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.
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.
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
we're in a war folks.
When does this war end? Do I *ever* get my right to privacy back?
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?"
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.
I'm glad I come from good hearty Irish stock and my name won't be showing up on these lists.
Shit.
It was formally declared in 1991. And never, formally, ended.
Sorry, this is flat-out illogical... I understand, that you dislike and disapprove it, but is still a war.
Before you go on with the "illegal war" rants, I advise you to search hard for UNSC resolution(s) condemning it as such...
And still it would not be terrorism — even an unjust war is not terrorism, and a just one is not insurance against it either. These are perfectly orthogonal.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
George W. Bush has neither committed, nor ordered to have committed a single Act of Terror.
1. Terrorism : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
2. Bush took the U.S. to a pre-emptive war without the approval of Congress.
3. Shock and Awe was used to corce Iraqis into civil war.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
Conservative: "Terrorism and war are not the same thing. They are terrorists because they kill people on purpose. We are not because we don't."
Normal person: "So the U.S. kills civilians entirely by accident?"
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "Nobody knew that any of these people were going to die?"
Conservative: "Oh, we knew. There is always collateral damage in war."
Normal person: "So you knew that innocent people were going to die... and then you went in and killed them just like you expected... by accident."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "Tens of thousands of them, more innocent civilians than combatants."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "But the 'enemy,' they're terrorists because they mean to kill innocents."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "And you're not because even though you knew you would and you went in and did it anyway, you didn't really mean it."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "For you, killing all these innocents is just holding the banner of right and freedom on high. Not at all like the terrorists."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "And you're sure that whomever remains among that population is going to love you for it, rather than want to kill you for it."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "Because you killed their family knowingly... erm... by accident... er... without meaning to... I mean... It was nothing personal, you didn't mean specifically to kill them, and you're totally sorry that they're dead, you promise (and who doesn't take a promise from an American?) and really, the terrorists would never be so kind, humanitarian, or enlightened. You're totally different from them."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "So you approve of the war in Iraq, the job that Bush has done as president, and measures that seek to crack down on Muslims all around the world, and if a few innocent ones have to die in the process, it's great, because Bush is great and even though you know bad things will happen to good people, it's... by accident. Merely a just war. Not terrorism."
Conservitive: "Yes."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
1) the difference between terrorism and war is merely dressing. There is no actual difference.
2) What is happening in iraq is not war. It's occupation. The war was over when saddam was captured and the stated reason (getting rid of tyrannical rules) was over.
3) no matter how you look at it the war is illegal. MOST of the brightest legal minds of our country and the world have come to that conclusion.
And beefore you say it. There is very little difference between purposfully targeting civillians and indiscrimately shooting knowing that innocent civillians will die.
Oh and one last thing. Torture, rape, and murder are wrong, even when they happen in "war".
evil is as evil does
Before you go on with the "illegal war" rants, I advise you to search hard for UNSC resolution(s) condemning it as such...
I'm sorry, but that's just a ridiculous, impossible standard. Security Council resolution? USA is ON the security council. Permanently. With a VETO . It's kind of like demanding that a rape victim go get an affidavit from their attacker confessing the crime before they can go to trial.
And there I was all agreeing with you, till you pulled that.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
It's politics as usual. An acquaintance who is half Iranian said once: if you ever want to transport anything in and out of Iran, you talk to the Kurds. If you ever want to transfer any funds in and out of Middle East, you talk to the Kurds. Do we see the government specifically target the Kurds in the route of trading? Heaven forbid. They are the oppressed ethnic group, and anything they do are justified. The name filtering is about as useful as airport screening - it shows the government is doing something with your tax money, but ultimately achieves nyet.
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..
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."
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."
The word "terrorism" is given too wide a use - it can be applied to a twelve year old with a small rock, which is just as irrelevant and silly as using it against a US President. Oddly enough a jewish settler that goes mad and shoots twenty people in a mosque is put in perspective and labelled as a common criminal - just what the kid with a rock should be called if he manages to actually hurt someone instead of being labelled "terrorist" by a right wing government that tortures people looking for an excuse for a land grab.
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.
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?