Slashdot Mirror
The U.S.'s Net Wide For 'Terrorist' Names
Several readers concentrated not just on the undesirability of government snooping on money transfers in the first place, but on the unintended but likely side-effects of heavy-handed government oversight of conventional money-transfer methods; as the AP article explained, there are ways to route around large-scale commercial services like Western Union, including informal networks called "hundis" or "hawalas." Reader quantaman calls increased control on conventional money-transfer services "worse than useless," writing:
"From what I can gather from the article this policy is actually harming security.... If law abiding people are avoiding official institutions what makes them think that terrorists are stupid enough to use them?
More than that, by driving additional people to the hawalas it circumvents existing security measures. For starters, it means that more money (even the legit stuff) is moving around and they have no idea where it went. Also the additional people using the hawalas will mean they are more developed for the terrorists [to] use them. Additionally, when you uncover a hawala network it will be that much harder to pick out the terrorists, since you've added all these false positives. And finally, for the terrorists who would have used official institutions in the past since it was easy and the hawalas weren't developed, now you no longer have a money trail you can inspect later on.
All this security measure does is inconvenience and alientate a whole bunch of people while making the world a little less safe."
No matter how legitimate the ends to which it will be put, high-handed interference with the transfer of money isn't popular for other reasons, too. Reader ColourlessGreenIdeas writes "I know of a charity that works with (mostly Christian) organisations in the West Bank. Their usual way of getting money to their partners is to fly into Israel with a big bundle of money. Otherwise it tends to get massively delayed by U.S. banks."
(And at least one reader points out reason to suspect that Western Union in particular might have been willing to turn over information on its customers even in the absence of Treasury regulations.)
The Treasury regulations on which the name-filtering is based are clearly imperfect, but not quite as simplistic as certain comments painted them. Responding to the claim in the AP article that "Western Union prevented [taxi driver Abdul Rahman Maruthayil] from sending $120 to a friend at home last month because the recipient's name was Mohammed," reader lecithin says "Not true. They prevented him from sending the cash because his name was Sahir Mohammed. A bit of a difference. Perhaps a Sahir Mohammed has some links to 'bad guys'? Well, it happens here in the U.S. too. There are plenty of stories regarding people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well."
Reader bwcarty, too, calls "FUD" on claims that the list is indiscriminant or exclusively targets those with Arab names, writing "I work for a division of a large financial firm, and we are required to download a list of Specially Designated Nationals from the Treasury Department and compare names from it against new accounts and transfers. The list includes lists of suspected terrorists, and they're not all Arabic (think Irish Republican Army)."
Reader rhsanborn offers a similar account of the regulations and why they affect one-time transfers so significantly:"... They aren't blocking people because they have some generic Arab name. They are blocking people who have names that match the Federal list of suspected terrorists. As someone mentioned above, something like Sahir Mohammed. Probably a perfect match for the list.We too have to run periodic checks against the names in that database. If a match comes up, we have people individually check other information to confirm that it is an actual match (e.g. same name, different birthday).
We have open accounts with these people though, so we have a significant amount of time to deal with these. Western Union has a very short period of time because it is a one time transaction that happens relatively quickly."
Several readers related personal experience with the no-fly list, and a few pointed out some of its better-known shortcomings, such as a Soundex-based name database which has the potential to needlessly flag passengers like Senator Ted Kennedy and the former Sex Pistol Johnny Lydon (though as dan828 points out, Lydon has never actually been stopped because of the list).
Many readers denounced as racist the use of common Arab names to justify interference in money transfers. One response to that claim comes from reader mrxak, who offers a more innocuous explanation, namely imperfect information and a limited pool of names, which will inevitably contain variations of commonly used names. Such a system, he argues, is therefore based on pragmatism — not necessarily racism." Arguing that a similar system would pose just as much risk for "John Smiths" on the list as for those with Arab names, mrxak concedes the need for "a better system," and asks "but what kind of system would work?"
