown up there and continued what their families had been doing for generations, but there were also people who went there in order to opt out of mainstream civilization, and they were considered a potential threat. To be on the safe side, the police collected data on everyone living in Alpine dairy huts (the files were discovered in the end of the eighties together with the others during a parliamentary investigation).

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://web.mit.edu/thistle/www/
v9/9.11/5aramar k.html

According to The Wall Street Journal, Aramark also has links
to organized crime. Reportedly, Aramark paid an ex-FBI agent-and
former ARA employee - $167,000 plus lawyers' fees out of court not to
discuss his deposition, which highlights the dining service
corporation's organized crime connections.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

"McCarthyism is known, but most of such activities probably never came to light."

The irony of McCarthyism is that after the fall of the Soviet Union, documents released by the KGB showed McCarthy was right, after all the bad press he got throughout the years. There were soviet moles infiltrating various govt agencies.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes we all know that MTV is run by a giant multinational corporation but by the mom and pop known as Viacom which is being destroyed by world wide overfishing.

Re:Do You Remember?

[Moofie]

I like my Trogdor hoodie. : )

Re:Do You Remember?

[CrazyDuke]

Eh, so 'cause some Soviet spies infiltrated our government (and I'd bet ours theirs) that justifies calling random people commies and having them persecuted? I know some people in the United States are murderers, too. I can't just go around accusing random people and people I don't like of being a murderer. I can't accuse people with knives and guns and assorted other weapons of being a murderer either without proof.

Re:Do You Remember?

[BigBadBri]

Mind you don't quote too much Thoreau:

"[When] ... and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army."

Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, Part 1

Does that sound like any Mesopotamian situation of the present day?

Re:Do You Remember?

[mpe]

I don't think this kind of spying on citizens is something new, and I suppose it was rather an exception when it was treated as a gaffe. McCarthyism is known, but most of such activities probably never came to light.

When such things do come to light it tends to be decades after the events.

Re:Do You Remember?

[jasonditz]

Of course the big news is they no longer feel the need to do all this secretly "behind our backs". The average person is so desensitized to stuff like this they can just do it in the open.

What I am really afraid of......

[Dr Reducto]

I am not that worried about companies being able to find out who may be a terror threat. I don't think that the government will give them a dossier on whomever they ask for.

What I am worried about is the government collecting and keeping this data. They may just be using this program as a honeypot to get companies to give them data. They get to know your location on a precise time and date. They also may be able to do some basic hypothesising based on this data. For instance, people who are often found at the same events could be grouped together, and rudimentary sosical networks could be strung together. You could end up under investigation if you turn up at too many events that have "terrorist suspects" at them. Maybe even if they started collecting names of those at political rallies, and started adding those to the databases. Maybe the cities will say: You can have your protest, if you supply a list of names of people who will be there. And BAM! You have lost your privacy and freedom to associate.

I hope they give us similar rights as with credit

[realdpk]

A free terrorist report any time you're turned down for a job? Perhaps some states will require one free terrorist report per year for anyone who asks?

I hate the idea, but I am curious to see what they have on file for me.

This is great news!

[Dana P'Simer]

The private sector needs a way to efficiently screen event participants and/or job applicants. I think there should be a way to appeal your being listed in the terrorism database.

Re:This is great news!

[filesiteguy]

Of course, then you get pegged for being a troublemaker...

Skynet, here we come!

Operatives?

[bigattichouse]

Hmm.. makes me wonder how many operatives would show up in a db? eg: France's spies in england.

More RAM anyone?

[pholower]

More crosschecking databases. These things are going to be huge. I guess we can start to see more RAM purchases from the government.

Re:More RAM anyone?

[pholower]

What I meant to say was... More crosschecking databases. These things are going to be huge. I guess we can start to see more RAM purchases from the government.

Re:More RAM anyone?

[some2]

It really is brilliant to get into the SSD market right now, as you mention. The government isn't buying terabytes of ram, they're buying terabytes of expensive SSD disk arrays. It is sort of similar to selling retina scanners and fingerprint detectors. In this market, the only way you can loose in any of those markets is to have the most expensive product, as fortunately, the government still uses RFPs to obtain the cheapest prices, thus, the cheapest product (even if lower in quality) may win.

Wow, that's a surprise.

[James A. M. Joyce]

Why don't they just put the list up on the fucking Internet so everyone can use it? Oh, of course, I forgot about the money. Makes me glad I'm in the UK, despite the large number of CCTV cameras we have lying around.

Re:Wow, that's a surprise.

[some2]

I'd be more worried in the UK. In the US, we do not typically have cameras mounted on the freeways capable of tracking license plate numbers (to my knowledge). In the UK, I keep hearing about people receiving speeding citations after speeding ~~ 100+ mph down the freeways. We have them all over the place here to give red light tickets, but that is about it, and to my knowledge, those are (hopefully) not tracking individual motorists.

That being said, the possibility of either is quite concerning...

Re:Wow, that's a surprise.

[morelife]

..put the list up on the fucking Internet..

Realize the truth in your jest -- there's about a fifty fifty chance, guessing from news about leaks this year alone, that the newly aggregated data

a) will be compromised and fall into enemy hands due to bad IT security practices, or,

b) sold or lent to third parties or government contractors

c) used for purposes other than originally intended

or d) all of the above

Re:Wow, that's a surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

large number of CCTV cameras we have lying around.

They're not just lying around, They're pointed at your house!

Got it backwards, chief

[Gizzmonic]

Private companies will make their lists available to the department of homeland security! Even your own writeup says this!

It's not like Coca-coka is gonna be getting dirt from you by calling up the feds.

Re:Got it backwards, chief

[Anonymous Coward]

FIRST REPLY.

Not 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, infinit. FIRST.

PROPS TO ALL DEAD HOMIZE

Re:Got it backwards, chief

[Blue Stone]

>It's not like Coca-co[l]a is gonna be getting dirt [on] you by calling up the feds.

You're right, Coca-Cola mostly deals with the CIA.

Re:Got it backwards, chief

[DrVomact]

Actually, it's not clear what information is going which way. The article says that private organizations can submit names "for screening", but it doesn't say what is done with the results of the screening. Does the government report back to the private company about who passes and who is associated with a "terrorist nexus"? Or maybe--yikes!--the names that are submitted get added to the government black list? Truly, obfuscatory language is the first refuge of the scoundrel.

Re:Got it backwards, chief

[pavon]

Private companies will make their lists available to the department of homeland security! Even your own writeup says this!

I don't think so, read that again. It says: ... the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are developing a database that will allow private companies to submit lists of individuals to be screened for a connection to terrorism.

The conventional interpretation of that language would be the same as if you submitted peoples names for drug screening, or credit checks. The submittee (government) does the screening and reports back to the submitter (companies), on the status of the submitted (me). Also it makes sense that the government wants to protect the critical infrastructure, and it doesn't make sense that these companies would have identified any terrorists. Im pretty sure you read that wrong.

Re:Got it backwards, chief

[real gumby]

You're right, Coca-Cola mostly deals with the CIA.

You joke, but have you seen this film? It's about a coke marketer who travels to Australia, and then sends out for a bag full of machine guns...well it's worth seeing.

I always thought that the whole film it was a veiled reference to alleged CIA involvement in this event.

movie industry "Reds"

[planckscale]

Didn't they already try this in the 60's with the movie industry and its blacklists? Me thinks this stinks.

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[dogfart]

It was the late 1940's/early 1950's. A lot of very talented folks ended up in janitorial jobs for years as a result. You didn't have to be a flaming "I love Joe Stalin" Commie either - briefly joining an organization while in college during the 1930's could come back to haunt you 15 apolitical years later. See Article in Salon

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Simonetta]

The Hollywood blacklist was started in the late 1940's and continued roughly until the late 1950's.
It basically started when the president of the Screen Actor's Guild at the time, an over-the-hill actor named Ronald Reagan, decided to get on the good side of the House Committee on Un-American Activies by volunteering to turn over to them the names of all the people that he suspected of having Communist tendencies in the film industry.
The willingness of this actor to be a total asshole and his enthusiasm in destroying the lives of the other actors that he was supposed to be defending as SAG president caught the attention of the dormant conservative Republicans, who financed his California governor's race in the mid 1960's.

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Anonymous Coward]

The willingness of this actor to be a total asshole and his enthusiasm in destroying the lives of the other actors that he was supposed to be defending as SAG president caught the attention of the dormant conservative Republicans, who financed his California governor's race in the mid 1960's.

Whatever happened to him, anyway?

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Anonymous Coward]

he lost his mind

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Simonetta]

Constitutional freedoms should apply to such vermin...

Constitutional freedoms do apply to everyone in the United States. It's what makes them morally superior to the Stalinists and the Muslims.

There are many shades of political opinion among the left and progressive peoples at that time. The monstrous crimes of Stalin were not generally known until Khrushchev's denounciation of Stalin in 1956 and the publication of Solshenetizn's 'Gulag' books in the early 1970's.

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Our Man In Redmond]

The blacklist was breaking down by the early sixties, but some blacklisted entertainers had trouble getting jobs long after. For instance, it was primarily because Tommy Smothers stood up to CBS that Pete Seeger got onto The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour in 1967 (where he proceeded to completely hack off LBJ by singing "Waist Deep In The Big Muddy"), well after other folk entertainers had made it to TV.

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Our Man In Redmond]

Sorry to reply to myself but the "Waist Deep" incident did not happen until 1968. Seeger's first appearance on the show, however, was in 1967. (He was scheduled to sing "Waist Deep" in the first airing, but it was cut due to a dispute over cutting one of the verses.)

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Deagol]

I'd say that Karma is alive and well, then. Wouldn't you? Good old Dutch couldn't remember his little commie list now if his life depended on it, could he?

Maybe that's a cruel remark, but I never knew that Reagan had a role in the blacklists. He deserves to have his mind rot.

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Anonymous Coward]

ended the threats of global nuclear annihilation

The bombs are still there, dickwad. In the US and Russia both.

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF do muslims have to do with anything? That's just plain bigotry. Muslims are as guilty of violating others' rights as any other religious group, and probably less than christians, historically.

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitutional freedoms do apply to everyone in the United States. It's what makes them morally superior to the Stalinists and the Muslims.

Correction: Constitutional freedoms only apply to American Citizens in the United States. Does that invalidate the "morally superior" part of your quote?

Re:movie industry "Reds"

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan was a member of the communist party. It helped him get acting jobs.

Sharing Intel is like sharing needles!

[Bombcar]

although France and UK are reluctant to share intel

I know how that is! I'm an AMD guy myself, and "Friends don't let friends use Intel." :)

Re:Sharing Intel is like sharing needles!

[Tackhead]

> > although France and UK are reluctant to share intel
>
> I know how that is! I'm an AMD guy myself, and "Friends don't let friends use Intel." :)

"When you run SETI@Home on an Athlon, you hunt for aliens with Osama! Only the paranoid survive!"
- Andy Grove

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[setzman]

You think they'd give you your terrorist report? Perhaps they would, while you're sitting in a animal cage in Cuba.

Anti-globalisation peeps are next.

[TempusMagus]

This really scares me. I am confident that such technologies, as soon as they are entrenched, will start being used against anti-corp, anti free-trade groups rather quickly. Once they run out of Arab's with H-1 visas they are going to go after people with subscriptions to ADBUSTERS. What's the criteria for 'connection' or proximity to a "nexus of terrorism"?

Look at it this way: they are going to rate people the same way good spam-filters rate incoming email to determine if they are spam. They'll probably be more right than wrong - but heaven help you if you fall through the cracks. No ability to fly. No ability to attend large gatherings. The ability to literally clip the wings of dissenting voices becomes a heck of lot easier.

Lets look at who gets access:
operators of critical infrastructure facilities - with the right lobbyist this could mean just about any large corporation. Microsoft would certainly qualify. Would about Coke? Ford motor company? Nike? They keep America financially strong - and what's good for Microsoft is good for American by golly!

organizers of large events - such as political conventions? Concerts with bands whose message may contain material not suitable for fundamentalist ears?

Re:Anti-globalisation peeps are next.

[Loosewire]

This really scares me. I am confident that such technologies, as soon as they are entrenched, will start being used against anti-corp, anti free-trade groups rather quickly. Once they run out of Arab's with H-1 visas they are going to go after people with subscriptions to ADBUSTERS.
and you just made the list ;-)

Re:Anti-globalisation peeps are next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets look at who gets access:
operators of critical infrastructure facilities - with the right lobbyist this could mean just about any large corporation. Microsoft would certainly qualify. Would about Coke? Ford motor company? Nike? They keep America financially strong - and what's good for Microsoft is good for American by golly!


Whoa, they will denounce RMS. If he is not a Red, Stalin was a capitalist...

Re:Anti-globalisation peeps are next.

[ENOENT]

They'll just put all the registered Democrats in the list, to be rounded up and put into concentration camps for opposing our Republican overlords.

Oh yeah, and anybody who buys generic pharmaceuticals or imported automobiles.

Re:Anti-globalisation peeps are next.

[Elias Israel]

This really scares me. I am confident that such technologies, as soon as they are entrenched, will start being used against anti-corp, anti free-trade groups rather quickly.

This is a misdirected search for self-confidence, relevance, and meaning disguising itself as paranoia.

The so-called "anti-globalization" drummings of a few highly-motivated but ultimately uninformed marchers is neither as significant, nor as threating to "the man" as to warrant the kind of Gestapo tactics you're talking about.

But it feeds the egos of those involved to imagine that but for the presence of shadowy conspiracies and underhanded tactics, their "movement" would take over the world, instead of just leaving a bunch of litter on Main street and giving the nightly news a few seconds of colorful video to run.

Trust me. You're safe. Hold your marches.

