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.
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...
Nice comment! Very well put with all the facts out there. If you're going to criticise don't be a hypocrit when someone take you (uninvited) advice! LOL I Love It!
What's the point of your security if you're living in a police state?
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).
Shouldn't we be trying to improve on the past rather than use it as an excuse to current practices. That's like saying the KKK isn't so bad cause the Nazis were worse.
Instead of quoting Franklin, as some people have done here, I will instead argue this point. When the founders of this country came here, they knew their security was in jeopardy. They knew Britain was going to attack us. But did that stop them? No. They said, "everyone here has these rights, and we will not bend over for our oppressors." So standing for liberty, not simply tossing it at any opportune time to help our security, is what this country actually stands for.
By the way, let's crack down on murder instead of terrorism, since it's killed a hell of a lot more people.
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.
Sucks, I know... We are talking about America, though.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If we were actually in a declared state of war (i.e. Congress actually made a declaration of war, something not done since WWII), like we were when all of those other Presidents did those things, I would have much less of a problem with what is happening. As is, we are in an open ended 'war', which is not a war, not that there isn't combat going on, but it NOT a war. Not to pull a Godwin's Law, but a perpetual state of war is one of the tricks used in 1984 as a justification of rights suppression tactics. Can you honestly envision an end to this war on terror? The war on drugs is still going on. The price for freedom is eternal vigilence, and not buying into the bull of 'well we're at war'. No we're not. We're in an undeclared combat situation on two fronts.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
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.
we're in a war folks.
When does this war end? Do I *ever* get my right to privacy back?
Cracking down on murder isn't an effective tool as cracking down on Terrorists. Bush's tactics are quite effective his only real mistake was Iraq. He's created a religious frenzy and has a hard deciviness, by argueing that he needs this and that powers in order to protect the USA from terror he can force people to accept his ideas or suggest that the safety of the country isn't in their interest.
At the same time the war on terror ruse allows him to do all of this and pamper to the hard right wng republicans who seem to thrive on war and are often to stupid to understand much more than the bible and American Idol.
if yo ucrack down on mruder you are just taking a line against those evil people, but murder is a part of life, cracking down on terrorism is cracking down on people who hate you and everything about you and your life, this unites people.
We know that extreme methods are what created things like teh Nazi regeem but this is not 1930's Germany.
I'm pretty sure the Nazis used similar arguments in the 1930's.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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).
When does this war end? Do I *ever* get my right to privacy back?
It can't end, because it never started. It doesn't even make sense to talk about being at war with "Terror" when Terror is just an abstract concept. Nations go to war with each other; they don't declare war on a concept. It's all about as stupid as the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty."
This "war" is just a way to promote hysteria, keep the population in a state of fear and allow for more government control.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Newsflash: if you lived in a police state like China or North Korea chances are you either wouldn't be able to post what you just posted or would be found and punished severely for it. America is hardly a police state and by foolishly trying to claim that it is you diminish the plight of other human beings who are unfortunate enough to actually live in one. As others have pointed out our rights during previous wars (both World War II and the Civil War immediately spring to mind) were restricted in ways that pale in comparison to what is happening today. Read up a little before you make yourself look like an idiot. Our civil liberties have been limited in previous wars and they have subsequently been restored. The same will happen again here. Either we will be hit again in such a massive way that it's obvious that the war isn't over yet or more and more time will pass and it will become increasingly apparent that it's over and these laws will be repealed or struck down by the court. Just look at the most recent Supreme Court decision on the military tribunals. Our system of checks and balances is working just fine. It's been 5 plus years since September 11th, 2001 and we have yet to be hit so you so the courts more and more willing to flex a little muscle and err on the side of civil liberties. The longer we go without being hit the more you'll find the courts reigning in the Executive branch as it becomes increasingly apparent that we no longer need to be on a war footing. If we get hit again, it'll be obvious we're still at war here and it will be appropriate for the Executive branch to continue acting as it's been acting.
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).
The point is that we have no sense of history. For us being in a war, the government has actually done very little. In fact, everything has been detailed to members of congress from both parties. The NY Times feels free to disclose national secrets without fear of reprisal. Most people claim that privacy has been eroded, but really? Look at the tax code for instance. Hell, the feds know damn near everything about us from the tax forms. House, kids, jobs, income, spending, etc. We have no privacy anymore, and we've given the government the ability to gleen anything it wants about anyone. It's no longer "privacy", but now how, when, or why, the information is used.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I'm glad I come from good hearty Irish stock and my name won't be showing up on these lists.