To this, reader eln had a ready answer: "Maybe a system where you gather a little more information about suspected terrorists other than their name before throwing them on some sort of list that prevents anyone with that name from doing all sorts of normal tasks. ... [O]f all of the pieces of information that can be used to identify a person, his name is probably the one that's most easily falsified. So, instead of doing some actual police work and gathering some actual evidence against an actual person, we decide to cast a wide net, and end up catching a lot of innocent people while actually decreasing our chances of catching the actual bad guy."
Jah-Wren Ryel's answer to the same question is more radical -- Ryel suggests that perhaps "none at all" is the best approach. He asks "What makes you think that any system could work?" Rather than spending money on elaborate surveillance or other intelligence-gathering efforts, Ryel says, "spend it on emergency services instead. ... No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered." Rather than concentrating on the prevention of terrorist acts, he argues, the most intelligent use of resources is on "the infrastructure that minimizes the damage. Better hospitals, better fire departments, better 'first responder' teams. That way, we get the benefit of the money spent regardless of if a terrorist blows up a building or an earthquake knocks it down."
The Israeli response to recurring attacks illustrates that these approaches may be in large part reconcilable; infrastructure improvements and intelligence gathering can certainly coexist, details of their implementation aside. The effectiveness of the pre-emptive side of any nation's approach to minimizing terrorist attacks, though, is slightly different from its approach to "fighting terror" in a broad sense.
On that note, reader karlandtanya describes measures such as the U.S. policies subjecting what might otherwise be private financial transactions to automated scrutiny as "effective, but still unfair," categorizing the use of name-based interference as what Bruce Schneier has described as "security theater." Karlandtanya writes, cynically, that in reaction to perceived security threats, "we present the appearance of security measures. Going overboard and causing outrage is just part of the salesmanship." To combat terror in a literal sense, he writes, "[t]he solution is, of course, the perception of security."
Thanks to all the readers whose comments informed the conversation, in particular to those whose comments are quoted above.
Perhaps a person could change your name to something AMERICAN like McVeigh, Nichols or even Kaczynski. That should keep the feds off your back, right?
Yes, this was supposed to be sarcastic.
BTW - WTF is a name that a terrorist wouldn't use?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Everyone, change your names by deedpoll to "Jihad al Zarqawi al Hussein bin Laden" !
My experience with terrorists is limited to people named "Bush"...
The problem is they're trying to block terrorists like amateur sysadmins try to block spam.
...but how exactly does one heuristically determine a persons 'terror score' without bio data?
"If the message contains "Viagra" or "V1agra" or "V I A G R A" then block it."
"If name contains "*/? Muhammad" then block it."
Heuristics work much better. How soon before we create a "Terror Score" system akin to bayesian filter's "Spam Score"? It seems like similar mechanism at work here.
If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
we're in a war folks. i'm no apologist for the administration (hell, from spending to trade to immigration, they're killing us), but what he's doing, NSA wiretaps, financial snooping, gitmo, pales in comparison to lincoln (suspending habeas corpusm, imposing martial law, attacking democratic party meetings, arresting congressmen, imprisoning several thousand, shutting down newspapers, arresting editors), wilson (sedition act, arrests of dissenters), or FDR (interment, shooting spies on sight, massive censorship). those who scream we're living in a police state are clueless and worse, endangering our security. the bill of rights is not a suicide pact, nor are those rights absolutes. in Schenck and even in Roe, and in many other cases, the courts have ruled that there are no absolute rights, including privacy.
he's criticized for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11, then afterwards, criticized for trying to connect the dots. when a bomb goes off and kills several hundred, or thousand (like the plot just foiled on in NY), and if it could have been avoided by simple measures, there'll be hell to pay. if you want to confuse a war in iraq (which has been ongoing since 1991) with overall oposition to sane and reasonable measures to protect us, then accept the consequences. it's not some overused, and very misunderstood, franklin observation about security and freedom.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
It isn't like that could just use an intermediary like Pay-Pal.