The people don't care about you, and the government doesn't see you as an existential threat, just an occasional traffic control problem.

Re:Anti-globalisation peeps are next.

[Anonymous Coward]

No ability to fly. No ability to attend large gatherings.

At the risk of sounding redundant, that's just like countries behind Iron Curtain, between second world war and 90s; you'll be second class resident, and can not even leave the country. Well, I guess you might be able to drive to Mexico, if you are lucky... but no flying, no meeting other folks.

Re:Anti-globalisation peeps are next.

[k_head]

These are not the droids you are looking for. You are safe and sound. There is nothing to worry about. Go back to sleep, everything will be fine in the morning. Your govt loves you.

I know so because Elias Isarael told me. Of all the people in the world he should know most about these things.

Can we say McCarthyism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a little bit of history repeating.

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, don't be knocking my man McCarthy. He was a true American patriot whose only concern was the safety of our country.

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. He wasn't. He was a paranoiac afraid to accept having to share the country with people who didn't think like him. Thats not a patriot. McCarthy added NOTHING positive to american politics, until his departure from it.

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truely an American icon.

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[dogfart]

He was a thug, who intimidated witnesses in private, selecting for public humiliation only those he knew he could break

In other words, truly an American icon.

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was what I was thinking by the time I even got to the second post. This is really scary. This is halfway between McCarthyism and having numbers tatooed on our forearms.

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that he was also a closet queer!

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[Anonymous Coward]

McCarthy was a fine example of someone that truly believed the ends justified the means. While I don't agree with his tactics, it does turn out that he was right in several cases. Unfortunately, his success on those cases caused him to see a conspiracy everywhere.

Re:Can we say McCarthyism?

[mpe]

Wow, a little bit of history repeating.

McCarthyism was already a repeat of history. Hence Arthur Miller writing "The Crucible".
The most likely way for witch hunts to end is when people with real political power are accused, by the "witch finder general". There is little evidence that a "pleb" listing "witch finders" as co-conspirators would help.

Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Credit checks, terrorism checks, reference checks, drug checks, DNA checks, resume screening...

And still HR drones can't hire competant people.

Re:Meh.

[Roger Keith Barrett]

When you look to get people that have no "problems" in their past, you are looking for people that haven't really done anything. People who have made mistakes are people who have actually learned something.

that and "keywording" resumes pretty much makes the whole H.R. system crap.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

> And still HR drones can't hire competant people.

'Course not. Competent people don't line up for
that kind of crap if there's any way to avoid it.
Those who do, enter the resulting job with a
rational and well-founded hatred of the company
in question.

Britain

[zerocool^]

Is the U.K. in the E.U.? I thought they weren't, but then they were considering it, but then... I dunno, the U.K.'s stance on the E.U. confuses me.

The U.K. and France have cooperated in recent years, though, for instance on the U.N. security council (they're 2 of the 5 permanant members with veto power, with the U.S., Russia, and China, I believe), and they usually vote together (for instance, recent decision to issue a statement about Israel's assassination of Palestenian HAMAS leaders - I believe the vote was 12 for, 1 (the U.S.) against (veto), and France and the U.K. not voting.

~Will

Re:Britain

[Operating Thetan]

Is the U.K. in the E.U.?

In the EU, but not using the Euro.

Re:Britain

[Richard_at_work]

The UK and the EU situation is sort of like a Priest and a Prostitute. The priest may be caught with his cock half in the prostitute, and he may have a delighted look on his face. But the priest will always deny that he was paying the prostitute and that he was gaining any pleasure from having his cock inside her.

As a nation, we love the hand outs the EU gives us, we love the trade rules the EU gives us (most of the time, the fishing industry disagrees, but then when dont they?). We also love all the other benefits from being part of the EU. We dislike, however, the EU taking money from us, ruling agianst us, forcing us to implement laws that draw us in line with the rest of the EU nations, we hate them forcing us to be nice to EU migrant workers.

Essentially, we are half in and half out, with half the nation wanting to plunge all the way in, and the other half wanting to withdraw. Messy situation.

homesec blacklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, some colleagues and I researched the homesec blacklist a few months ago. In sum, there are more powerful and yet cheaper solutions hitting the market soon.

Basically, I was unimpressed with the Homesec Blaclist and would advise against it at this time.

You'd be amazed at how loose procedures are

[Operating Thetan]

I've got political friends who've had their closed email lists monitored by police after the heinous crimes of organising benefit gigs and leafletting GAP. They've been stopped by police photographers in London who knew their names, the group they were with, the colleges they went to and the pub they'd be going to after the demonstration. Don't think you have to be a terrorist to get on a state list and be monitored-ANY kind of attention will get you on there, and once you're on, you'll stay on.

Re:You'd be amazed at how loose procedures are

[Blue Stone]

Look on the bright side, though, plenty of the current British cabinet consist of people previously monitored by the intelligence services for their activities, including Jack Straw, the previous Home Secretary and current Foreign Secretary.

Re:You'd be amazed at how loose procedures are

[Richard_at_work]

And at least one former prime minister was a Communist Spy (in a loose sense of the word, he was a covert member of the Communist Party, and passed information on while in office).

Abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

This can easily be abused by companies to achieve business ends not previously legally permitted. All one has to do is submit, say, Steve Jobs name, or any corporate leaders name, and watch the havoc play out.

Your department of homeland security daily becomes more and more like the old german SS, the old russian KGB. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[TexasDex]

That is unlikely. They wouldn't want the terrorists to know that we are on to them. They couldn't give out the info because the info itself may very well be sensitive (and imagine if they made a mistake and put some highly sensitive info in your file). Remember that this list has already been compiled--the only change now is that companies in possible target industries will be able to submit your name to the FBI for a "terrorist background check" And the fact that seeing your own "terrorist rating" is unlikely to impossible makes me worry. Credit ratings can be, and often are, very wrong. What if somebody does something evil in your name somehow? Steals your identity and buys paramilitary supplies with it, perhaps? Overall, I don't like this idea either.

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[FooAtWFU]

Good lord. Does this mean I'll be spammed with Get your "free" terrorism assment report now!!! to complement the Credit Report ones? =b

Israel has...

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel has put entire arab population in their terror database. I wonder, how useful that is. This is not a criticism of Israel, it is a criticism of such large database in cost vs effectiveness. Eventually the database would be so large, each one of us would be on the list and everyone (including government official) will ignore such list except for taking political revenge.

Happy, happy, joy, joy

[Supp0rtLinux]

So now I can sit at work and tell the FBI and HS guys that all the co-workers and annoying sales people I don't like are suspected terrorists. Yaaaay!

Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy

[Roger Keith Barrett]

supposed to be funny, but I worry about this exact problem.

Organizations don't always get along like happy families. I can easily see people getting put on a list because they pissed someone off or they rub someone the wrong way. Anyone that has a huge ego (including CEOs) might use it as a way to get people on their own personal enemy list in trouble.

Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy

[Supp0rtLinux]

So how long do I have to wait before I can report Darl McBride and Bill Gates?

Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy

[jc42]

Some years back, I read an interesting historical example of this approach. The topic was the ways in which, during the early 40's, various countries conquered by the Nazis resisted them.

One example was the Danes. When the order came out that all Jew were to wear distinctive armband, the result was that most of the Danish population started wearing those armbands. They figured, rightly, that the Germans would understand what was happening, and wouldn't kill the entire Danish population who declared themselves Jews.

In contrast to this was the Bulgarians. Their approach was to cheerfully agree with the demand that they turn in all the Jews. The Bulgarians took this as an opportunity to finger everyone who they thought might be a collaborator. The Germans quickly eradicated most of their friends in the country, and except for a few cities, the country was essentially ungovernable.

There is a history of this in the US. Every witch hunt that we've had has mostly caught non-witches, because people figure out pretty quickly that this is a good way to make life difficult for people that they don't like. The actual subversives (whoever they might be that decade) have been hardly affected, of course.

This attempt to get companies to turn in terrorists will have the same effect. Is there someone you don't like, or who is a serious competitor at work? Just get them reported to the feds as a potential terrorist. Then sit back and wait.

Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy

[mpe]

There is a history of this in the US.

Hardly confined to the history of the US.

Every witch hunt that we've had has mostly caught non-witches, because people figure out pretty quickly that this is a good way to make life difficult for people that they don't like. The actual subversives (whoever they might be that decade) have been hardly affected, of course.

It wouldn't suprise me if there are actually examples of "witches" being the ones actually running "witch hunts". Given that they can be such a good way to get rid of political opponents, especially if the result is capital punishment...

A well known author had a character set an essay entitled 'Witch-Burning in the Fourteenth Century Was Completely Pointless - discuss'.

Re:Happy, happy, joy, joy

[mpe]

So how long do I have to wait before I can report Darl McBride and Bill Gates?

More intersting is that when you do it will show the social status of these people. Depending on if they get dragged through the mill (Plebean) or the witch-hunt stops (Patrician).

History Repeating Itself

[osobear]

I read this kind of hoping that it was all a joke or someone being a little excited in their summing up of a news story, but now, it's true.
I can't believe something like this could come to existance so soon after the whole McCarthy communism scandal. People will be able to submit lists of people and find out if any of them are Filthy Reds ...er, I mean, terrorists. This is just the newest and latest in state-supported prejudice.

Woody Allen's The Front just become recommended viewing for the entire nation.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Ralph JH Nader]

Maybe the cities will say: You can have your protest, if you supply a list of names of people who will be there.

Perhaps, although doing so would be a clear violation of the first amendment's freedom of assembly. I know people will cite the Patriot Act as an example that the government doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. On the other hand, I don't recall any real limitations on freedom of speech (okay, not giving expert advice to terrorists, but the courts struck that part of the Patriot Act down). They've been unwilling so far to touch the first amendment.

They get to know your location on a precise time and date.

Don't forget while you're there to only pay in plain cash. If you use a credit card or a check, then they'll know you were there either. Since this seems to only be used for events, many of the people will probably be buying things with their credit cards. In other words, I don't know that for most people, they'll be getting tracked more than they already are.

Maybe even if they started collecting names of those at political rallies, and started adding those to the databases.

For the most part, I don't see this happening. Both parties have been involved with the Patriot Act and with taking your rights away. Quite frankly, I think they don't want the election system associated with blacklists. It could quite easily backfire, and I'm sure that the opponents of the people in office who passed the Patriot Act would spin it as an attempt to scare voters into voting the incumbent back in.

EU Terror List

[Operating Thetan]

Will this include the IRA, or will Blair call for it to be left off the appease Bush?(who still hasn't declared it a terrorist organisation in the US. I guess East Coast votes are more important than preventing funding for bombs and drugs)

Re:EU Terror List

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I've always considered that one of ultimate examples of (J)anus-facedness of Bush and his ilk. USA could arguably be considered a country that "harbours terrorists", giving "material aid" (not govt directly, but some citizens do, without any problems). It's not IRA has ever used terror as its weapons, blowing up innocent civilians and such, has it? :-p

Also, USA has long history of supporting what could/should be labeled as terrorist groups in at least half of countries in South-America; there doesn't seem to be be much change in that direction.

Re:EU Terror List

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah yeah.
Those guys (who have been on permanent ceasefire for 7 or 8 years and reportedly moving towards breaking up if change continues) really have me living in terror.
From the article: "When you have that [process of change] working - whatever about what is happening within unionist paramilitaries - you are going to see an end to the IRA. That is the logic of all this." - Senior Sinn Fein source)

And if you must know, the 'security forces' already have such lists of their own of anyone who may be, know, is related to, bought a cat from, or otherwise was spotted on the same street as someone who may be suspected of being a sympathiser. Yes, I'm being flippant, but I know I am on it, along with probably nearly everyone in the whole area. 'Just in case', I presume.

Lists, schmists. Do we really need another one? They just piss me off thinking about them.

Perhaps its about time you updated your facts. Unless of course, you're one of those who'd prefer it all failed...

Re:EU Terror List

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I've always considered that one of ultimate examples of (J)anus-facedness of Bush and his ilk. USA could arguably be considered a country that "harbours terrorists", giving "material aid" (not govt directly, but some citizens do, without any problems). It's not IRA has ever used terror as its weapons, blowing up innocent civilians and such, has it? :-p

The most likely government to have funded the IRA would be the British Government, though it would hardly be suprising if the US contributed some cash too.

Also, USA has long history of supporting what could/should be labeled as terrorist groups in at least half of countries in South-America;

More like most of them, ditto for Central America. Especially if you count in US backed "terrorist governments" too.

there doesn't seem to be be much change in that direction.

South Americas appear to have managed a reasonable job of getting their countries back, though Argentina still has quite a way to go... Most of the current US support goes towards Asian thugs.

Vicious circle:

[Thud457]

"And still HR drones can't hire competant people."

And who hires those HR people?

"Quis cusotdiet ipsos custodes"

George Orwell

[igrp]

I just finished reading a book on George Orwell's life. Here are some things Orwell is quoted to have said and written, more than half a decade ago.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."

"In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia."

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink."

"The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history."

and, probably my favorite one,
"Winston Churchill could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war."

Just thought I'd share...

Re:George Orwell

[Anonymous Coward]

"Winston Churchill could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war."

Are you sure you didn't mean Winston Smith?

(I assume you're referring to the novel 1984, and not the former UK politician. I mean, Sir Churchill was quite a smart man and would probably be able to remember the time between the wars he served in and the wars he led :)

Re:George Orwell

[Dystopian Rebel]

Here are some things Orwell is quoted to have said and written, more than half a decade ago.

Orwell died in 1950. Afterward, he gave fewer and fewer interviews.

Re:George Orwell

[SquadBoy]

/s/decade/century

Re:George Orwell

[saforrest]

George Orwell's complete works, available online:

http://www.orwell.ru/

Re:George Orwell

[unitron]

George Orwell's complete works available online, from a Russian website.