Shit.
Instead of critisising it how about coming up with something else that works better.
The FP does suggest two approaches, one of which I agree with - Do nothing.
Terrorism has, as its goal, the forcing of certain concessions on an otherwise unwilling government (or really any sufficiently large opponent) by inspiring fear in the plebes who make up that government or organization.
When the DHS has done more to inspire terror in the world than Osama could ever dream of, only an idiot would call that even remotely effective. Quite literally, "doing nothing" would have better effect than sacrificing our civil liberties and personal freedom in the name of an expensive an ineffective witch-hunt.
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?
Yes! It is so nice to see someone actually use some history in his/her argument to show that a lot of what we face is nothing new. Unfortunately, people have a tendancy to think that the time in which they live is the most important time in history and that everything they do is somehow new or novel. Thank you for reminding people that this world does have a history that didn't just start the day G.W.B. took office. It's a shame that you will be modded down as a troll because you acknowledge that there is, in fact, a war going on.
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
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
Liberty does not stand on technicalities.
Declared war or not, the other side better have a good shot at conquering our country or causing us some very serious harm, or any infringement upon our rights is unjustified and unacceptable.
You are dead right. As far as America itself is concerned, even Iraq is not a war. We've seen no fighting on our shores, we've not seen our fleets challenged at sea by other warships. It may be a war for the Iraqis, but not for America. A week-long invasion of a country with nothing that could be called a real, effective army (we blew up all their toys back in '91, and didn't let them buy more) followed by an occupation of interminable duration is many things, but a war it is not.
As for organizations of international criminals who wish to do us harm: investigate them, hunt them, infiltrate their organizations, jail them, then give them a trial and put them away for a long, long time. Kill them if they won't come quietly. Hell, we could have created a whole new law enforcement and intelligence branch dedicated solely to this task for far less money than these ridiculous "wars" have cost us.
Well, they've got to have some reason to keep renewing those fat contracts with Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.
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..
You'll get your privacy when you get your FastForward button on your TiVo back...
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?
You'll be notified thirty days in advance so you can reserve your seat on the deck of the Missouri.
rj
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."
If memory servers, the US Congress has declared war twice since WWII: the Korean War, and the Gulf War. The latter never formally ended (Saddam Hussein never signed the surrender documents), so the US has been at war with Iraq since 1991. That's been the justifification for maintaining no-fly zones, and the bombing of radar installations when they light up US planes for the last dozen years. It's also been the justification for the imposition of UN Weapons Inspectors, something that cannot be imposed on Iran, since no one has gone in and forced it on them. And so far they aren't volunteering.
I agree with you on the farcical nature of the "wars" on drugs and terror, waged by the same people, no less. Think there's a link???
Anyone who understands the Bible well isn't any sort of idiot. That's some hard reading. It's easy to parrot some guy behind a pulpit. It's difficult to read 700,000 or 800,000 words(791,328 in the King James translation) and understand what it all means.
According to my best understanding of Christianity, there has never been and will never be any mortal human who understands the Bible completely. After all, Christians believe it is the true, living word of God. To understand the true, living word of God in its entirety and at every level would require much more than any human's intellect.
You may debate on either side of whether or not there's any truth to what's on the pages. To claim that some yokel who pounds on the cover to give some false sense of legitimacy to his own ramblings and never takes heed of what's inside understands it, though, is just silly talk.
Do I personally believe what's in the book in question? That's frankly none of your business. Would I condemn the text of a book or its readers without having read it myself? Never. After all, if you're so big on intelligence and discourse, you should inform yourself before speaking.
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
I've read the bible, but there is a core who will use the message for a cause. I'm not saying the bible teaches us those things, but religion has lead to some of the most messy wars in history, because those who acted were 'just' and had god behind them.
Your right no one person can ever understand it all, however you will find that people will heavy faith in the bible can also be some of the more intolerant people as well, its not necessary what the articles of faith says just how people wish to excuse their prejudice and hatred. Thats why the Two Towers were attacked and why there is so much hatred by some religious groups against gay people.
we're in a war folks
I'll consider us in a war when we have nightly air-raides sirens, rationing, and a draft.
Until then... This is a police action.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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."