How is this kind of policy regulation and implementation any different than that of informal/unspoken policies that you see with racial profiling? The kind of preventative measures that our government takes in response to crisis events is too touchy/controversial...
You know, there are two types of people in this world people who talk and those who do. The benifit of being a person who talks is that you never really have to actually back up what you say. Shoot what you have to say doesn't even need to be practical. Asshole, The middle east right now is a nest egg for terrorism. This isn't an opinion, it's not bushism, it's a fact. Asshole, not only america is being affected it's the whole world. Am I saying Middle easterners are terrorists ? No, but I am saying at this point in time the middleeast is a breading ground for fundimentalist. The reality is something has to be done. When Kennedy put his foot down about the cuban missle crisis and embargoed cuba. Were you shouting ohh the pure cubans, there more cummunists in hollywood ? Yes we know extreme measures can affect human rights. We know that extreme methods are what created things like teh Nazi regeem but this is not 1930's Germany. This is the united states, we know there are funimentalists malitia men in idaho planning to blow up the local post office, they are after them too. However right now there is a problem and this is one thing that needs to be done. Instead of critisising it how about coming up with something else that works better.
And 800 more comments on the subject...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Holland Tunnel conspirator's name is Assem Hammoud. Not exactly Joe Smith is it?
an ill wind that blows no good
George W. Bush has neither committed, nor ordered to have committed a single Act of Terror. What you may be objecting to are his Acts of War, which are quite a different thing.
More likely, though, you are simply using the word "terrorist" as a slur...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
wether its spicks, gooks, japs, sand niggers, pakis, red indians, niggers, commies or even gays the results are the same
Hurricane Katrina (or an episode of COPS) showed the world what USA thinks about people who do not fit into their narrow racialist criteria
basically Americans love hating people who are not like themselves
the message is if you are not white and Christian or Jewish watch out because you might be next
You know, owning up to past mistakes and dealing with them could instantly fix all of these problems. You cannot set up a working system because you're dealing with people who are passionate and determined to finds ways to beat that system.
Instead, deal with the root causes.
1) Realize that the occupation in Israel creates more problems than it solves.
Cut them off. The reason why the IDF gets away with treating the Palestinians like human cattle is because it knows it's backed by the US. Unfortunately, treating the Palestinians this way motivates a lot of support for the resistance against Israel.
2) Realize that the relationship with Saudi Arabia creates more problems than it solves.
The US was on its way to being a leader in hybrid cars. That program got killed, presumably so a lot of rich people can stay rich, while repeating the words "infeasible" over and over to the public and hoping they buy it. Never mind what the potential environmental benefits are, the main reason for 9/11 was America's military presence in Islam's Holy Land. Do your research -- everything points back to that, from Bin Laden's long-standing vendetta against them to the large number of 9/11 hijackers, etc. Besides oil, what benefit is there to being aligned with the Saudi Royals?
3) Realize that the occupation in Iraq creates more problems than it solves.
No WMDs, no threat. There is no reason to be there. Instability in the Middle East? That's a set of falling dominoes that started decades ago, and the American invasion in Iraq is easily shown to have just made it worse. Just write it all off and let them sort out their problems for themselves.
Deal with these three THIS MORNING and your problems with terrorism dry up THIS AFTERNOON.
Those of us who realize that the religeous right are bad news constitute a bit more than 2% of the population (and not to nitpick - but "war" is when two countries are using their militaries against each other: this is more of a competition between religious based paranoia and fact based reasoning).
Not the terrorist thing, but slashdot's appearently irreversible slide into area 51 style government conspiracy theory tabloid journalism. Guess it was to be expected, seeing how the shoe was on the other foot in the gay '90's.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I'm reminded yet again of the movie Under Seige. A rather good film about terorists attacking new york and the governments over reaction to it.
