Slashdot Mirror
Another Anti-Terror List Impacting Businesses, Customers
HangingChad writes "MSNBC is running a story about yet another government database designed to thwart terrorists and drug dealers that is having impact on people with similar names. Like a no-fly list for businesses, the Office of Foreign Asset Control's list of 'specially designated nationals' has been used in the past by banks and other financial institutions to block financial transactions of drug dealers and other criminals. Use of the list was expanded after 9-11 and now includes almost any financial transaction. Moreover, there is no minimum amount of money attached to penalties for selling to someone on the list: selling a sandwich to a 'specially designated national' can have a fine for up to '$10 million and 10 to 30 years in prison.' The article goes on: 'Businesses have used it to screen applicants for home and car loans, apartments and even exercise equipment, according to interviews and a report by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay area to be issued today.'"
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
Loading...
What I love about articles like this is the attempt at "balance". Notice that there are three or four examples of people who are wrongly denied services (of the how many thousand cases that have transpired?). And to "balance" this, they give what was probably the only case in history where such a check might have been relevant (at the end of the article). And even in that case, denying him a car wouldn't have changed anything. It isn't as if he couldn't take the bus to the airport.
Although this article isn't as bad as some (for example, most articles on global warming or evolution), it is a typical example of how trying to provide "balance" gives people the wrong impression of how likely different events are (i.e., in the article 4 false positives to one real hit, in reality probably many thousands of false positives to one real hit).
That's great, unless you live in a place like I do in Southeast Texas (or probably most of the small towns in the south). People here are always making comments like "you never know, they could be a terrorist" or using what they call 'racial profiling' as an excuse to promote their prejudiced ways. Note: They call it racial profiling, (not political groups, but the rednecks I hear this from) so as not to sound racist. I call that a failure and a coverup. Their actions and statements reinforce their true beliefs. "Most businesses" around here are either not intellegent enough or biased against people to begin with, giving them a list (read: excuse) won't help matters any.
http://wstewart.php0h.com - the sugarbuzz project blog
Your experience points up the reason for the list in the first place: to block transactions that might be used by drug dealers, et. al. A cash transaction is exactly the kind of thing that could be labeled as suspicious, since drug dealers and their ilk often use legitimate purchases as a method of laundering money. And they don't do it in large amounts; a few thousand here and there is often good enough. So even though you were paying cash, that could still be construed as suspicious.
Mind you, I'm not defending the practice. I frankly think no drug dealer or terrorist in their right mind would use their name or the name of any of their known associates to move money around. far easier to get faceless minions to do it, whom they can disavow easily. It only seems to be a trap for law-abiding citizens who have the unfortunate problem of having a name similar to their local drug kingpin or international terrorist.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Funny thing is that no known terrorists who comes to America uses their real name. They use a different one. Without a pix, this lists has only 1 use; the ability to harass and jail others. And even then, the pix can be easily fooled (add or lose weight; fake implants in the cheek; die hair; grow or lose a mustache; cosmetic surgery; etc).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This note is legal tender for ALL debts, public and private. (emphasis mine) -- US $1 Bill
One day the 'specially designated nationals' will have to sit in the back of the bus.
My apologies to the people who I may offend now, but these measures are getting more and more ridiculous by the day (just like it was rediculious that people based on skin color had to sit in the back of the bus), and nobody is doing anything about it (yet).
Privacy is terrorism.
There's the old line:
Since I'm a law-abiding citizen, I see no problem with government surveillance, wiretaps-without-warrants, etc. They NEED these things to fight TERRORISM!!!
Are you SURE you're a law-abiding citizen? Do you know about this "Anti-Terror List?" How about the other Anti-Terror List, and that other one, over there? Do you KNOW for sure that everyone you've ever done any sort of business with is not on one of these lists, especially the secret ones that you're not allowed to see?
Then maybe you're not really a law-abiding citizen, you just don't and can't know it, at least not until WE want to tell you.
By the way, have you ever had sex using any technique other than missionary position? If so, depending on which state you live in, you may have committed a crime!
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The aim of terrorism is to instil terror into the population at large. If you become terrified, then the terrorists have beaten you.
World governments and their agencies can fight terrorism with (supposedly) practical measures, whilst the rest of us can fight terrorism by not being terrified. By mocking terrorists we're showing that they're really not achieving their goals. Go outside and declare that you're not afraid; keep flying in planes, keep going on underground trains, keep buying exercise equipment. Keep living your life, not some shadow of previous freedom you once enjoyed. The chances of being involved in a motor accident are much higher than the chances of being the victim of terrorism; don't tell me that you've stopped driving as well.
If you can explain how those companies are selling them a product, then yeah. Since they are not, I don't see why this is modded Score: 5, Interesting.
My user number is prime. Is yours?
This whole issue touches on a problem that I and others have long perceived with our current legal system and that is the presence of thousands of laws, most of which the average citizen is completely unaware of, that proscribe strict penalties for activities that well meaning and good intentioned citizens engage in on a regular basis (i.e. selling the sandwich to the personal on the "no fly list"). The unwritten rule, of course, is that these laws are invoked only as part of a larger prosecution when the state wants to, "throw the book", at someone, but there is always the threat that they *could* suddenly become arbitrarily enforced on otherwise law abiding citizens to which the authorities only offer the rather weak assurance of, "Trust us, we wouldn't do that to you. This law only applies to criminals." However, recent experience has given even the honest among us pause when that assurance is offered. The other problem inherent to these types of laws is that they engender a lesser respect for the law in general among the population due to the perceived arbitrary nature of the enforcement and that is a very dangerous road to go down for the sake of catching a few more criminals and, "throwing the book at them". The irony here is that through our continued attempts to "get tough on crime" we are increasingly sanctioning ourselves for living normal law abiding lives.
For many states, not wearing a seatbelt is a crime. If a cop pulls you over for this, can you really prove otherwise? Judges tend to the cop's side.
A cop *can* pull you over for driving out of a dealer's lot.