"What a long, strange trip it's been."

Re:George Orwell

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir Churchill was quite a smart man and would probably be able to remember the time between the wars he served in and the wars he led

When addressing people as Sir it is usual to shorten the name to just the first name, not the second -- "Sir Winston was quite a smart man..." in other words.

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[kfg]

I am curious to see what they have on file for me.

Nothing.

But they just started one.

KFG

David Nelsons

[nightsweat]

Sucks even more to be a David Nelson soon, I'll bet. Link.

Re:David Nelsons

[Thud457]

I am Spart ^H^H err..., DAVID NELSON!

Re:David Nelsons

[Tackhead]

> I am Spart ^H^H err..., DAVID NELSON!

"HE'S Spartacus!"

This is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think will be in charge of searching the database in search of suspects?

IT staff.

Remember that girl you love, that has this idiot boyfriend, which is a lawyer and has lots of money?...Well, blacklist him and forget him?

11:05 am and you won't serve me breakfast?

[burgburgburg]

"The counter guy at McDonalds is a terrorist. He advocates the overthrow of Western Civilization. Which one? The blond one with the mood ring."

From the other end

[Anonymous Coward]

Will there also be a company blacklist that traces the money and/or weapons that are supplied and blacklists them and their associates? For instance, I believe that McDonalds used to donate to Noraid, who provided funds for the IRA. (Of course, these facts haven't been checked!) But even if not, there must be terrorist funds flowing through banks, the guns and explosives - even the fertilizer and diesel for homemade stuff - must come from somewhere, so shouldn't these suspect companies also be blacklisted?

Doesn't the CIA mix with terrorists?

Re:From the other end

[Operating Thetan]

Under American law, the IRA are not a terrorist organisation. What are a few British lives compared to the Boston vote?

Re:From the other end

[Anonymous Coward]

Under American law, the IRA are not a terrorist organisation.

Would you please point to that law?

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[kfg]

Maybe even if they started collecting names of those at political rallies, and started adding those to the databases.

I don't think you have to worry about that, unless you live a country that's been known to do that sort of thing in the past.

KFG

told ya so!

[luigi6699]

I'd just like to say that I predicted
this ages ago. This is another TIA project, under a different name. "Terrorism database" indeed.

A whole lotta cash

[Mr. Darl McBride]

All of this won't be cheap either; total terror-related IT spending by US federal and state governments will run past $100 billion in 2004

Sounds like Bush is trying to undo a little damage and create some tech jobs in time for the vote. :)

Re:A whole lotta cash

[Roger Keith Barrett]

The only growth industry in the U.S.A.!!

It's hard to outsource it overseas, too.

From Bad Debt to Terrorism: You are the loser

[amigoro]

It's pretty easy to get a bad credit score. One phone company falsely accusing you of not paying the bill on time is enough. And it takes so much time and effort to correct that error on your credit file.

Imagine a similar scenario with your terror file. You neighbour gets pissed off with you and goes and complains about you. She says you have been hanging out with a bearded people. You have made a business trip to Saudi Arabia.

And that's all it takes. Now you are are terrorist on the FBI terror list. You will never get clearance. You will never get a government job other than cleaning public toilets.

If this measure goes through, you will never get clearance to get a job at a private company either.

One mistake, by someone else, and you are out.

Thank god I am not in the land of the free!

Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny

YAY

[alexborges]

Georgie is really really trying to go back to texas... Good.

I love hearing HomeSec...

[Anonymous Coward]

It just fills me with a feeling of... what's it called again? Oh, yes, FEAR.

Worse than probation

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see:

- You get on this list, and you are on it forever
- There is no public method of removing yourself from the list

With probation at least you have a certain time limit before you are off probation.

This looks like a convenient way of circumventing the judicial system. This kind of system looks completely illegal to me. I really hope this isn't accepted just because it's got the buzzword of the day, "terrorism," in it.

let's start on it for them

[Triumph The Insult C]

INSERT into peepstowatch (fname,lname,occupation,nukearea) VALUES ('Darl','McBride','Scumbag','Mormonia');

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Dr Reducto]

Don't forget while you're there to only pay in plain cash. If you use a credit card or a check, then they'll know you were there either. Since this seems to only be used for events, many of the people will probably be buying things with their credit cards. In other words, I don't know that for most people, they'll be getting tracked more than they already are.

Yeah, but I think that the people who would be allowed to participate in the program will want to cooperate (for the most part). Thus, they will make a push to collect as much data as possible, as transparently as possible (like using your CC info instead of directly asking you). In addition, things like air travel require you to disclose your identity, and I wouldn't be surprised if they add to the list of things you are required to give up data for.

You have a good point, and it will probably not be totally trackable, but the technology is about to be in place to track everything you do. If the government manages to find a way to get information to store (through this program or others), there could be a huge threat to privacy.

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[Phurd Phlegm]

A free terrorist report any time you're turned down for a job?

I've been turned down for jobs before, but I've never even considered reporting the interviewer as a terrorist. Very innovative. The hard question is, do you use your one free report on the hiring manager or the H. R. manager?

Maybe we should get two free reports each time we're turned down?

Holy freaking *censored*!!

[eclectic4]

So, if the gov decides it doesn't like my politics, it will make it so I can't get hired anywhere? And this is good?

Here's the SQL...

[GPLDAN]

Select evildoers, democrats, COUNT(*) FROM eurotrash O, illegales C WHERE O.eurotrash = C.illegales AND implied_intent = 'mal' GROUP BY evildoers, democrats

This already exists

[Profane MuthaFucka]

This IT infrastructure to identify and ennumerate the terrorist threat to the United States already exists. It's even available on a website.

See the database of people who seek to dismantle our democracy for yourself. They've even got a picture of a bunch of them standing in a room together.

Great

[MAXOMENOS]

Another opportunity for false positives and political agendas to wreak havoc on the American citizen.

"Well Ms. Jones, you're a very strong candidate and we'd like to hire you, but Homeland Security says you gave money to Earth First! at a fundraiser in 1992. We've offered the position to somebody else. Good luck."

It gets worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Company security guard with nothing to do at 4am spots a screensaver dumping the Zippy the Pinhead fortune file to my CRT. Something to the effect of "I want to blow everyone up with a cute, colorful hydrogen bomb!" He writes it up, 24 hours later they call me into a 9am meeting (I have to drive 85 miles to get there) and start treating me like a mental patient "Is there something bothering you?" I explain to them that the screensaver was from a corporate approved Linux Distro installed and configured by their corporate IT guy, and I never touched it. They start screaming at me, accusing me of not cooperating, and saying things like "It was on your computer, therefore you are responsible! You are creating a hostile workplace!" as if their screaming at me doesn't create a hostile workplace. They then confiscate my badge, suspend me and send me back home again. Gee thanks, for making me drive 3 hours just so you could yell at me! Sound too ridiculous to be true? No, this actually happened to me as a contractor at HP!

Re:It gets worse

[Anonymous Coward]

"HP". nuff said.

Welcome to the long, drawn out, painful process of corporate self destruction.

Re:It gets worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen! The company is just on life support while the brand gets burned out.

Good.

[rice_burners_suck]

I think the federal government, in cooperation with Microsoft, should put together a database of all known information about every single person in the world, not limited to terror information. This database would be used by governments, as well as public and private companies, to deny services to persons for a variety of reasons. For example, you might find yourself unable to eat at any restaurant in the entire world because you are not a good tipper. Or you might be denied access to all gas stations because you were once seen smoking within 1000 feet of one. Or the government might suddenly burst into your home in the middle of the night, because you thought the president's neck tie was kind of funny in a speech he gave.

Yes, it looks like the world is becoming a better place every day.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ almighty, what was informative about this post?

I can understand an interesting mod, but INFORMATIVE? You people are fucking idiots.

Re:Good.

[No Such Agency]

For example, you might find yourself unable to eat at any restaurant in the entire world because you are not a good tipper.

Why would MANAGEMENT (the restaurant owners) refuse to accept your money because you are not very nice to the WORKERS (serving staff)? If you get drunk and tear up THEIR silk plants, or vomit on THEIR rug, or make a scene and drive away THEIR other customers, they'd care. But not if you don't tip their poorly-paid peons.

OK, I know it was just an off-the-cuff example, but I thought I'd point it out because I'm inherently pedantic.

Re:Good.

[mpe]

I think the federal government, in cooperation with Microsoft, should put together a database of all known information about every single person in the world, not limited to terror information. This database would be used by governments, as well as public and private companies, to deny services to persons for a variety of reasons.

Except that they wouldn't want a database on every person.

For example, you might find yourself unable to eat at any restaurant in the entire world because you are not a good tipper. Or you might be denied access to all gas stations because you were once seen smoking within 1000 feet of one. Or the government might suddenly burst into your home in the middle of the night, because you thought the president's neck tie was kind of funny in a speech he gave.

A database with everyone's details which was easily accessable probably wouldn't be too much of a problem to a typical member of the public. Most of the interest would be on what "celebrities" had been up to.
So far as actions against regular people were to go it would be a case of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Anyone who refused to serve you had better not have any skeletons in their cupboard, otherwise they could easily find themselves lacking customers.
Such a database would also show what actually is "normal" and what is "divient" behaviour.
Problems come when you have data on only some people accessable only to some people (including those who are not in the database).

If terror = schoolbooks

[manganese4]

At $100 billion/yr they could easily provide a college education for everyone. But it would be better to give to the money to companies so they can hire more H1-B visa holders since they cannot find enough skilled americans (or so they claim).

No Child left behind simply means everyone is left behind since it is easier hobble the quick than train the slow

Woah, dude, relax!

[JeanPaulBob]

I mean, seriously, man--why get worked up about politics when you're throwing a party?

Re:Woah, dude, relax!

[ackthpt]

I mean, seriously, man--why get worked up about politics when you're throwing a party?

Can't take credit for this theme, it's borrowed from some short sci-fi story or stories I've read in the past. There was a good bit in the early Heavy Metals on a Captain Future selffullfilling prophecy.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Well, that's comforting...

[tyler_larson]

I was worried that the government would abuse such an all-inclusive database. Or that perhaps false information that found its way into the this storehouse could tarnish an innocent person's reputation and prevent him from getting the access to important resources (like a job or a house).

It's nice to know that much of the querying will be done by private organizations, and not just the government. Non-government organizations are so much more trustworthy and reliable. Phew. What a relief.

And if you didn't catch the sarcasm, think of the damage that people can currently cause with our existing system in the form of identity theft. Now immagine a parallel system being used to determine how much of a threat you pose to society. Now when you apply for housing in an appartment, they not only call your references, but check this database to see if they should worry about you bombing the place or something absurd like that. Great.

That's a lot of power, by the way. And claims that it will be accurate and reliable only worsen the situation. People wouldn't take such a database seriously if it contained a lot of mistakes. The only reason why you can correct your credit report at all is because there are so many publicised inaccuracies. But if such a database managed to be some 99.95% accurate, or something like that... boy does it suck to be one of the thousands of people who got got an undeserved "black mark" on your record. No one would ever believe you, it would be completely impossible for you to correct it--not because you can't prove you're innocent, but because there's no one you can go to to get it fixed. Everyone believes the database because it's always right. You get turned down for loans, housing, jobs, and can't even travel. Such a database may even wind up admissable in court.

Now immagine the position of those who can anonymously input information into that database (and there will be many). That's too much power, with no accountability. A recipe for a silent disaster. Of course, you'll never hear about it, that's the nature of the thing. The only ones who will know are the abusers and the victims. Wow.

Re:Well, that's comforting...

[RealAlaskan]

But if such a database managed to be some 99.95% accurate ...

If it managed to be that good, it would be a miracle. But still, 0.05(260)10^6=13,000,000 people who are on the list, but aren't terrorists.

Just to make things worse, it doesn't have to be anywhere near that good, as long as people think it's that good. As you pointed out, if people believe it's infallible, they'll drag their own mother out of the nursing home and pack her off to jail when she shows up on the list.

Even if the false positives are far rarer than you proposed, there will still be too many. If good folks are excluded with 99.999% accuracy, that's still 2,600 false positives.

That's the problem of false positives, and it's a serious problem indeed. The problem of false negatives might be even worse. If people (especially law enforcement people) believe that this database has essentially all terrorists in it, we will be less safe with the data base than without.

Say that there are only half a million terrorists in the world; people who are willing and able to do something like the murders in Spain, or the murders on 9/11. On no particular evidence, I think that's a low estimate.

The 9/11 murders seem to have taken less than 50 people to plan and execute. If the database contains 99.99% of the 500,000 genuine terrorists, that leaves 50 who aren't in the database, and can procede freely, because the police effort is being wasted on the 13,499,950 people in the database. That number in the data base is the 0.05% who are wrongly suspected in the U.S., and the 99.99% of terrorists who are rightly suspected.

Even if there are only 2,600 false positives at any given moment, that still dilutes law enforcement efforts. More seriously, law enforcement is quite likely to believe that all they have to do is watch the ones they know about, and they'll be easily blindsided by the ones they haven't yet found. The mess at Columbine highschool a few years ago shows that the only way to stop all murders is to lock up every one. We'd better lock up the cops too ... some of them might go bad.

I'd say that all we can accomplish with this sort of thing (except making things difficult for the current administration's detractors[1]) is provide some excellent cover for hundreds of really dangerous terrorists, at the expense of everyone's freedom.

[1] Every administration in modern times has been accused, with considerable justification, of abusing the FBI and IRS to that end.

Re:Well, that's comforting...

[Our Man In Redmond]

Your math is off. .05% of 260 million is 130,000, not 13 million.

That's still the rough equivalent of a city the size of Alexandria, Virginia; Berkeley, California; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; New Haven, Connecticut; or Fort Collins, Colorado.