Anthony 'Hub' Hubbard: Come on General, you've lost men, I've lost men, but you - you, you *can't* do this! What, what if they don't even want the sheik, have you considered that? What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Watch it on YouTube. Seen on VideoSift.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Typical /. post when it comes to privacy:
/. response to this article:
"I don't want to goverment/corporate entity/whatever to know anything about me. I must have privacy at all costs."
Typical
"What we need here is more information collected..."
Hypocrits.... or rather another form of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
I'm glad I come from good hearty Irish stock and my name won't be showing up on these lists.
Shit.
Just get over it and move on. The government's supercomputers are going to snoop more and more of our formally "private" information. So will corporations, your neighbors, and your enemies.
Personally, I really don't give a rat's butt if some government computer flags my phone conversation with my friend Mohammed in Pakistan, especially if the computer picks up our side conversations about money transfer and nuclear bombs. If I were to make such a phone call, should I be surprised if someone in the CIA ends up listening to a recording? Should I be offended?
How come I never seem to get mod points when there's a comment like that that truly deserves being modded up?
I really don't understand this whole 'backslash' deal. Sure it summarizes some of the better comments, but isn't that what the moderation system is for? Or is this just a new term for 'dupe'? On the front page even...
They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
On topic, funny, informative... you rock, Anonymous Coward! I'm going to flag your name as +6 in my "friends" list. I bet all the rest of your posts are just as good!
If you traceroute to www.msn.com, or www.hp.com, or a bunch of other high profile sites you will see they are actually being redirected to nsact.net first. NSA Cable Tap anyone? nsact.net is owned by savvis who have had many projects together with the NSA before.
most backbone providers have a 'secret' NSA tap room..
http://wired.com/news/technology/0,70910-0.html
And you all sit idly by..
The other 2% actually get we're at war with an ideology that wants to take us all back the Dark Ages.
No, we're not. We're at war with someone who wants us off of their property, because we refuse to leave, though we'd have no problem bombing them back into the dark ages (oops, already did do, nevermind) if we felt a slight from them.
The U.S. and Israel are simply exercising the colonial impulse for domination and the typical colonial inability to bear even the tiniest indignity without imposing utterly disgusting and overreaching forms of collective punishment on everyone else.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
There have been several pre-emptive captures of would-be terrorists both here in the US and abroad...and strangely enough, none of them were named "Alice" or "Bob". Coincidence?
Modding the truth as a troll is a misuse of M1 Moderation, and should be severely punished in M2 meta-moderation.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
NOOMBD - Not Off Of My Backup Disc.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Godwin's Law Alert!!!
STEP BACK FROM THE KEYBOARD. THIS DISCUSSION THREAD IS NOW OVER!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Good tip, thanks.
[open another tab to preferences. homepage. scroll... Ah! click]
Done. No more silly rehash Backslash.
Hello there,
My first name is Ahmed, and parts of my family name contain the word Hamza. Apparently, I'm an effing terrorist. Nice to meet you too. No, no, the pleasure is all mine.
The problem with the list matching scheme is that although it is slightly more effective than unordered pattern matching with name derivations, it still sucks. Those of us who are terrorist have a nasty habit of
a) Having perfectly normal/popular first & family names (Ahmed is like Dave, but more popular)
b) Making up nicks to improve their boring names(e.g Abu-Mus'ab) so that they cover the entire range of human nomenclature.
c) Not using wiring services under names that are on FBI wanted lists.
So in the end, it's the good guys like me who end up getting screwed.
I've always hated Western Union. Now I have a reason to blow them up, or send them hatemail. Or something. But they're already onto me. I know it.