It can't end, because it never started. It doesn't even make sense to talk about being at war with "Terror" when Terror is just an abstract concept.
The first war on terror or the second? I'm getting confused.
War on Terror
http://use.perl.org
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.
The IRS is supposed to keep tax return information confidential, even from other government agencies. It doesn't all go into some master database, accessible to any peon who works for the government.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
Martial law has never been declared in America.
" nor are those rights absolutes. "
one might say, inalienable
"he's criticized for not "connecting the dots" before 9/11, "
See, tehre's the point. All the dot swhere there. There data collection process worked.
What did not work was proper discimination of the information.
It was an internal mess up that We are suffering for.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
To continue the thread,
The Constituion might not be a Suicide Pact,
BUT
The Declaration of Independence is the Death Penalty for Bad Gov't.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
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?
If memory servers, the US Congress has declared war twice since WWII: the Korean War, and the Gulf War.
Nope. The Korean War is official known as the Korean Conflict. And the Gulf War occurred after the War Powers Act, effectively an attempt by Congress and the President to mediate their powers given that the cold war seemed to require the ability to be able to attack in 5 minutes or less, which basically gave the President the power to do whatever he wanted, Congress declaration be damned (the old rule was that if nothing else Congress held the purse strings, but if you feel you "need" to have the sort of army that could in 5 minutes long a global assault, you can't very well control what the President did once you gave him all those weapons). Of course, the War Powers Act intrinsically is unconstitutional, as it tries to rewrite the powers the Constitution draws out without actually rewriting the Constitution. So, Congress has instead of declaring war merely given the authorization to use force.
So, in short, however you slice it, whatever we're in right now isn't a declared war. So, the whole thing is quite illegal.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
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.
No, never. This is "The War Without End" as mentioned or alluded to by some big name neo-cons. It doesn't end in our lifetimes regardless of who is in power. The real reason: Resources (we're running out of stuff and this will never change).
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
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.
But the "religious right" also pick and choose what they want to follow. Ask them if they love their neighbor. Ask them if they forgive those who sin/debt against them, as they probably say every day in their Churchian Lord's Prayer. Bush is not a Christian, but one who says so to get more votes.
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.
The latter never formally ended (Saddam Hussein never signed the surrender documents), so the US has been at war with Iraq since 1991.
That doesn't follow; surrender of one side is not neccesary for a war to end.
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
I suggest you read a bit more about the civil war.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
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
Actually, murder is statistically a relatively low risk, compared to the top causes according to the CDC (2002 data, but still relatively accurate):
Heart Disease - 696,947
Cancer - 557,271
Stroke - 162,672
Chronic lower respiratory diseases (I'm guessing asthma and emphysema show up here) - 124,816
Accidents (This would include traffic accidents) - 106,742
Diabetes - 73,249
Influenza/Pneumonia - 65,681
Alzheimer's - 58,866
Kidney Disease - 40,974
Septicemia - 33,865
The reason there's so much fuss about terrorism is that the blame can be placed on someone from a different country, different culture, and different religion, thousands of miles away (completely ignoring home-grown terrorists like McVeigh). Murder is usually another case where most folks think they can place the blame elsewhere, on the "big black guy" rather than the much more likely "cheating spouse wanting the life insurance money". It's a lot easier to accept that a risk exists from some unknown bad guy than from someone close to you, or even more likely yourself (due to smoking, drunk driving, unprotected promiscuous sex) because to admit the latter is to admit that you made mistakes in your life.
I am officially gone from
sub is_terrorist { /q[^u]/i) ? 1 : 0;
my ($surname) = @_;
return ($surname =~
}
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.
the first gulf war never "ended", only reached a cessation of ground operations. we continued to patrol the no fly zone (an act of war, or continuation of one), bombed Iraq on several occasions (again, an act of war), had the UN impose sanctions (again, an act of war or at least belligerence), and militarily enforced said sanctions (an act of war). It doesn't matter the intensity, but the fact is that we never ceased hostile operations against Iraq/Saddam. The war never actually ended, as Saddam was supposed to uphold hi send of the bargain and he didn't. Whether the finality was right, will work, or could have been done differently, we'll never know. It is accurate to say that the war against Iraq (or Saddam if one prefers) has been continual since 1991. Any other is purely ignorance or denial of the facts. Again, whether OIF and the aftermath were right, wrong, somewhere in between is wholly separate from the actual situation which was one of anything but peace.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
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.
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.