Terror Watch List Swells to More Than 755,000

rdavison writes "According to a USA Today story, the terror watch list has swollen to 755,000 with 200,000 people per year being added since 2004. Adding about 548 people daily every day of the year does not seem to lend itself to a manual process with careful deliberation given or double checking being done for each person added. It seems to suggests that data is being mined from somewhere to automatically add names to the list."

Comments

wasting time

[LiquidCoooled]

Surely it would be quicker to make an Anti-Terror list of people who are allowed to fly.

Re:wasting time

[cayenne8]

"OK, I do understand that the U.S. is currently in a war, and Washington, DC is definitely a target, but why can't a "good citizen" provide some sort of quick and secure verification that he or she is not a threat?

So it got us thinking...Why can't we have some sort of "pre-authorization" that shows that we are law-abiding citizens who pose no threat?"

Wow...as a people we are REALLY starting to think wrongly. As a US citizen, you could be assumed to be a "good citizen" and pose no threat unless your actions indicate otherwise. This falls in line with innocent until proven guilty. You should have to prove NOTHING unless you are arrested for a crime. My bad..if you are arrested...it is upt to the govt. to prove you did something, the burden is upon them, not you.

Man, this is scary thinking you're showing here my friend.

Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Ckwop]

As the Glasgow "terrorists" so brilliantly displayed, anybody can be a terrorist. All it takes is a car, a bunch of primitive explosive, flammable material and the motivation to endanger human life.

In my view, after September 11th the United States should have responded by doing one thing: Passing regulations that ensure that the cockpits of passenger aircraft are unable to be accessed from the passenger carrying part of the plane.

That's a proportionate response to the threat.

In reality, the terrorist threat is a several orders of a magnitude less than being killed by heart-disease. It's my view that in any problem solving situation, you should seek to solve the worst problem first and the smallest problem last.

The problem from where I'm sitting is that billions are being spent on a tiny fraction of deaths that occur in our countries. Where are the billions of dollars of funding to research heart-disease treatment, improving car safety, cancer treatments or the plethora of other much more likely ways you'll meet your sticky end?

What makes this irrational reaction so much worse is that we're selling our rights down the river for a false sense of security. If somebody passes me in the street and decides they want to kill me, there is nothing the long-arm of the state can do to stop them. I will likely die and the fact the person who killed me will spend a considerable time in prison is of little solace.

There are enough nut cases in the world to ensure that the chances of being killed in such a fashion are always going to be none zero. We all choose to walk about the street with our heads held high because we're not going to let that threat intimidate us. So why are we being intimidated by nutters who want to kill not just one person but quite a few of us?

It reminds me of the story of an elderly women in Warrington interviewed just after the IRA bomb detonated there, killing a young boy. The reporter asked why she was still shopping despite a bomb going off and she defiantly replied: "The Germans didn't stop me shopping so the Irish certainly won't."

Defiance is not giving away your freedom. Defiance is refusing to give away your freedom even if you life is at risk. We only need to look at those brave monks in Burma a few weeks ago to see what real defiance looks like. We've lost our back-bone and passed all sorts of onerous laws because we're afraid. We're pathetic and afraid.

When are we going to stand up and say - "To hell with stupid incompetent security. I want my freedom and I want it now."

Simon

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Algorithmnast]

In reality, the terrorist threat is a several orders of a magnitude less than being killed by heart-disease. It's my view that in any problem solving situation, you should seek to solve the worst problem first and the smallest problem last.

So... I should turn in Ronald McDonald to Homeland Security??

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[arivanov]

Yep.

One of the primary criteria of terrorist success is to "succeed in spreading fear into the population". By that criteria the terrorists have clearly won against our governments on every single count.

There is still some hope that they have not won against the general population in at least some parts of the country. There are still some John Smeatons around to "kick em in the bawls".

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[CRCulver]

How are you meant to deal with people who have lost their families, have nothing in life and been convinced through pure hatred that they must take down invading armies in Iraq and their life is meaningless enough that they are happy to die for it?

Your impression of what demographic suicide bombers come from is mistaken. They tend to be family people, and an increasing amount are from financially stable families (just look at the squarely middle-class bombers in London). Many of those carrying out attacks in Iraq are foreigners who haven't lost anything and have plenty of life, they just decided to take advantage of the chaotic political situation there to effect political goals.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[north.coaster]

The question isn't whether terrorists are bad, or whether we should try to protect ourselves from terrorists, because obviously they are and we should. But are all of the current preventative measures really effective? Or necessary? One could argue that the fact that there has not been another attack using aircraft is an indication that they are. Or one could say that no stone should remain unturned in the quest to keep people safe.

But the situation is not black and white. Every security measure has a price which can be measured in money, time, effort, convenience, and freedom. The hard part is to find the right balance. Many of us feel that the current measures are more symbolic than effective. If everyone has to sacrifice, to feel some of the daily pain, then won't we all feel safer?