I probably won't get a chance to fi
Ideologically speaking, the radical muslim sect want essentially what the radical christian conservatives want too. In light of that either the Radical christian right or the radical muslim faith dictating my foreign policy either through acts of terrorism or acts of US legislation is bad. My only hope is The US destroys all of radical islam but incurs so much debt they cease to be able to be a super power. The power brokers you guys put in charge are a scary lot of evil evil men. I can't beleive any sane populace would put such evil and incompetent crew in twice. It's like voting for massive debt, bad press, terrible foreign relations, and lack of internal security.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This should be under politics, not whatever it is. I have the political category turned off specifically so I don't have to put up with the wanking sessions that ensue any time the US, its President or his actions are mentioned. The whole damn category is troll food, which is where this article belongs.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
US Spooks: We kept drowning this guy here until he said so.
That's right guys - the ravings of a drowing man which turned out to be wrong were given as the sole evidence of the link . This has pissed off a lot of other countries that were told to "trust us, we have evidence, we just can't tell you" who initially didn't suspect the reason they were told to trust and not given evidence is because the evidence was stupid and gathered in a way that the US is not supposed to act - so they can't trust any info coming out of the USA any more. Torture is the tool of third world dictatorships that want to tie a person to a crime, don't care how or who, and just want the signature of someone that sounds plausable on an already prepared statement. Bringing the methods of Saddam home is not the way to run a respected first world country.
One famous incident was the guy in the early USSR who confessed under torture to blowing up more trains than actually existed in the country. People who carry it out knew that it is not a way to gather information - it is a way for the lazy and unscrupulous to meet their quota of crimes "solved" and a tool of terror.
A police state is when a government tries to keep the status quo via any means.
I want civil liberties even if we are 'hit'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here's how to prevent any further misuse of airplanes, trains, subways, buses, etc. Please ask yourself first: When was the last time I heard about an Israeli airliner in terrorist trouble?
Here it is: Restore the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not the "militia" (The National Guard is NOT a militia - it's part of the Federals we need a militia to protect ourselves from), but the people.
Think about it - On 9/11, where was the biggest concentration of unarmed people in indefensible groups? Yup, on planes. Terrorists couldn't attack a mall, too many people might be carrying, and besides, there's always plainsclothes police carrying guns to catch shoplifters. Sports Arenas? Nope, cops there too, and no one's searched going in (except for food/drink violations of local monopolies).
Schools? Most nowadays have at least one armed cop, and anyway, they have locked doors and any adult that doesn't belong is gonna stick out bigtime. Besides, the kids are too spread out, compared to an airplane - and there's always at least one or two that are packin' heat anyway.
Any other concentration of people you can think of will have cops present, or no certainty that all present would be unarmed.
It is the security precautions at airports that made 9/11 possible - the very thing that was supposed to make us safe put us in danger. So what's the Gov't reaction? Tighten up the precautions that enabled the disastrous attacks, making airplanes even more vulnerable than before.
If Americans were not denied the right to protect themselves on 9/11, at least a few travellers would be armed. If it were even as few as 5%, that would mean about a dozen armed passengers on every flight that was hijacked. Could 4-5 terrorists have succeeded? Against a dozen armed citizens, could even 15 or 20 succeed? Probably not - a plane is a very enclosed space - hard to hide from the enemy. And the terrorists must show themselves first, in order to carry out their plan. The citizens could stay seated, quietly draw, lock and load. The terrorists would have to watch everyone at once.
The infrastructure stateside to plan and carry out a 9/11 style attack against armed citizens would require so many people that even the FBI would notice something was up. They wouldn't have been able to take 4 planes, they'd have been lucky to take one with the people they used.
And the government refuses to use this enormously powerful, overwhelming sized resource. A cop with a gun is no safer to the public than a law abiding, informed citizen with a gun. There's no real reason, except the fear of people who are in control, for disarming citizens in a truly free democracy.
I haven't been in an airport since 9/11/2001. I don't plan on it, either.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
The dreaded lemon meringue bomb. Blast the sticky, sickly sweet goo up their noses until their farts smell lemony fresh.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Ok, so when a transfer is done, the transfer amount is imediately deducted from the account it's sent from...