Not to take away from the rest of your post, I just wanted to help readers visualize just how many people we're talking about.

Re:Well, that's comforting...

[psetzer]

Well, if they don't start toeing the line soon enough, Berkeley's residents will be there on their own virtues.

Re:Well, that's comforting...

[0x0d0a]

1950s:

"Communist!"
- Career is ruined.

2004:

"Terrorist!"
- Career is ruined.

Worse than that

[dogfart]

You would just be turned down for the job. They wouldn't (and wouldn't be permitted) to tell you it was because you were on the homeland security hit list. The reason you were put on the list would be unknown to all be a few individuals in the department of homeland security.

Re:Worse than that

[BiggerIsBetter]

So... 10 years from now, unemployed == terrorist?

This can only mean one thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The terrorists and the bureaucrats have won. Kiss your freedoms goodbye.

Brainfart

[igrp]

Woops, you're entirely correct.

As a matter of fact, I was just sitting in my backyard, writing down some miscellaneous thoughts when I saw the article (ah, the beauty of 802.11b networking :) and found some of the quotes I had highlighted surprisingly fitting. For some reason, I must have been thinking about Churchill (I've always wanted to read Jenkin's take on Churchill).

Anyway, thank you for point this out. :)

movie industry "Reds"-Modern day McCarthyism.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Mr Planckscale. Have you ever been a member of the communist party?

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[realdpk]

I meant that you could get a copy of your own terrorist report, not that you could submit one. Not quite as innovative..

Re:Here's a Jumpstart

[HarryCaul]

Uh Oh.

Of course, if they looked up my handle in imdb, they'd just confirm their suspicions.

Intel

[BillsPetMonkey]

France and UK are reluctant to share intel

I didn't know Intel was France or the UK's to share

This is *REALLY FUCKING SCARY*

[Anonymous Coward]

Some might think that the resources for such a large data sstem do not exist. Well, they do.

Now consider how often Americans change jobs. Just how long would it take for the Feds to have EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN included in this db?

Joe McCarthy was damaging enough without the resources to effectively track 'communist subversives'. Add today's resources, how long before YOU are suspect simply because you applied for a job at XYZ Widgets, who had hired a known terrorist (who also happend to know the wife of the person down the block who walked the dog of the sister of your neighboor's grandson).

<loading rifle><arming claymores><checking tin hat>I'm prepared!

Let me be the first

[nizo]

I want to be the first to say we should hurry and register this person as soon as possible!

Re:Let me be the first

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the man founded a company that employs hundreds of thousands of people? Because he played a large part in bringing computers to the masses, which created millions of jobs and made the economy grow faster than it ever has before? Oh yeah the man is a terrorist!

Re:Obligatory Alarmist Post

[TempusMagus]

Basically what you are telling us is that we shouldnt worry as long as they arent bothering us personally?

Not enough sleep last night...

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant ironic.

WTF is terrorism?

[t_allardyce]

What exactly is terrorism anyway? is Bush a terrorist? i mean he terrorises people - dont you remember "shock and awe" and "bomb them back to the stone age". Maybe an anti-war protestor is a terrorist? i mean if i was one lone republican in the middle of an anti war protest id feel pretty terrorised! Armed robber? street gang? tell us bush, wtf is your little crack head on about? there must be a legal definition of a terrorist? otherwise this is witch burning.

Re:WTF is terrorism?

[fishbowl]

> is Bush a terrorist?

It doesn't matter what Bush is. He is the executive in custodial charge of an imperialist regime which operates as it pleases in the world with zero meaningful opposition.

Re:WTF is terrorism?

[t_allardyce]

So i take that as a yes?

unfortunately when he is brought to justice we wont be able to send him to camp X-ray for torture becuase it violates those pesky basic human rights

No way to prove its not necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

The most insideous aspect of this proposal, and one that exists in many of the new "security" measures, is the fact that one can never prove they are unnecessary or ineffectual. Have you noticed how many terrorist attacks there have been within the boarders of the US since the 9/11 events? Zero. Well, there were some odd powders going around some post offices and office buildings, but I haven't seen any of these security measures addressing those risks. That must mean that all of these security measures have been extremely successful. Or, maybe it means there was no need for them in the first place and thus, with no attack, there was nothing for them to detect or prevent. But, better safe than sorry we are told. In fact, even though there have been no incidents, we are told that security needs to be tightened, we need to give up even more of our rights. And what will the end result be... we will continue to see the same level of incidents in our country. Those who are thoughtful will continue to wonder how many threats are being twarted, or if there were no immediate threats in the first place.

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[AndroidCat]

As well as offers of mortgages to terrorists with bad credit ratings. "Good credit, bad credit, no credit, blown up any national monuments? No problems!"

Re:Here's a Jumpstart

[AndroidCat]

I'm not worried! My throw-away email address androidcat99@hotmail.com just got trashed. (Probably a spammer joe-job.) I can now make a clean start with a fresh new identity as androidcat98@hotmail.com. They'll never trace me!

BEND OVER!

[Anonymous Coward]

The american corporation is gonna make a speical delivery UP YOUR ASS!

Re:Corporate power

[Anonymous Coward]

>Remember, kids, fascism IS corporatism, and this
>is cementing neofeudalist corporate power.

Look at it this way: The camel hasn't even gotten his nose under the tent yet, and lots of people are *already* talking revolution.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[zurab]

Maybe the cities will say: You can have your protest, if you supply a list of names of people who will be there.

Perhaps, although doing so would be a clear violation of the first amendment's freedom of assembly.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Cities already require their advance approval of any demonstration. They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot. I don't see anything in the 1st amendment that can keep them from requiring organizers and attendants lists to check against terrorist databases to the list of their criteria.

I know people will cite the Patriot Act as an example that the government doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.

Nothing of the sort is happening. In fact, Bush and Ashcroft are proud of having passed the US PATRIOT Act and regard it as a plus in their fight against terrorism. Needless to say, most people are blind to principles and could care less if the government is able to listen into their telephone conversations with their friends without a warrant, or tap into their OnStar or a similar device to track them or listen to their in-car conversations. Or detain suspects for extended periods of time, if not forever, without charging them with anything, giving them access to a lawyer, family, etc. All they do is talk to family and friends over the phone and drive kids around anyway - they have nothing to hide; do you? Principles go down the drain when government uses scare tactics.

On the other hand, I don't recall any real limitations on freedom of speech (okay, not giving expert advice to terrorists, but the courts struck that part of the Patriot Act down). They've been unwilling so far to touch the first amendment.

You are making it sound like it's OK to violate the Constitution as long as you don't violate the 1st amendment. The US PATRIOT Act and government's actions based thereon, violate 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, among other things. i.e., courts will uphold the 1st amendment, but not care at all about others? How is this justified?

"France and UK are reluctant to share intel."

[Anonymous Coward]

And here was me thinking that Intel was American.

Accuracy

[jefu]

Nah, no reason to worry about mistakes.

After all it is going to be farmed out to some corporation somewhere and they're not going to be required to maintain any particular kind of accuracy. (I think there was a slashdot story to that effect recently but I can't find it.)

Our best hope is that it will be possible for everyone to add information to it so we can overwhelm it with nonsense.

$100B ???

[melted]

What are they spending all this money on? $30K toilet seats, "military-style" again?

Safe? Excuse me?

[TempusMagus]

"Trust me. You're safe. Hold your marches."

Reality doesnt gibe with your charactarization.

You say:
"The so-called "anti-globalization" drummings of a few highly-motivated but ultimately uninformed marchers is neither as significant, nor as threating to "the man" as to warrant the kind of Gestapo tactics you're talking about."

You are wrong and here are my facts to support it. You may or may not be aware of this but during the Miami Free Trade summit they really did use Gestapo tactics and the "the man" certainly felt that the event was threatening.

Here are just a few highlights from the FT summit in Miami:

• Use of undercover "snatch squads". There were groups of plainclothes officers who mingled with the crowd to arrest people without warning.
• Reporters with the corporate news sources were kept behind police lines. Reporters were decked out in full riot gear, like embedded journalists in a war zone.
• Independant journalists, and particularly indymedia reporters, were frequently arrested, or had their video cameras, film, and notepads seized.
• Even the permitted labor march did not escape harassment, as the police turned away several busses full of retired union members from the Alliance of Retired Americans who were trying to travel to the march.

The federal government gave the city of Miami $8.5 million for "anti-terrorism" security at the talks, as part of an $87 billion appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Now let me be clear. They used money for the war in Iraq to quash protesters in Miami. I'm a reasonable person and I'm concerned. What on earth makes you think they wouldnt use a system like the one described here to monitor folks with such political views?

Re:Another inch closer to the predicted war

[fishbowl]

"which would eventually lead to an internal war and world war."

Things will need to get a LOT worse before either of the following things happen:

1. Issues are so divisive that even people who command military units and/or govern states become revolutionaries. Hippies and ranchers aren't going to do it.

2. Some other nation with a military chooses to oppose the US.

So does Titor say when this civil war/world war started? Sometime before 2036?

IN TIMECUBE THERE IS NO WAR

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Anonymous Coward]

Cities already require their advance approval of any demonstration

There's a fine line between acknowledging the speakers and orgaizers at a rally and requiring a full attendance list.

The latter is impossible and a blatant First Amendment violation.

competAnt? try competEnt, dumbass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the irony.

Getting it over with...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll go ahead and get it over with, so "they" just blacklist me now instead of being afraid to say or write the 'wrong thing' for the rest of my life:

I'm a commie.

I think Bush was wrong for invading Iraq and should pay for it.

I've cross-dressed before.

I've found myself agreeing with Muslum and Athiest philosopies.

I masturbate to the quoran and the bible.

Bin Laden is only a product of his enviornment, and I'd probably react the same way was I in his shoes.

America should spend its money on repairing it's differences with countries that hate us, rather than spend money further destroying them.

The US dollar is essentially worthless and everyone should trade them for gold.

I'm an afgahni/saudi/morocan/yemeni/palistinian/lebonize mix and I'm NOT white.

BOMB KILL BLOWUP FIGHT DESTROY (ECHELON keywords)

*disclaimer: Just kidding!!

This might not be a good thing

[hawado]

Like I don't have enough to worry about at work. Now I have to wonder if my boss will report me for including SCO(r) code in my work saying that I am terroist to his company...
Hey wait a minute... My dad owns the company... great, now he is going to report me for spending too much time reading slashdot....
Does anyone else have a problem with this...
You piss off your boss and end up on a terrorist watch list?
It used to be if someone pissed you off you went to a magazine shop, grabbed the blow-ins and had a tonne of buy nothing now magazines delivered to their house... or even more reciently have gay porn sent to their in box... now you have them totaly screwed by their own govt.

Get blacklisted, loose your career

[nurb432]

If you get on that list by accident, or by 'expanding classifications' you can kiss your career good bye.

Hell, you wont even be able to flip burgers at the local burger-doodle to support your family.

Expect a lot of criminals to be created by this.

Next stop, 1984...

Re:Get blacklisted, loose your career

[Anonymous Coward]

Loose your career? Whew... I thought this might result in LOSING my career, but instead, it will allow me to loose it on the world like a powerful demon!

Thank you, HomeSec, for giving me opportunity!

it's not justified....

[Anonymous Coward]

... not at all. We've morphed into a fascist corporate run pig state, based on hideous greedism as an economic model.

It's our fault, too. Less than half the people vote, and those that do mostly shuffle up and yank the D or R lever anyway,because they are scared out of their shorts by the same D's and R's that they will "waste their vote" if they don't support one or the other of those two criminal cartels, so what's the point? D or R, same old lying crooks in the same jobs, now with all sorts of gadgets..

The new name for our form of society is called "Technofeudalism"

I'm old enough to remember when "random checkpoints" were taught in school as something only some place hideously bad like east germany or the soviet union had. Hideously bad. I remember when police departments weren't massively black clad ninja destroyer wannabes. I remember when kids in school weren't forced into becoming drug addicts for the corporate state.

and etc,etc,rant,etc....

No, the "good old days" weren't all good,there were still plenty of problems... but... it just sucks to watch it slide down the tubes so fast. the last 25 or so years in particular have been the worst. The phrase "hell in a handbasket" comes to mind.

The US used to (+ -, mostly +) stand for some decent principles, all that has mostly poofed away now, and it was done on purpose. IMO, anyway.

zogger

Re:it's not justified....

[mpe]

It's our fault, too. Less than half the people vote, and those that do mostly shuffle up and yank the D or R lever anyway,because they are scared out of their shorts by the same D's and R's that they will "waste their vote" if they don't support one or the other of those two criminal cartels, so what's the point? D or R, same old lying crooks in the same jobs, now with all sorts of gadgets..

You appear to be blaming people for not voting. In a situation where voting is more or less pointless anyway.
Whereas in order to change anything you'd actually need to do something other than voting for someone from a list of candidates already preselected not to change the status quo.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Kwil]

You're not paranoid enough.

What you should *really* be afraid of is accidentally pissing off the guy in the company who delivers these lists to the feds.

4, 5, and 6, all down the drain

[lone_marauder]

Amendments, that is. Because this is doubtlessly a reporting mechanism as well as an information gathering one, your employer can now violate your fourth amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure. Now, if this database comes to contain nefarious information about you, the FBI can prevent you from getting a job, thus violating your rights to due process and to be punished only as the result of a lawful trial. That is covered under number five. For the grand finale, by allowing private organizations to submit data about you which will (as previously mentioned) be used to your detriment, the protections granted under the sixth amendment, the right to face your accuser, is also circumvented.