I don't think that putting my toothpaste in a clear plastic bag before I get on an airplane makes my trip any safer. I don't understand why requiring the government to go before a judge before they can listen to my telephone conversations makes me less safe. How does flying suspects to other countries where more effective means of interrogation are permitted (and also signaling to our enemies that those methods acceptable in our society) really helping on the long run?

Yes, terrorists are bad people. But that doesn't mean that we should take unreasonable stepes to combat them.

After all, the goal of terrorism is to make people so afraid that they change their behavior. That's why it is called terror ism. And when you look at all of the things that the government is doing to try to stop them, it certainly looks like the terrorists are meeting their objectives.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[kevinbr]

"......these people aren't going to be won over no matter how hard you try......" You can do nothing about this people above what you have to handle criminals. There will always be crime and there will always be groups of people who decide that terrorism/violence is a tactic that is useful.

How you hinder/cripple the terrorist is by removing the sympathy he needs to operate in. SO in the North of Irerland, kicking down the doors of ordinary innocent people houses led to MORE support of the terrorist - " Hey Mick, could you mind this _bag of tools_ for a week for me - wink wink" - OK Paddy, no problem.

However, if Mick had not had his door kicked in he would probably tell Paddy to fuck off, he might not call the police, but he would no co-operate so easily.

and this is how terrorists grow successful, they need rich soil of disaffected people who have been touched in bad ways by the supposed good guys. DO we believe that there is any Iraqi who has ANY ties to Fallujah will say no when Ahmed asks to store a "bag of tools" for a week?

So is we remove this "soil" of support, then the terrorist has no nore teeth than the ordinary criminal, the core of the terror movement remains small, the core has difficulty moving and acting wothout being reported by good happy citizens.

When you fuck off the entire population of Arab Muslins by kicking in doors, bulldozing houses, supporting your own forms of terror and lawlessness, then you will never lose perhaps, but you will never eradicate the terrorist, because too many people have empathy for the terrorist.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[ObiWanStevobi]

What are you talking about? These baseless accusations have to stop! It's corrrosive and divisive at a time when we need to come together.

That's why we should support Gulianni for President. 9/11. Now more than ever. Rudy, 9/11, is a good, 9/11, candidate to bring us all together, 9/11, and remind us that the, 9/11, president serves all the people. Not just, 9/11, some of them. By the way, Rudy was there on 9/11 and saw first hand what will surely happen again if you don't vote for him.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[Stefanwulf]

A couple years ago an ad was run in the DC metro - it had a picture of a brick wall with a single fire alarm bell (like the kind that used to be in schools) on the left hand side, and the same wall on the right hand side, except now it was covered with alarm bells, all mounted at about 3" intervals.

Underneath it simply said "More security does not mean you are more secure."

I think it sums up our situation pretty effectively.

Re:Let's resolve to keep our freedom.

[elrous0]

You presume that the goal of the Bush administration is security. The Bush administration's response to 9-11 had NOTHING to do with terrorists or stopping them and EVERYTHING to do with Dick Cheney and the neocon's long-held goal of dismantling the post-Nixon restrictions placed on the Presidency and overthrowing Saddam Hussein (to open up lucrative oil development contracts that American oil companies were prevented from accepting under Saddam).

9-11 wasn't a wake-up call for the administration. It was an excuse.

Why stop there?!

[sqrt(2)]

Just add everyone, then implement a whitelist instead. We can issue travel papers and everything, it'll be great.

Hm...

[Gorimek]

On average, 548 people join Slashdot every day.

Coincidence?

Needles, Haystacks, and Money

[mastershake_phd]

Its McCarthyism all over again, report your friends, family, and neighbors to the Un-American Activities Committee if you see anything suspicious! And I'm sure this is just as effective as McCarthyism was. We don't have the man power or money to monitor roughly .25% of the population. At $750 per month for a wiretap thats $566 million per month if we were to wiretap all these people.

I believe Schneier said

[stinerman]

If there are 755,000 terrorists in the USA, we're already dead.

What do you want to bet the false positive rate on that is? 99%? That's still 7,000. 99.9%? That still seems a bit high.
If your false positive rate is that high, then why even have a list at all?

Re:I believe Schneier said

[Tsiangkun]

This list is about getting people comfortable with the idea of having to carry their papers, and adjusted to the idea of being denied access because their name is on a list.

Like was hinted at in the summary, I suspect this list is receiving very little human curating. My gut instinct says the names represent a 'social network' so many degrees of separation from the 'terrorists'.

I fear the 'terrorist' watch list is only the beginning. Soon we may have a 'child molester' watch list of equal accuracy, or 'gang', 'drug', 'psycho', 'medical' etc.

Now I get it...

[darthflo]

So that's what happens to all those people posting words like "Terrorist", "Bomb", "Bin Laden", "9/11", "Echelon" on Slashdot and all over the intertubes. Luckily I don't do that kinda stuff.

Re:Thank god for the TWL !

[BiggerIsBetter]

Then let's thank God and the powers that be for the terrorist watch list (TWL), because anybody can be on it ! Let it be known that The Department of Homeland Security is an equal-opportunity list-maker.