And technically put in a temporary account, until it clears and hits the destination account.
Now if the transfer is held, for "security" reasons... the amount of money in question still exists, and sits in a bank account...
who gets the interest? Does the financial firm keep it? Do the feds steal it? Does it go to the origin account holder (even though interest isn't earned on that account)? Or to the destination (even though the interest wasn't collected on that account)?
Remember, all these firms don't keep cash in a drawer in the back room... it's electronic transfers between bank accounts.
Could I start one of these companies, delay random large transfers, and make profit off of the interest I keep on my bank account?
The Premier of the Soviet Union was touring a factory, when he noticed his pipe was missing. He asked the factory manager if he had seen it, who says no.
Hours later, after the tour, the Premier enters his limo, and finds the pipe. He tells the manager "Here it is, it was on the car seat the whole time! Silly me!"
The manager says "But comrade, we know for a fact it was stolen. We've gotten 4 people to confess already!"
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I can't send money to my grandmother any more...
I feel you are threat to the united states.
There should be no trial, lock you up and throw away the key.
People like you have no rights.
Oh sure your family will complain,
Then lock them up also, cause everyone knows anyone who complains about arrests made in the war on terror are terrorists also.
Because this is a FACT about you.
You might bomb a new york subway.
Its a true statement.
The only way that statement becomes false is when you are dead.
Hell that statement is true for every person in the world.
Names are useful filters, as are age (20-30), traveling group (alone or with males with the same profile), affiliation with one of 50 or so mosques who preach hatred in Europe or the US, or from one of the muslim countries. Guys like Richard Reid stick out like a sore thumb. They are very easily profiled. That is very fortunate for the US that they are. For those who are inconvenienced traveling: sorry, nothing personal. The US must try to prevent another coordinated terror attack. Hope you understand. Have a nice day.
an ill wind that blows no good
Jah-Wren Ryel's answer to the same question is more radical -- Ryel suggests that perhaps "none at all" is the best approach. He asks "What makes you think that any system could work?" Rather than spending money on elaborate surveillance or other intelligence-gathering efforts, Ryel says, "spend it on emergency services instead.
Damn. Not only did I not say the words without quotes, I didn't mean anything like that either.
Here's what I really said.
Note two main differences -
1) The "What makes you think that ANY system would work?" applies to any system of identity-based filtering. It's not like terrorists can't simply get a false id for money pickups at western union - and if you really know enough to confidently stop them from doing cash transactions, then you ought to know enough to have them detained. The "no fly" list is just as pointless - a list of people so evil that we can't let them on a plane, but so lilly-white that we can't even arrest them either.
2) No way did I even imply that no money should be spent on "elaborate surveillence or other intelligence-gathering" - what I said was: "So instead of fucking with people - 99.999% of whom have nothing to do with terrorism - spend it on the infrastructure..."
While I agree that POOR intelligence-gathering can often mean just fucking with people - this whole western union story is not about intel or surveillence - it's about trying to make life hard for terrorists but really only affecting the lives of ordinary lawful people. Either way, there is no intelligence-gathering going on here - just the misapplication of dubious intelligence.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
A Jew, a Christian, and a Moslem meet on the train. "Silverstein!" says the Jew. "Who's your friend?" "His name's Abdullah," replies the Moslem, "but he's no friend of mine since he converted!"
This observation has to do with the Arab names, but which is legitmately off-topic:
On WoW servers that have been around for a while, a surefire way to find a name that hasn't been taken yet is to try an arab name, especially names like Zarqawi, Saeed, Syed, etc.
When I got out of the theater after The Siege, there were people of Arab descent outside the theater distributing pamphlets asking people not to see the movie because it portrayed Arabs as terrorists.
I wish they would have actually *seen* that movie before they did that. What they said is technically true, but they didn't know the context at all, that there was a moral lesson about the evils of racial profiling (and related things like taking away rights to protect against terrorism).