All this AND the government makes money off of it! It's a win-win scenario!

critical mass

[Anonymous Coward]

you can bet someone has already identified the threshold for abuse that people will tolerate. They'll abuse it to within a nanometer of that threshold too. Any more and there would be too many blacklisted people for anyone to take it seriously. unfortunately, they will abuse it, and not to the point that people fight it.

sad.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget while you're there to only pay in plain cash. If you use a credit card or a check, then they'll know you were there either. Since this seems to only be used for events, many of the people will probably be buying things with their credit cards. In other words, I don't know that for most people, they'll be getting tracked more than they already are.

RFID's baby...

Whenever I think about how the gov. is probably just to lazy to use these far fetched weird tracking schemes that paranoid tin-foil hatters talk about, I remember when I read about actual instences of remote surveillance by way of remote CRT viewing. The CIA/FBA/Whoopdydingdong camped outside your house watching you type your abomunist manifesto on your 486. Yeah, sure they would never actualy go to great -lengths- to spy on people, that would be just, so like, totally hard.

So RFID's are scary. Do you trust your government not to track your every move? Why wouldn't they? they CAN. Well, they probably can't track everyone's every move, so I guess I don't mind as long as it's not me...

GUSTAPO here, open up, bang bang bang, you coming with us heir terrorista!

RE: Snipers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a tidbit from 'Operation Northwoods' (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/northwoods. pdf):

"...and wounding civilians in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC using paramilitary sniper teams."

Operation Northwoods is a 1962 plan of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff concocted to justify a US military response in Cuba. Among other wonderful things, the US Special Forces would arrange for two-and-three-man "freelance" sniper teams to roam and randomly shoot people at will in order to cause panic and permit the use of the United States military in civilian jurisdictions in clear violation of the United States Constitution (see Posse Commitatus).

Luckily it never happened so...oh...no...wait...

freedom of speach limit

[bluGill]

Very limited if you are within 60 days of an election. Course some will argue that it is fair, it keeps those "evil special interests" from advertising and influencing an election. However it is still a limit on freedom of speach.

Re:Obligatory Alarmist Post

[Kohath]

Panic shouldn't be the mindset of the start of the discussion.

Do you disagree?

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody likes the other amendments anyways. All anybody cares about is #1. It's been made dear to us by movies like the people vs. larry flynt, and uh.. other ones... besides, we like porn and people saying fuck on tv and reality shows where you get to see pixely boobs. Who gives a rats ass about the other, like, howmany were there? twelve, or something... who cares.

Ok, enough allready!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever is modding this fool up needs to stop. His postscript, it's not a sig, that he pastes into every message is more annoying than any perl script ever was.

Mods, stop modding anyone with this crap in their message up. In fact, mod them down. This kind of crap has to stop.

Re:Ok, enough allready!

[Anonymous Coward]

dude look at his site, you gotta be pretty desperate when faced with that shit

Why the panic?

[Kohath]

Why is it that this type of discussion starts with panic?

They seem to eventually evolve to near-panic as hints of rationality get applied.

Why can't they start out rational and lead to a well supported factual basis to make a decision?

Is is a slashdot problem or is everyone incapable of cool-headed, reality-based decision making?

Re:Why the panic?

[TempusMagus]

Here is why I worry.

I'm a reasonable person and I'm concerned. I base my decisions on recent history. For example:

During the Miami Free Trade summit, this wonderful government we should trust with all our information gave the city of Miami $8.5 million for "anti-terrorism" security , as part of an $87 billion appropriations bill for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Here are just a few highlights from the FT summit in Miami:

• Use of undercover "snatch squads". There were groups of plainclothes officers who mingled with the crowd to arrest people without warning.
• Reporters with the corporate news sources were kept behind police lines. Reporters were decked out in full riot gear, like embedded journalists in a war zone.
• Independant journalists, and particularly indymedia reporters, were frequently arrested, or had their video cameras, film, and notepads seized.
• Even the permitted labor march did not escape harassment, as the police turned away several busses full of retired union members from the Alliance of Retired Americans who were trying to travel to the march.

What on earth makes you think they wouldnt abuse a system like the one described here? Look at how quickly they took money earmarked for Iraq and used it against protestors.

Acusing someone of being alarmist is a hollow argument - it the validity of the warning that should be addressed.

What is your factual basis for assuming the best in our goverment is the best course of action? When in our history (or in history in general) has blind trust ever been rewarded by honrable action by our government?

Re:Why the panic?

[Kohath]

How many dead in your story about Miami? How many wounded? How many put in concentration camps? How many sent to Orwellian 1984-style re-education? None?

Here is why I worry.

Worry is fine. It's part of being rational. Have you read the other posts in this topic? They're not rational. They're not saying: "it would be better to have a few safeguards to prevent the possibility of abuse in the future."

Acusing someone of being alarmist is a hollow argument - it the validity of the warning that should be addressed.

No it's not hollow. Trying to get people to do something that's not in their best interest by appealing to their fear is destructive and wrong.

What on earth makes you think they wouldnt abuse a system like the one described here? [bold added by me]

Why is there always a they? Who are they? Specifically what have they personally done that should make us all so frightened?

What is your factual basis for assuming the best in our goverment is the best course of action? When in our history (or in history in general) has blind trust ever been rewarded by honrable action by our government?

You mis-characterize my position as extreme. No blind trust here. No blind panic either.

There are two things to worry about. Government oppression is one. Terrorism is the other one. Government oppression can happen in the US. Terrorism has happened recently in the US.

There's a balance to deciding what to do. It's not all one side or the other.

I don't have all the answers to all the questions. But I'm pretty sure panicking about imaginary scenarios doesn't answer any of them.

Re:Why the panic?

[TempusMagus]

How many dead in your story about Miami? How many wounded? How many put in concentration camps? How many sent to Orwellian 1984-style re-education?

Are you actually OK with having people excercising their right to protest incarcerated because their views differ from the governments? FYI, folks were indeed wounded in Miami. Have you studied what occurs before things get as bad as you outline? Let me know if you notice any patterns and get back to me. Just because the patient isnt dead doesnt mean we should ignore the early symptoms.

Why is there always a they? Who are they? Specifically what have they personally done that should make us all so frightened?

The word 'they' is used as shorthand because I refer to the government earlier on. You mis-characterize my position as extreme and assume paranoid.

Trying to get people to do something that's not in their best interest by appealing to their fear is destructive and wrong.

I couldnt agree more. Using fear to get people to dimish their civil liberties or push political agendas is indeed destructive and wrong - esp. by an administration who has been as opportunistic milking terrorism for every cent.

Government oppression can happen in the US. Terrorism has happened recently in the US.

Both have happened in the U.S. and both recently (see previous post) and historically. It all depends on your definition of what government oppression is and what is your personal level of tolerance for it.

There's a balance to deciding what to do. It's not all one side or the other.

Absolutely. I'm saying we're well on the road to being imbalanced. Just because one group of people say 2+2 =4 and another say 2+2=6 doesnt make 5 any less wrong for being the 'moderate' choice.

Re:Why the panic?

[Kohath]

Protestors get arrested. It's not a shocking new development. It's been happening for hundreds of years. How is it suddenly a "symptom" of something new we should all fear?

The word 'they' is used as shorthand because I refer to the government earlier on.

Ok, but the government is full of lots of individuals with lots of different goals. Which person is the scary one? Specifically what has that person individually done that we should fear?

I don't think they are nearly so scary if understood in a real context rather than as a mysterious unseen force.

It all depends on your definition of what government oppression is and what is your personal level of tolerance for it.

You want to see oppression, you should see my tax bill. What's one night in jail compared to the government taking all I've earned for 5 months of every year? And I wasn't protesting or anything, I was just minding my own business trying to help some people in exchange for a wage.

You're right. There are different definitions of oppression.

Just because one group of people say 2+2 =4 and another say 2+2=6 doesnt make 5 any less wrong for being the 'moderate' choice.

If this is an analogy to the terrorism vs. civil liberties discussion, then it's a very silly analogy.

We need to be effective against terrorism with minimal (and zero long-term) impact on civil-liberites. Both terrorism and loss of civil-liberties are threats. Slashdot doesn't seem much interested in terrorism though -- at least not in trying to avoid/defeat/prevent it.

Finally -- am I OK with arresting protestors? Sometimes. Realistically, sometimes protestors go over the line. Whatever else you want to say about protests, they're not the same thing as quietly minding your own business. Somewhere between quietly minding your own business and burning the city down is the point where protestors need to be arrested. It's rarely clear-cut.

It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened here.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

On the other side, we have people wielding Orwell. Big Brother is watching you, the government is evil and corrupt, you can't take a piss off-center without a dozen people knowing about it. Here's a hypothetical story I made up, complete with a series of lottery-scale unlikely events, leading to a conclusion that mostly just serves make you scared of your own shadow.

Rent a clue.

The Orwellian scenarios sound like a bunch of pipe-dreaming by paranoids to you because they haven't happened to you.

Yet.

But trust me. They do happen. They happen a lot.

They've happened to me. They've happened to lots of my friends. They've happened to my wife. They've happened to a number of our ancestors. (On her side, at least one per generation for the last three, and that's just counting the ones on the DIRECT line.)

They happened to opposition political figures big time, over and over. Not just in countries "over there" - but right here at home. (Look up the FBI's "COINTELPRO" just for starters.) Every twenty years or so the stuff that happened twenty years back comes to light. And the story is always the same: "That was THEN. That COULDN'T happen NOW." And twenty years later you find out that it WAS happening now, too.

j'accuse is alive and well, as is stereotyping, as is guilt-by-association, and so on.

The conspiracy-theory tinfoil-hat stereotype is VERY convenient for the people who are actually running such operations. It discredits their victims's cries for help, as well as the warnings of those who haven't yet been vicitmized (as far as they can tell) but who understand the dynamics and can thus read the writing on the wall.

The biggest trouble with these things is that, by the time they come for YOU, it's too late. So you have to head them off while they're still being formed up, or still going after just the genuine scumbags (and the people the operators honestly mistake for genuine scumbags), rather than waiting until the machine is well oiled, armored, and compeletely out of control.

Re:Corporate power

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is that offtopic? This is government and corporation cooperating to monitor the populace. That's fascism! Jesus, haven't you even heard of Benito Mussolini???

Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred

[zagmar]

If you send the FBI a request, they are required (under the Freedom Of Information Act) to send you a copy of your file. Of course, if you don't have a file, they'll oblige you by creating one.

ugh, More Carnival Barkers

[sPaKr]

Uh.. Ya.. thats what the Carnival Algorithem needed, Cheaper, Easier, Faster ways to test potential terrorist. I mean hey buying a 6 plane tickets from Boston to Washington DC is just to damn expensive. We need to allow these guys to apply for a job as a janoitor, get rejected...and move on to the next canidate. At least we have a war over seas, and we are trying to pick our fights there. The deptarment of Homeland insecurity coudlnt protect its own cherry on prom night.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Ungrounded Lightning]

They get to know your location on a precise time and date.

Don't forget while you're there to only pay in plain cash. If you use a credit card or a check, then they'll know you were there either.

Don't forget to take the battery out of your cell phone. Otherwise it will tell them (about every five minutes if they don't explicitly ask it for more reports), exactly where you are.

MOD THIS UP!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

holy shit! how come we have never heard about this before?! the 1st thing i thought when i read this was 9-11 and i am NOT some tin foil hat retard!!!!! jesus christ thats some scary shit!!!

Re:Obligatory Alarmist Post

[TempusMagus]

Absolutely. But we need to be involved in the discussion. At what point should we worry in your opinion?

France & Britain

[Petronius]

I don't know about Britain but France has a government agency that enforces strict laws when it comes to their citizens' right to electronic privacy, anonymity, removal from databases, etc.
Interesting to note that the main law (1978) was passed under Giscard D'Estaing - a moderate republican, by U.S. standards.

Re:France & Britain

[BigBadBri]

Yep - we've got the Information Commissioner (it used to be called the Data Protection Registrar, but since RIPA allowed anyone from the Security Services to the dog pound supervisor at your local council to ride roughshod over the Data Protection Act, perhaps the change in title is a rare glimpse of honesty from the Bliar junta.

OK - so maybe dog pound supervisor is perhaps hyperbole, but the list of people able to access your information does extend as far as, for example, any local authority, any health service trust, even the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

So yes, we have a law, and even an authority set up to protect citizens from the misuse of data, but at the same time we have RIPA, which drives a coach and horses through any privacy we may have felt entitled to under the Data Protection Act.

Be assured, under RIPA the Home Secretary can add whoever he wishes to the list of people authorised to access information about citizens, and if the current atmosphere is anything to go by, business will be allowed to check the database for any of their employees.

Re:France & Britain

[Ben Hutchings]

RIPA allows many parts of government to demand that you help them to decrypt your encrypted communications that they have intercepted as part of an investigation. Appalling as this is, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with compiling databases.

Re:France & Britain

[BigBadBri]

RIPA also allows covert surveillance, the interception of communications, and the compiling of databases of information on individuals based on that and other information.

It's a lot more wide-ranging than the simple issue of forced decryption - which is a red herring at any rate, since a simple argument based on natural justice will suffice to kill off any court case brought on that pretext.

It does, for instance, allow the local council to mount a covert investigation against a local ratepayers group who disagree with council policy, and provides guidelines to enable the council to keep within European human rights law as it does so.

A large part (and growing larger) of investigation is the gathering and storage of intelligence about ordinary people, and it is this that has bearing on the downgrading of the DPA by the imposition of RIPA.

MODS! Take a look at the parent post please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Worth a +5 FRIGHTENING surely?