It violates the Constitution.

[Erris]

Terrorist watch lists punish people without trial. They are deeply unAmerican and are a direct violation of your right to due process. It is time to end this madness and call those who support it what they are, traitors.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

These proscriptions deprive people of their liberty and property. Those on the lists are unable to use air transport, may be discriminated against when they seek employment and are harassed generally when they conduct business. In short, they are treated as a kind of felon. Needless to say, there's no jury involved before the conviction of "terrorist" is applied.

Facebook 2.0

[brown-eyed slug]

the terror watch list has swollen to 755,000 with 200,000 people per year being added since 2004

It's the new social networking sensation!

Re:Except that it worked? -WTF?

[TheMeuge]

America ain't communist, and communism seems to be on the decline. So it is kind of hard to disprove that the red-scare tactics didn't work.

Really? You think the red scare is what mediated this effect?
Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?</blockquote>
I thought this was Slashdot, not the convention for the retarded. You got an "Insightful" rating for this garbage?

COINCIDENCE != CAUSALITY

Given the data you presented, there is no way to logically come to your conclusion! Furthermore, even if I assume just as a matter of a thought experiment, that you're correct, and the no-fly lists did prevent at least one terrorist attack, it still doesn't make them any better at all, because while the relative risk reduction may have been 100%, the absolute risk reduction would be like 0.0001%... and I am simply not willing to sacrifice much of my freedom, and a colossal amount of my money, for a tiny benefit like that.

Simply put, the cost-to-benefit ratio of these measures is totally unacceptable.

The other tech driven legal breakdown

[hey!]

You know how there is a crisis in the copyright system because our successful and longstanding system of copyright laws is based on the assumption that copying is too hard for casual infringement?

Well there is another crisis going on that hasn't got nearly the same attention: The laws that protect our fundamental liberties are based on the assumption that suspicion is too hard to sustain for it to be used casually.

Generally speaking, placing somebody under suspicion and investigating that person is not considered a deprivation of liberty. In fact you can't have a functioning criminal legal system without suspicion and investigation, and generally the question of reasonableness isn't applied to the manner under which somebody falls under suspicion, but the manner in which the investigation is undertaken.

Suspicion and surveillance are not considered tantamount to punishment, because they are assumed to be temporary conditions. It's expensive (so the argument goes) to focus suspicion on somebody; if the suspicion is not productive, then the government surely must move its attention elsewhere, for it must have bigger fish to fry.

But what if there is a machine to the suspecting for the government? Furthermore, suppose the main expense is acquiring and maintaining the machine, and the marginal cost of adding more human grist to the mill is zero? Misplaced suspicion is no longer an inconvenience that one must bear occasionally as part of achieving a lower crime rate. It is quite feasible to make suspicion and detailed scrutiny a permament feature of someone's life. Furthermore, this can be done at no additional cost to the government, and it will surely catch at least a few additional miscreants. The entire system can operate without human effort, except to do things like additional pat downs at the airport. Many of those things are simply utilizing slack resources.

In the case of copyright, the government has given tools to private parties like the RIAA that, funded by deep pockets, can enforce and extend their economic interests. Where are the corresponding legal tools for the individual permamently and unjustly accused?

Society is divided into two groups: those who think technology is like magic, and those who understand how technology works. Of those who understand technology, some have a financial interest in technology being used more; some are simply so manifestly paranoid they have no credibility; and many, many more treat thinking about these issues as a boring waste of time. Unfortunately, big changes are coming, and in this case the paranoid people are right: they're the only one who have even considered that the changes that are coming might not be what we want.

Re:Except that it worked?

[downix]

> Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?

Actually, if you really want to argue this:

Before 2001, there were 0, repeat, 0 domestic hijackings within the United States for the previous 10 years. That is with none of these no-fly lists, nor the loss of liberties.

So, your arguement is useless as it goes on a false assumption. I would note that out of the 19 hijackers that day, most of them were already on a suspect list, and that's without "no fly" lists, warrantless wiretaps, and the like. It could be said that our overzealotness in making lists has actually increased a potential hijackers ability to "slip through" as now there's so much "noise" in the system.

The previous administration had recieved 36 terror convictions. The current? 1. Yes, read that number, 1. Our "new laws" have managed to actually decrease the number of convictions of terrorists. So, you really want to continue this arguement, or re-evaluate?

What War on Terror?

[colinnwn]

You mean Bushie's fictional war on terror that is a figment of his sociopathic metal state? Or how his cronies keep perpetuating his mental illness?

The fallacy of the War on Terror - http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1212-13.htm

Re:I know.

[ucblockhead]

Actually, the way to beat the terrorists is to realize that for all the hype, the death toll to terrorists in this country is orders of magnitude less than the death toll due to simple criminal violence, and that the best way to deal with it is to have the police/FBI/etc. deal with it using basic police work like they have for a century, and for the rest of us to ignore the issue entirely and get on with our lives.

That's how to beat the terrorists: refuse to be terrorized.