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Calls to my mom, grandma, and my Japanese girlfriend...hmmm....are there lots of terrorists in Japan?
Compared to the total population of travelers such groups are rare and are easily identified.
I was not aware the Israelis committed airplane hijackings/bombings. El Al is pretty inpenetrable at this point. As for the nuances of sneaking explosives onto planes, you seem to know a lot more than I. But I applaud the steps that the Bush Administration has taken to keep the Islamists from terrorising the US.
an ill wind that blows no good
sub is_terrorist { /q[^u]/i) ? 1 : 0;
my ($surname) = @_;
return ($surname =~
}
Your right the bill of rights is not a suicide pact, but it IS a given our fullest and greatest faith and credit and should Ideally be a treaty every one of us lays down our life to honor.
Seriously I mean that. It's better to lay down you life fighting for the bill of rights than to ever compromise it. There was a beautiful toast that summed up this radicalism and pointed to the beauty of living by it;
"Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils."
Simple search for a simple person. Did you see that the attempt was made in 1986? If you have to go back 20 years you just stengthen my argument.
an ill wind that blows no good
I really don't understand this whole 'backslash' deal. Sure it summarizes some of the better comments, but isn't that what the moderation system is for?
IIRC, then it was Taco who once said that of all Slashdot users, only about 30% read the comments (the number of those who write comments was even smaller). The comments, however, seem to be one of Slashdot's advantages over other tech news sites (like Digg). Being in a competition with Digg, they're probably trying to capitalize on this advantage and bring the comments to the attention of those Slashdotters that wouldn't normally read them.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
My bank used to allow unlimited online xfers between accounts. Now they only allow 6 transfers per month for free, then there is a fee for additional xfers. They claim this rule was imposed on them by Homeland Security to discourage terrorist money laundering. But that has to be a load of crap. I can imagine making it illegal for the bank to allow excessive online xfers, because that would actually stop them happening. I can also imagine requiring the bank to report excessive transfers, like they are required to report large cash withdrawals. That could possibly help track down illegal activity. What I can't believe is that the government would require the bank to charge a fee for a service that used to be free, or that this is going to benefit anybody but the bank.
"Thank you for calling Dell. May I have your name please?"
"Ahmed Majnoon-al-Deathtoamerica"
"Thank you. May I take your order?"
"Yes, I want to learn about the exploding notebooks."
"(sigh on phone) Sir, are you with the press?"
"No, I wish to buy exploding notebooks."
"Sir, we do not build exploding notebooks."
"I wish to buy 500 of them."
"SIR! Let me connect you to Corporate Sales!
but it looks like it. First, look up the urban legend about planes exploding like popped balloons if someone fires a gun and it hits the fuselage. Quick answer: They don't.
Next, reread two parts of my "fix it cheap": 1> When did you last hear of an Israeli airliner getting hijacked? and 2> I said "right to keep and bear arms", not guns. When used as such, a knife is a weapon, so is a baseball bat. Any kind of weapon at all in the hands of other passengers would probably have prevented 9/11 from being successful. Knowledge that US citizens routinely go about armed may have even prevented 9/11 from being planned.
Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens would reduce crime all over America - including on planes. The reason is because all of the laws taking away weapons from law-abiding citizens have not had any noticeable impact on whether criminals are armed. Disarmament in the US has failed as utterly as Prohibition - but Prohibition was repealed.
The reason the Israelis don't have this trouble is because armed soldiers are on every Israeli flight. And the Israeli army has absolutely no doubts about whether to shoot terrorists.
As for "air marshalls", why do you trust government employees more than law abiding citizens? Because they passed the job-application process for a gov't job? Cuz they went thru a background check? Citizens go thru background checks for guns too. I'm not trying to antogonize you or flame-bait you here - I'm trying to get you to challenge your own assumptions.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.