An example of gov't keeping us safe

[Zathras26]

A few months ago, I applied for and received a job as a network engineer at the Pentagon. One of the job requirements was that I had to get a "Secret" security clearance. The company hired me after I told them I was eligible for such a clearance. I started working there while the oh-so sensible and efficient federal government did a background check on me. Two months later, they turned me down, saying that I was a risk to national security because I had my name legally changed thirteen years ago. I therefore lost my job six weeks ago because I went thru a perfectly legal (and public) process that meant nothing more than that I didn't have to have my asshole father's last name anymore. This in spite of the fact that others have received Secret clearances -- and even Top Secret clearances -- after having histories of drug use, mental illness, and even prison sentences, among other things.

This is the same government that says it's going to protect us from Yamir Shitzak blowing us up in the name of Allah. Do you feel any safer? 'Cuz I sure as hell don't.

Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe

[user no. 590291]

That sounds like bullshit. Maybe that's why they told you you didn't get the clearance. A SECRET is a slam dunk unless you're a professing Al Quaeda member, Communist, bed wetter, or baby raper.

This is all, of course, assuming you disclosed your name change when going through the process--given that, I would bet there's some other reason they wanted you to not pass.

Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe

[Zathras26]

I disclosed everything they asked for, including the name change. They told me that the name change was the reason I was turned down.

I don't blame you for being skeptical -- if it hadn't happened to me, I don't think I would have believed it, either. But it's true.

My now-ex employer told me he wasn't surprised, and that since 9/11 Secrets are a lot harder to get than they used to be. A friend of his who currently has a Secret is now in danger of losing it because his wife is French. Again -- government keeping its priorities straight.

Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe

[bcbkhalision]

Join the club. I am a PhD Candidate studying Arabic and Computational Linguistics at Georgetown university. You would think that someone like me might be of great use to my country and government - remember that the government's lack of linguistic talent plays a large role in its failure in the war on terrorism and in the occupation of Iraq. Oh, also I speak Farsi, Spanish, and Chinese. I was turned down for a Top Secret Clearance because in the past I had smoked marijuana a few times - I got a letter saying that this was done in the interests of national security. Before this happened, the phone was ringing off the hook with offers. Now, I'm lucky if I can even get scumbag recruiters who might call every few months to return my calls after the first conversation - and this when I am the only person qualified for the job. I had a roomate who had a TSC. He is a high school dropout, he has habitually used drugs in the past, associated with drug dealers, attempted to commit credit card fraud on my landlord, and he threatened to kill me several times. The government trusts him, but I am a threat to national security. My experience has taught me that this administration and the intelligence community do not want to catch terrorists, and they do not want to protect American lives. They want to fight a culture war, in which civil liberties are eroded, homosexuals and foreigners are persecuted, and ordinary citizens live in fear of having their lives destroyed through a poorly designed database that has a high rate of "collateral damage." When I was getting the Clearance, I naively believed that it was my skills, abilities and accomplishments which would determine my eligibility. I only pray that this experience will not get in the way elsewhere. Do not trust these people. They do not care about you, and they do not want to protect you.

Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe

[user no. 590291]

Not that it'll help out with the job stuff, but I'd send off to the investigating agency for a copy of the investigation (IIRC, both the Privacy Act and FOIA apply, but the PA entitles you to more of the investigation). It will be redacted, but unless things are more corrupt than I hope in government, you will see what was actually considered. Sounds like it was the agency's loss in this case.

Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe

[Zathras26]

Thank you for the advice -- I'm already looking into getting a copy of the decision and also appealing the decision. There's not a reason in the world that anyone should think I"m untrustworthy over something like this.

Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe

[Anonymous Coward]

SOMEONE MOD THIS UP

Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe

[Anonymous Coward]

A federal agency also offered to double my salary provided I applied for a Secret clearance, and I too was turned down. They would not speak to me and my FOIA request seeking to know, why? has been ignored. Meanwhile, there is a new study by an organization of gov't contractors that says there is a huge shortage of good people to work in government IT and the people with the impossible-to-get clearances are as so much deadwood.

Re:It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened her

[Kohath]

But trust me.

Um, but what if we don't trust you? From your post, trusting you doesn't sound like a good idea even if you're telling the truth (maybe especially if you're telling the truth).

You get what the parent post is trying to say, right? But you're still trying to make the super-extreme case based on "trust me" and "rent a clue".

We wouldn't have to rent a clue if you'd provide some real indication that you were offering us one for free. Please provide us that indication. I, for one, would like to get it right.

Nice Idea But Unworkable.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just can't do it now. Maybe you never really could, or at least not for a long time. Every organization (governmental, corporate, whatever) has a slice of your pie. You need permission from somebody, somewhere, sometime in order to do ANYTHING at all now. Including teraing off into the woods in an attempt to live Thoreau-style. If they don't want you to do that, you won't be able to do it, and they don't want you to do it: as far as they are concerned, it's an attempt to escape their control and THAT'S completely unacceptable.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[zurab]

There's a fine line between acknowledging the speakers and orgaizers at a rally and requiring a full attendance list.

I quoted the whole 1st amendment. Where does it draw that line? It doesn't. That was my point.

The latter is impossible and a blatant First Amendment violation.

Sure it's possible. Want to organize a demonstration? In addition to the existing requirements you will need to supply the list of all expected attendants at the demonstration. The attendee list may be obtained by telephone, mailing, online form submission, or by personal contact. The data required for each attendee is as follows:

- first, middle and family names
- social security number
- date of birth
- gender
- current address
- last 3 addresses, or all addresses for the last 5 years, whichever is longer
- telephone number
- employer
- employer's address and telephone number

On the specified date, the dedicated area will be surrounded by temporary fences and controlled by the police. Persons with incomplete records will not be admitted to the demonstration. In case of perceived security threat the City reserves the right to refuse admittance to any person without reason.

Seems doable to me.

And take it one step further if this was really implemented. How far does the collected data go? You want to fly from Chicago to New York to visit relatives? What? Our CAPPS II says you participated in several demonstrations opposing current government actions - yellow flag. Hmm... you also have a one way ticket to New York and no baggage to check in? That's it - you are RED - you can no longer fly!

The Good News ....

[kwandar]

Apparently Richard Clarke testified that George Bush's obsession with Iraq, and the subsequent invasion of Iraq had undermined the war on terror.

Perhaps this means we should add George W. Bush to the database?

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Mr. Slippery]

I don't see anything in the 1st amendment that can keep them from requiring organizers and attendants lists to check against terrorist databases to the list of their criteria.

They're not "terrorist databases". They're "terrorist suspect databases". Until they have enough evidence to press charges, those suspects have full rights to assemble and petition.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Zareste]

Rule #1) The authority needs not obey the authority's rules. Rule #2) See rule #1.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Anonymous Coward]

"What I am worried about is the government collecting and keeping this data. "

Call me crazy, but doesn't the govt. already know who most people work for via tax w2 and tax statements.

idea!

[ShadowRage]

put spammers on the blacklist, and sell lists to them! that way they'll spam terrorists and themselves out of existance!

kill two birds with one stone, using their own methods!

perfect plan...mmmmyes..

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Ralph JH Nader]

I think you've misunderstood my points.

I've said the government seems unwilling to blatantly violate the first amendment in the name of preventing terrorism. I suspect this is due to people being mmore familiar with this amendment than with the other amendments, and therefore are more likely to stand up and say no. It doesn't justify violating any part of the Constitution. My point was that I think the government is content with violating other parts of the Constitution for now, and the first amendment is safe for the time being.

Generally, the courts have (correctly) concluded that first amendment freedoms are as close to absolute as possible, minimizing the powers of the federal government. This standard is rather consistent with the views of the founding fathers who wished to have a central government while giving it just enough powers to be effective. It'd be nice if this same standard was followed when interpreting the fourth amendment, but I digress. The only line the first amendment draws concerning freedom of assembly is that it must be peaceful. In other words, unless there's a very good reason to suspect that a demonstration won't be peaceful, denying anyone the right to demonstrate would be a first amendment violation.

When I said people will cite the Patriot act to show the government doesn't care about the Constitution, I meant it that ordinary readers of this site were likely to reply and suggest that if the government blatantly disregards other amendments that they won't care about the first amendment, either.

I sincerely hope that the trend toward taking away rights is just something that's temporary. Such things have happened before. Just look back to the 1950s and read about the fear of communism. There was a legitimate threat, just like there's a legitimate threat of terrorism today, but the government and certain people within the government twisted things around so much people were terrified and ready to give up their rights. And the FBI list is eerily reminiscent to McCarthyism, another low point of the Cold War. Today we know that the government was utterly clueless about communism and many of the things stated about it were just lies. I was extremely disappointed when it came out that the FBI had extensively tracked John Kerry that there wasn't more parallels frawn between the actions of the government during the Cold War and their actions now. Looking back on the Cold War, we see just how silly the government was being, yet we're allowing the same mistakes and abuses to be repeated again. I'd like to think people aren't that damn foolish.

The only good thing I can say is the Cold War died down and the government backed away from some of its abuses. Hopefully we can look back 50 years from now and say the same about things such as the Patriot Act.

Re:It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened her

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Um, but what if we don't trust you?

Then make your own choices and take your chances with the fallout from them. Just don't expect me to take the consequences of your choices, too.

And don't say I didn't warn you.

We wouldn't have to rent a clue if you'd provide some real indication that you were offering us one for free. Please provide us that indication. I, for one, would like to get it right.

What you appear to be doing is asking me to identify myself, my family, my friends, and my acquaintences, on a very large and very open forum, and tell you - and everybody listening, potentially including exactly the totally-information-aware security agencies in question - all of our stories about every time some authority figure dumped on us and/or got a bee in his bonnet about one or more of us being the bad guys.

Given that the subject at hand is the way such authority has been used (especially MISused) historically, I trust you'll understand if I decline to hand out such anaecdotal data on a platter. (If nothing else, it wouldn't be consistent with my argument to do so, would it? B-) )

So you'll have to make your own judgements about MY judgement and/or about the underlying problem.

Regarding my judgement: I've made over 1900 slashdot postings under this handle. Look up a few and see what you think.

Regarding external evidence: Follow some of the leads I've given you (like COINTELPRO), or consult any person who has taken postgraduate courses in history.

(Meanwhile, I WILL mention that my handle {Ungrounded Lightning Rod} is a reference to this very issue - and a previous employer's request that his employees, while posting to Usenet, try to avoid becoming lightning rods for controversy that might reflect poorly {sideflash?} on the company. B-) I'm willing to talk about it in person, and I'm not blackmailable by threats to expose a connection between my personal identity and some handle. And I don't encrypt or obfuscate routing on the traffic I use to post, so security agencies can identify me easily if they ever feel like it. I simply make it a policy, when posting under a handle, not to identify myself, or confirm or deny speculation, in an online setting.)

Re:It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened her

[spruce]

Wow, that's a shitload of people in your life that have been subjected to major orwellian events like described in the gra

McCarthyism

[tacocat]

Thank you George Bush Junior for pushing us back into one of the worst chapters of recent American History.

The damage this will do...

• Of course every Indian programmer will be a terrorist according to slashdot.
• Microsoft will declare every name on every sourceforge/freshmeat project to be a terrorist.
• Microsoft will also list the EU leaders as terrorists since they levied their fine and are having their lacky US-DOJ put up a bitch about it.
• Random acts of accusation will be pretty damn common.

Please, study history so we don't repeat it. I wasn't any good at it in school, but I've seen enough repeats in my years to know it's worth learning and remembering.

Re:McCarthyism

[unitron]

"Of course every Indian programmer will be a terrorist according to slashdot."

Well, that might be one way to end outsourcing and keep the jobs inside the U.S. :-)

A Seinfield episode w/ Elaine and Doctors

[ckathens]

Does this remind anyone of the Seinfield episode where Elaine offends a Doctor, and then every single other Doctor knows so she can't find a doc to treat her anywhere?

Now picture that on a grand scale if you happen to piss off the govt somehow!

Re:It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened her

[Kohath]

What you appear to be doing is asking me to identify myself

No. But your story can't be an indication of much to me if I don't know your story. And I don't. So it doesn't indicate much.

Regarding external evidence: Follow some of the leads I've given you (like COINTELPRO), or consult any person who has taken postgraduate courses in history.

Anything recent though? I'm 31. Anything in the last 20 years or so?

History indicates the government can do bad things. But we've learned from history too. It's going to be harder for government antagonists to get away with it next time.

Vigilance is good. But there's less need to be hyper-vigilant when you know what to look for. Ordinary vigilance should be sufficient.

Also, terrorism is real too.

PS: Why only postgraduate history courses? Are there secret unknown facts that can only be revealed in postgraduate history courses? If so, I guess asking won't be enough.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[demachina]

"Perhaps, although doing so would be a clear violation of the first amendment's freedom of assembly"

Perhaps you should read about the governments response to an antiwar conference at Drake Univertsity after which a few people committed an act of peaceful civil disobedience. The DOJ swept in and wanted to know everyone who attended and everything that was said, they placed a gag order on the Univertisty prohibiting the University from telling anyone about the massive investigation because they wanted to keep it secret, a grand jury was impaneled etc.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo02102004.html
http://www.mapm.org/drake.htm

The DOJ backed off when their investigation became public, it was so massive they couldn't keep it secret, and it was starting to get embarassing how massively they'd overreacted and how much they were treading on basic civil liberties. But they no doubt have cataloged everyone who'd attended the conference and have them all on file as potential troublemakers. There is also no telling how far they would have gone if they'd kept the investigation secret.

The fact is Al Queda wins as much by the massive bureaucratic overreaction to try and prevent terrorism, as by the original act.

First off the Bush Administration keeps saying terrorists hate us for our "Freedom and Democracy" but it is double speak because the fact is the Bush administration is using Terrorism to dismantle freedom and democracy. Big corpratist government want a bunch of docile workers reporting to their cubes everyday, and NEVER doing anything that would resemble protest, dissent, disagreement with wrong doing(something the Bush administration is apparently rich in) or antisocial behavior. To achieve this they just need a database with detailed histories of everyone, and for every employer to check this database as a condition of employment and soon enough you either:

A. Never protest, dissent, or engage in antisocial behaviour
B. Never work again unless you can scrape together self employment.

