Slashdot Mirror


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."

22 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway. by some2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway. by WNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Easy to abuse.. but not a new list anyway. by cas2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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.

  2. Do You Remember? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Do You Remember? by Liselle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  3. What I am really afraid of...... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. movie industry "Reds" by planckscale · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Didn't they already try this in the 60's with the movie industry and its blacklists? Me thinks this stinks.

    --
    Namaste
  5. Anti-globalisation peeps are next. by TempusMagus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    -_-
    1. Re:Anti-globalisation peeps are next. by Elias+Israel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

  6. Can we say McCarthyism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
  7. History Repeating Itself by osobear · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  8. Re:What I am really afraid of...... by Ralph+JH+Nader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:I hope they give us similar rights as with cred by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    Nothing.

    But they just started one.

    KFG

  10. From Bad Debt to Terrorism: You are the loser by amigoro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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

    --


    Nothing to see here
  11. Re:Meh. by Roger+Keith+Barrett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
  12. Good. by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  13. If terror = schoolbooks by manganese4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    I make my face look like this and concerned words come out.
  14. Well, that's comforting... by tyler_larson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
    1. Re:Well, that's comforting... by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  15. Re:What I am really afraid of...... by zurab · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?
  16. 4, 5, and 6, all down the drain by lone_marauder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    --
    who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
  17. Re:An example of gov't keeping us safe by bcbkhalision · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.