Someone will, no doubt argue, how "Free" America is. It does kind of look free on the surface but in most respects its really not unless you are willing to be homeless and starving and then you might get arrested for vagrancy.

It should be noted that the U.S now has the highest per capita prison population in the world (though China and North Korea might be higher they just dont report accurately). This honor used to belong to the Soviet Union's gulags but the U.S. now leads Russia who is a close second. How did this happen, primarily by the "War on Drugs" which first and foremost punishes people for recreational drug use and drug addiction which is decidely antisocial behavior. Its also due to 3 strikes laws that pass down life sentances for things like shoplifting.

The economic damage thats also being done to the U.S. by this overreaction will eclipse the direct damage done by 9/11. Hundreds of billions on databases and computers to track everyone in the U.S. or who passes through, a constant push to equip every local fire and police department, no matter how small, with a complete bio and chem warfare capability, a nationwide sensor grid to spot the first hint of a biochem cloud, laser missile defense systems in every airplane, continuing pressure to inspect every bit of cargo entering the U.S. through every port, airport or truck.

Stop the insanity. All this stuff does produce economic activity, often to the benefit of companies who are benefactors of the administration, but its also contributing to massive budget deficits and its pure economic waste because every countermeasure costs billions and the terrorist will just switch to a mode of attack that circumvents the countermeasures, leading to more countermeasures and more economic damage. This is a key objective of the doctrine of guerilla warfare, bleed the target white economicly trying to stop you. You can't win against terrorism by never ending escalation of repres

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Xyrus]

"Don't forget while you're there to only pay in plain cash. If you use a credit card or a check, then they'll know you were there either."

And now you know why terrorist are often found with big bags o' cash.

Seriously though, does anyone remeber one of the first bin Laden tapes where he says something to the effect that he will take away America's freedoms with terror?

How many couldn't believe that would happen?

Who's the bigger terrorist, the group doing the terrorizing or the group spreading terror about the terrorizing?

How much privacy and how many more freedoms are we willing to sacrifice for our "security"?

It just never ceases to amaze me. All the electronics and monitoring in the world will never stop a dedicated person from sneaking in and causing havoc.

Or perhaps, they are taking the same attitude as the music industry. They want to make it just hard enough to stop MOST people from commiting these atrocities.

*Sheesh*

~X~
"May you live in interesting times. May you have the courage to survive. And may you have the strength to triumph."

It happened right here:

[theblacksun]

How about the witch-hunting? People lost their jobs for simple affiliation with communism. Hoover tore some shit up back in the day.

Doesn't that seem grevious to anyone else? Can you imagine being blacklisted because of you attended a couple functions in college?

Re:It happened right here:

[mpe]

How about the witch-hunting? People lost their jobs for simple affiliation with communism. Hoover tore some shit up back in the day.

The only difference between then and now is the definition of "witch".

The Privacy Song

[sharph]

The Privacy Song, by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie. Listen to it.

117

[trainsnpep]

Yes, 117. What's that? The number of people who die each DAY due to automobile accidents, averaged over the past 5 years.

Now, 3. What's that? Approximately the number of people who die each day due to terrorist attacks.

Let me ask, where's the problem here? I absolutely am not belittling September 11th (in fact, I feel people who call it 'nine-eleven' are the ones doing just that), but there are obviously problems causing more deaths. My uncle lost his best friend that day, and nearly his own life -- he had a meeting in the North Tower at the World Trade Center, but he missed his train that day, and was late. However three people in my school died in automobile accidents in the last three years.

Oh, yeah. Don't forget, the auto number doesn't include the nearly 1500 a day severly injured in an accident. I won't even start on smoking...

I think the money's headed in the wrong direction....

Washington Times owned by Sun Myung Moon (Moonies)

[zettix]

Sun Myung Moon is a megalomaniac nutball. Maybe I shouldn't point fingers, but if you read something in The Washington Times, you should know the "whole" story. Here it is " Moon's chosen tactic, which has been highly effective, is to purchase his legitimacy outright. In addition to United Press International (UPI), Moon is the owner of the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper devoted to right-wing causes. Every operating year, the Times loses tens of millions of dollars, but profitability has never been a priority. Its intended purpose was made clear when, during Watergate, the paper ran an endless stream of pro-Nixon editorials urging the American people to forgive and forget." Now then, I have some Moonie friends, and I've had some Hare Krishna friends, and the fact is, members are usually as normal as you or me. Leaders are a different story all together. Which is to say, I have nothing against Unification Church members, or any other religion. But The Washington Times is a propaganda newspaper, nothing more.

My advice: stop being afraid

[bigberk]

My personal advice to you: don't be afraid. You see, America is getting caught up in mass hysteria. Be brave and sensible... there are not terrorists lurking behind every corner.

Why do I bother posting this? Am I drunk? No. I want to encourage you to consider your civil responsibility/duty to keep America sane: encourage your fellow Americans to relax. Don't get so wound up; don't reach for your gun. Let's get the population calmed down... turn OFF the TV news channel, go outside and get some fresh air, and think sensibly about what kind of America you want to live in.

I'll wager that you want your country to be strong and free. So do I! If everyone can calm down a bit, we can avoid doing some stupid things that are going to hurt Freedom.

Re:My advice: stop being afraid

[Astreja]

You know, Bigberk, that might actually work...

Sitting up here in Canada, I read threads like this and my heart just aches. How can you mount an effective defense of any of your freedoms when an entire population is being scared silly and herded back and forth to the point of exhaustion?

You're being set up for a stampede, lynch mob or lemming rush, folks. Take care of yourselves and your families. The future will need you alive and well and sane.

A.K. Odinsdottir
(Nodding sagely as she pets her fluffy white Evil Genius cat)

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're gonna go all pedantic and refer to the Act's full name (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), at least get its name right: it's the USA PATRIOT Act.

You think that helps?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Thank god I am not in the land of the free!

I'm not either, but I'm also not naive enough to think American owned multinationals won't have global policies that include this sort of thing. If I apply for a job at at (for argument sake) Microsoft New Zealand, I'd expect my name to run through and added to their list of known people. If this list is correlated with a terrorist database, odds are my name will be added as a non-US citizen who is deemed a non-threat. Fine you say, but now I'm on the list, I get cross-checked every time I import/export via the US, go travelling, and chat with friends in the Middle East. No sir, I don't like it.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Anonymous Coward]

There's actually a way to turn all cell phones off, at which point they are no longer transmitting your location.

Congratulations, mods--you've been trolled

[bonch]

The parent post is listed on www.anti-slash.org as a troll to get modded up, titled "Excellent Anti-American Troll at +5. Keep it there please."

Congratulations for taking the bait.

Re:Korean Text Display?

[unitron]

"Why does mozilla prompt to install "Korean Text Display Support" when I load that washtimes page?"

Here's a hint: Rev. Moon

Perl or PHP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it PHP?

As (not) seen on TV

[jeti]

Trust me. You're safe. Hold your marches.

A look at the videos linked on this page will change your opinion.

Re:As (not) seen on TV

[Elias Israel]

To me, this link proves little or nothing.

Some of these "protesters" don't know the difference between the right to peaceable assembly and run-amok vandalism.

Read the reports there. The "protesters" say that they came "to shut down" a private facility, based on some kind of tenuous logic linking it to military efforts of which they did not approve.

One of the marchers refers to himself as part of a group of "reinforcements" meant to attack a particular gate. Union dock workers, according to another one of those same reports you linked to, were sent home because of the danger posed by the "protesters."

Another marcher writing there remarks on the generally light, even "friendly" treatment received from police just a few days before. Hmm. What was missing from the prior event? Could it be breaking and entering, trespassing, and vandalism?

The truth is that most of the airheads who get involved with these marches haven't the vaguest idea what oppression is. Rubber bullets and flash bangs against an unruly mob, and they play it up like they were mowed down with gun fire and buried in landfill, like the victims of a certain recently-eliminated tyrant we know of.

Clearly, everyone should guard their freedoms diligently, and speak up when they think those freedoms are infringed. But if you squawk "ooh, I'm bein' oppressed ovah heah!" and "see the violence inherent in the system!" when the cops are simply protecting the peace against your assaults on it, then you're not going to win many friends, to say nothing of winning arguments on their logcal merits.

Re:As (not) seen on TV

[jeti]

What was missing from the prior event? Could it be breaking and entering, trespassing, and vandalism?

Possibly. But the protesters seen on the videos were peaceful. It's not appropriate to shoot at them because of what someone else may have done.

Rubber bullets and flash bangs against an unruly mob...

The attacked people were not an unruly mob, but peaceful protestors. Again - if someone else wasn't peaceful, it's no reason to shoot at these people.

And they were shot with 'less lethal' weapons. Called like that because they are less likely to be lethal. But they can be. Quite a few people have lost their eyesight to wooden bullets, rubber bullets and marking guns. Several people have also lost their hands when confusing stun grenades with tear gas grenades and trying to throw them back.

Who decides who has access to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an idea that is ripe for abuse.

make terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

More like it'll make more terrorists, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Bob Davis, Retired]

Who uses a cell phone anyway? Talk about a chintzy throwback to the late '80s.

Those things are tacky as fuck, annoying as fuck, and as far as I care you can all get cancer. In your heads.

This Could Be Bad...

[MacDaffy]

I hope the Dept. of Homeland Security does a better job of maintaining this blacklist than the state of Florida did in maintaining the voter eligibility rolls in the 2000 presidential election.

I, for one...

[barcarolle]

I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords! Wait, that's not funny...

She's a WITCH!

[Doc Ruby]

BURN HER!

Eh, comrade?

[Un pobre guey]

That'll teach those terrorist bastards, eh comrade?

Re:Obligatory Alarmist Post

[Un pobre guey]

When you have been in the slammer incomunicado for at least 18 months or so. That would definitely be a good time to speak up.

Shh dont tell tony

[t_allardyce]

Im sure the UK government would love one of these too. If they do, im gonna be the first demanding everything they have on me and any results any company gets all under the data protection act. Im always talking about 'that bloody bush' and 'idiotic david blunkett who should go to hell' so i should atleast have a database rank of 'deranged'.

I'd like to see ...

[elronxenu]

... if this database could detect that 16-year-old Palestinian kid. Not even his mother knew that he was about to become a suicide bomber!

The sad reality is that this database will be used to intrude upon the privacy of the 99.9999999% of people who are not terrorists.

Eternal enemies...

[slipgun]

But don't feel left out Europeans, since the EU is considering a terror database as well, although France and UK are reluctant to share intel.

Is that because they're so busy spying on one another?

Or because those two are the only ones who have intelligence agencies competent enough to get anything worth sharing?

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[zurab]

I think you've misunderstood my points.

Only one of them - about who you referred to as "people." Some others I took into different direction on purpose.

I've said the government seems unwilling to blatantly violate the first amendment in the name of preventing terrorism. I suspect this is due to people being mmore familiar with this amendment than with the other amendments, and therefore are more likely to stand up and say no. It doesn't justify violating any part of the Constitution. My point was that I think the government is content with violating other parts of the Constitution for now, and the first amendment is safe for the time being.

I guess if that's what most people think, they should be proud of the job they've done. Because they do blatantly violate the First Amendment as well:

- read what AAP (Association of American Publishers) has to say about that
- also have a look at www.readerprivacy.com
- then look at how Muslims are being treated by Justice department in what ACLU alleges is a violation of "the First Amendment by authorizing the investigations of people based on activities that are constitutionally protected as free expression, free association and free exercise of religion."
- Slate also provided some explanation as to how the Patriot Act tries to bypass the First Amendment (scroll down to section 215 explanation or search for first amendment)

Remember that one of the keys to the USA Patriot Act is that government can do as it wishes and not have to tell anyone about it. Not only that, but also require others who do know (like librarians) to keep quiet, or else... In effect, you have to blindly trust the government that they will not abuse their power, and we all know from the past how good they are at that.

The only line the first amendment draws concerning freedom of assembly is that it must be peaceful. In other words, unless there's a very good reason to suspect that a demonstration won't be peaceful, denying anyone the right to demonstrate would be a first amendment violation.

I agree, but at the same time ensuring that a demonstration is peaceful gives the government the excuse to exercise at least some control over not only who is organizing and conducting it and what it is about, but also who will be able to attend it. It's a hypothetical scenario, but it can be done in the name of "security" and possibly fall under ensuring the peacefulness.

Reparations

[maximilln]

Say you irritate someone in a fairly elevated position and say that person is fairly well connected with someone who can add people to the terror list. So they add your name to the terror list.

So some FBI agent wants to know why you're on the terror list. He gives your name to the local PD as "just check on this guy". The local PD, being fairly bored with nothing better to do, happily and eagerly complies with the new system of checking on potential terrorists. You start to wonder why all of your friends leave the bar about 15 minutes after you show up. They say you're paranoid but everyone keeps looking over your shoulder. You start to get pulled over because your brake lights looked funny, or you were doing 65.2 mph in a 65 zone.

Your boss starts to take a lot more interest in your personal life and becomes offended when you don't open up your life to him. Other managers at work also begin poking and prodding your work. You start to challenge all the extra-special attentin and ask what the purpose of the seeming harassment is. Everyone's eyes glaze over and they accuse of you of being paranoid.

Eventually the FBI agent wears you down with all of this clandestine poking and prodding and investigating. Perhaps you even start to come apart at the seams. The intense scrutiny leaves your nerves on edge and your character becomes more antagonistic.

Where are the reparations? Where's the control on this system? At what point is the initial name-submitter responsible for starting a witch hunt?

Other than that consideration... fine, make your lists. Who gives a good cat's backside?

Re: Snipers...

[Anonymous Coward]

Operation Northwoods is one of those "conspiracy theories" that turned out to be completely true. Proof positive that the US Government really does conspire against it's citizens. More specifically however, it demonstrates that the US Government is willing and able to orchestrate or encourage a disaster (preferably one that upsets people greatly) in order to justify invasion of another country...

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[Anonymous Coward]

"They want sheep who are willing to be devoured by the establishment without so much as a bleat." What I find depressing about this whole episode is that those guys sitting around Haight-Ashbury singing, "Merry go round, merry go round, doo doo do do, do do do do" were absolutely right. Seriously, it's not as though people haven't been drawing our attention to this over the years. I suppose it's the "can't happen here" syndrome all over again. (If you look really carefully you can find three Frank Zappa references in this post)

Re:It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened her

[mpe]

The conspiracy-theory tinfoil-hat stereotype is VERY convenient for the people who are actually running such operations.

The irony of such a term is that such "operations" typically have conspiracy theories behind them. The current one being "Al Quada"...

The biggest trouble with these things is that, by the time they come for YOU, it's too late. So you have to head them off while they're still being formed up, or still going after just the genuine scumbags (and the people the operators honestly mistake for genuine scumbags),

Assuming that this is actually is the starting point. The "intelligence communities" appear to contain an above average proportion of paranoid people, who are free to follow their paranoia, just so long as it dosn't go in the direction of the ruling classes.

Linux Security Consultant Submits Security Watch L

[profjohn]

I have just registered a security consultant corporation in Deleware. It cost me $25. Now I have just submitted Cmdr Taco, and this entire thread, to homeland security. All of you are suspect. Including me.

You have been warned.

Re:It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened her

[mpe]

Given that the subject at hand is the way such authority has been used (especially MISused) historically,

From a historical perspective it appears that the primary role of "intelligence services" is to protect the ruling classes from any "threats". Even in countries where "freedom of speach", "democracy", etc are ostensivly allowed, even encouraged.
Anything like catching gangsters or terrorists being rather less important than making sure that the "plebs" don't "rock the boat".

Regarding external evidence: Follow some of the leads I've given you (like COINTELPRO), or consult any person who has taken postgraduate courses in history.

N.B. probably dosn't even need to be modern history either :)

Re:It CAN happen here. Because it HAS happened her

[mpe]

History indicates the government can do bad things. But we've learned from history too.

There is very little evidence that much has been learned from history at all.

It's going to be harder for government antagonists to get away with it next time.

So howcome they still appear able to get away with using techniques which date back to at least Roman times?

Vigilance is good. But there's less need to be hyper-vigilant when you know what to look for. Ordinary vigilance should be sufficient.

If, and when, people learn what to look for.

Also, terrorism is real too.

But what politicans claim about terrorism and terrorists may well not be. State sponsored terrorism is also quite real.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[mpe]

First off the Bush Administration keeps saying terrorists hate us for our "Freedom and Democracy"

Just because hey says it does not mean it's true. (Or for that matter that "Al Queda" are whoever the US Government claims they are...)

It should be noted that the U.S now has the highest per capita prison population in the world (though China and North Korea might be higher they just dont report accurately). This honor used to belong to the Soviet Union's gulags but the U.S. now leads Russia who is a close second. How did this happen, primarily by the "War on Drugs" which first and foremost punishes people for recreational drug use and drug addiction which is decidely antisocial behavior.

The "War on Drugs" is a version of the failed "Prohibition", with many of the same problems associated with it. It isn't even against drug use or even addiction, since there are plenty of legal drugs in use...

All this stuff does produce economic activity, often to the benefit of companies who are benefactors of the administration, but its also contributing to massive budget deficits and its pure economic waste because every countermeasure costs billions and the terrorist will just switch to a mode of attack that circumvents the countermeasures, leading to more countermeasures and more economic damage. This is a key objective of the doctrine of guerilla warfare, bleed the target white economicly trying to stop you.

Note also that the "follow the money" principle means that it would be a good idea to investigate if there is any possibility that those benefiting from increasing "security" have any connection to the "terrorists".

You can't win against terrorism by never ending escalation of repressive measures and countermeasures

At best such measures will do nothing, at worst the result is more terrorism...

but the U.S. government will try it anyway because they WANT increased repression to keep people in line, and quiet.

Possibly they also want more terrorism, in order to justify their actions.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[mpe]

I don't think you have to worry about that, unless you live a country that's been known to do that sort of thing in the past.

That would be a list of most of them. As for the remainder maybe they just havn't been caught yet.

Ahem Ashcroft and Pres Bush

[linuxislandsucks]

Nto all teorrists are outsiders..ever here of Terry Nichols?

Why should us tax payers pay for an ineffecive boondoggle?

Thanks for the proof reading

[nurb432]

Ever hear of typos? Geesh.

Re:What I am really afraid of......

[kfg]

In this case I was thinking specifically of America, since that is the purview of the issue at hand.

I was indulging in my penchant for Socratic facetiousness.

KFG

Seven steps to a terrorist

[dacarr]

Yes, played exactly like the Seven Steps to Kevin Bacon game.

In theory, all celebrities are connected - however remotely - to Kevin Bacon. You can do this with any celebrity, it's just that the KB game is the more well known.

By extension, we will all ultimately be connected with a terrorist. Which will mean that we all get fired. Which will mean that we have to find osmeboyd. Which will mean that the CEOs and presidents who all fired us for being connected to terrorism need to hire us back because they, too, are connected to terrorism - and probably even closer than the mailroom guy.

So, yeah, this will fly over not unlike a lead baloon filled with iron filings over a downward-pulling magnetic field.

This is what happens when non-lawyers

[unassimilatible]

talk about the Constitution.

Cities already require their advance approval of any demonstration. They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot..

The US Supreme Court allows only time, place and manner restrictions - not content.

detain suspects for extended periods of time, if not forever, without charging them with anything, giving them access to a lawyer, family, etc.

Only non-citizens outside of the US can be held without charges, and only when classified as unlawful combatants. This was upheld a long time ago by the Supreme Court. So I guess ever single German we caught in WWII should have had a lawyer and trial? That's not what you do in a war.

The US PATRIOT Act and government's actions based thereon, violate 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments,

Again, the Constitution only applies to those in the US or its citizens, not terrorists abroad who have declared war on the country. And the 8th only applies post-conviction anyway. Know your law before you pop-off, please.

Sorry, but I think most Americans aren't too concerned about people sworn to destroy our country and its political and legal system, then squeal like babies for their "rights" under that same system as soon as they are captured.

This is a war, not cops and robbers. Cops and robbers got us a big smoking hole where the WTC used to be.

Re:This is what happens when non-lawyers

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Only non-citizens outside of the US can be held without charges, and only when classified as unlawful combatants.

How about Jose Padilla?

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:This is what happens when non-lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about Jose Padilla?"

Padilla should have thought of this before he enlisted with Al Queda (throwing away his US citizenship by signing up with an enemy foreign army). There is no problem at all when people who have actually committed horrific crimes are imprisoned. Save your sorrow for when the innocent are jailed.

Re:This is what happens when non-lawyers

[zurab]

Cities already require their advance approval of any demonstration. They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot..

The US Supreme Court allows only time, place and manner restrictions - not content.

Your point being?

Only non-citizens outside of the US can be held without charges, and only when classified as unlawful combatants.

I wasn't referring to Al Qaida fighters in Afghanistan, if that's what you mean. Many immigrants working in the U.S., mostly Muslims had been detained, without charges, no access to lawyers families, or anyone for months at a time. At the end, all of them were charged with relatively minor visa or employment violations and either let go or deported. None of them were "unlawful combatants." That's a problem, isn't it - that government can name anyone a suspect under terrorism investigation, and not have to be accountable to anyone or any system.

And the 8th only applies post-conviction anyway. Know your law before you pop-off, please.

Nonsense. 8th amendment says:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It has no word "conviction" in it. Bail does not happen after conviction. If executive branch of the government decides to bypass the judicial branch and decides to inflict punishments itself, and if those punishments are "cruel" or "unusual" then the 8th amendment is violated.

Sorry, but I think most Americans aren't too concerned about people sworn to destroy our country and its political and legal system, then squeal like babies for their "rights" under that same system as soon as they are captured.

It's funny thing you call it "rights" (in quotes) - that demonstrates your whole point of how important your "rights" are to you. But I guess your point is - "I have nothing to hide, it won't affect me, only to terrorists and bad people." That's a problem as I said and usually occurs when governments are playing scare tactics. When people are sufficiently scared they will not only re-elect and blindly trust the said government, but also be willing to give them any power they ask for. Unfortunately, such scare tactics are usually reminiscent to dictatorships and controlling regimes more than "free" societies where people have certain inalienable "rights."

Hopefully, the Congress will not vote for anything like the Patriot Act II. I have some faith since there seems to be more pressure mounting to limit the current Patriot Act as it is.

This is a war, not cops and robbers.

Yep, this is a war - it's not a civilized country or anything where laws of the land are upheld. What is the point of having the Constitution when it is blatantly disregarded? Want to sell that point to people? Maybe everyone should just give up their rights and blindly trust the government - because it's a war - it's better for you, trust me, you need to know nothing more.

Re:This is what happens when non-lawyers

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

So are you saying that when someone is ACCUSED of joining an enemy group that they automatically lose citizenship? I guess you must love giving the government the right to strip citizenship by accusing people of something. Here I thought citizenship cannot be stripped. Maybe I'm living on another planet...

BTW, he hasn't committed any crimes. He hasn't been charged with anything. That's the issue. If he actually did something, it would be easy to prove in front of a court. The US govt is holding him because they don't have anything solid.

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. You imply that you care about citizens but then revert to giving the govt power to strip citizenship arbitrarily. You also are in favour of holding people without any charges for committing bogus* "horrific crimes".

(* I say bogus because it hasn't been proven in a court of law. I am not saying he is innocent in the sense that he hasn't done anything; just that he hasn't faced a judge. That to me counts as bogus because the govt can claim anything and people like you would consider it to be true. Good thing we have a legal system that is sometimes independent of the government (unfortunately for people like you I'm sure))

I don't even know if you realize what you are supporting... probably not.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Yet more legal analysis from the non-lawyer

[unassimilatible]

The US Supreme Court allows only time, place and manner restrictions - not content.

Your point being?

My point being that you claim They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot... This is not true. Again, courts will not allow a government entity to dictate content.

Many immigrants working in the U.S., mostly Muslims had been detained, without charges, no access to lawyers families, or anyone for months at a time.

Of course, they were being held for BEING IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Just because the US has been criminally negligent in not detaining immigration law violators in the past, doesn't mean we have any obligation to do so. Backlogs on immigration hearings are over 6 months. Why should we let these Aholes wander the country free? Why not detain them? Do we need a trial to prove they're in the country illegally? A visa is either expired or it isn't.

Boy, my heart bleeds for people in the country illegally.

Nonsense. 8th amendment says:

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It has no word "conviction" in it. Bail does not happen after conviction. If executive branch of the government decides to bypass the judicial branch and decides to inflict punishments itself, and if those punishments are "cruel" or "unusual" then the 8th amendment is violated.

You're an idiot. IAAL. Trust me, the 8th Amendment only attaches POST-CONVICTION. Don't quote me the Amendment. Case law says otherwise, dope. Jesus, non-lawyers thinking they know the law.

What is the point of having the Constitution when it is blatantly disregarded? Want to sell that point to people? Maybe everyone should just give up their rights and blindly trust the government

This kind of hysteria is hard to respond to. What "blatant disregard" are you talking about? As I said, case law dating to the 1940's makes it clear that unlawful combatants that aren't citizens don't have constitutional protections. Maybe you should have raised your concerns 60 years ago, but that is settled law. I guess you think Bin Laden should get a trial too? Can't wait for him to call CIA agents and force them to testify - that will be helpful.

Re:Yet more legal analysis from the non-lawyer

[zurab]

My point being that you claim They have their own criteria what can be allowed and what cannot... This is not true. Again, courts will not allow a government entity to dictate content.

I didn't say they would dictate content. If you go back and re-read the comment I was replying to I made an argument that there was nothing in the first amendment that could prevent the government from requiring attendee list for demonstrations. The word "criteria" was used in that context.

Of course, they were being held for BEING IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Just because the US has been criminally negligent in not detaining immigration law violators in the past, doesn't mean we have any obligation to do so. Backlogs on immigration hearings are over 6 months. Why should we let these Aholes wander the country free? Why not detain them? Do we need a trial to prove they're in the country illegally? A visa is either expired or it isn't.

Boy, my heart bleeds for people in the country illegally.

I don't care what your heart bleeds for, that's not my point. And I am in no way suggesting that illegal immigration should be allowed at all. That's why there are laws and regulations that handle these situations; and believe it or not, even illegal immigrants have rights in this country to be treated fairly. Just because you are an immigrant does not mean that laws don't apply to you and government can do whatever it wants with you at any time.

You're an idiot. IAAL. Trust me, the 8th Amendment only attaches POST-CONVICTION. Don't quote me the Amendment. Case law says otherwise, dope. Jesus, non-lawyers thinking they know the law.

This pretty much says all about your competence in your arguments when you have to resort to personal attacks to make a point. Well, makes sense since you have no explanation of how bail applies to "POST-CONVICTION" only.

As I said, case law dating to the 1940's makes it clear that unlawful combatants that aren't citizens don't have constitutional protections.

Unfortunately, you keep saying the same thing over and over. None of what I said referred to "unlawful combatants" in any regard. Re-read what I wrote if you'd like. Illegal immigrant is not the same as "unlawful combatant" or a "terrorist" and there's no case law that you can cite that will say that, as far as I am aware.