All US Border Crossings Now Require A 'Terrorist Risk Profile'

conlaw writes with a somewhat intimidating Washington Post article. "The federal government disclosed details yesterday of a border-security program to screen all people who enter and leave the United States, create a terrorism risk profile of each individual and retain that information for up to 40 years ... The risk assessment is created by analysts at the National Targeting Center, a high-tech facility opened in November 2001 and now run by Customs and Border Protection. In a round-the-clock operation, targeters match names against terrorist watch lists and a host of other data to determine whether a person's background or behavior indicates a terrorist threat, a risk to border security or the potential for illegal activity. They also assess cargo."

Comments

plenty of people come in that way, too

[User 956]

All US Border Crossings Now Require A 'Terrorist Risk Profile'

Not if you leave the right way. If you know what I mean.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, I mean we have how many hundreds of thousands who make it across the mexican border every year? The Canadian border is even worse security wise too.

This really only hurts the law abiding.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[wasted]

Agreed, I mean we have how many hundreds of thousands who make it across the mexican border every year? The Canadian border is even worse security wise too.

This really only hurts the law abiding. (my emphasis)

Sort of like U.S. gun control laws.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[hax0r_this]

Sort of like most laws designed to prevent people from doing things that might allow them to commit a crime.

I'm a bit of a fan of punishing those who have been duly convicted and leaving everyone else to go about their business.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[wasted]

Sort of like most laws designed to prevent people from doing things that might allow them to commit a crime.

I'm a bit of a fan of punishing those who have been duly convicted and leaving everyone else to go about their business.

You'll never get elected to office with that platform - those wishing to control everyone's life for the good of everyone will be upset that you don't agree, the "bleeding hearts" will be upset that you actually punish (vice rehabilitate) those that have been convicted, and the "if you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't mind us violating the fourth and fifth amendments" crowd will be upset that you don't support Big Brother.

I agree with you, though.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[cduffy]

Personality traits isn't a theoretical exercize in cryptography.

Outliers among the set of candidates can be chosen in cases where it's known that they'll go without scrutiny, or placed in those roles where avoiding scrutiny is critical. Any system can be gamed, particularly when it purports to sort through the mass of humanity; there are simply too many outliers. Who would have guessed that a group of doctors would be behind a bomb plot? As for your "white soccer mum", I have no doubt that there are recruitable malcontents amongst those whose externally visible behaviors place them in that set -- it's too large for there not to be, though they're undoubtedly percentage-wise few. (Further, "defensive" actions such as this have the potential to increase the set of malcontents; I certainly know that they decrease my faith in government).

Any system dependent on a set of rules can be gamed, once those rules are known.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to sound too ignorant here, but when did terrorism or rumors of terrorism become the USA's top priority? Is domestic terrorism the leading cause of death? Is international terrorism for that matter?

From a government perspective, is it to create a threat to introduce fascism as commented by Naomi Wolf http://youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc/? Or government and big business corruption and cronism?

From a citizen standpoint, do we following along because of popular media (24, and the hosts of other TV shows that follows in its footsteps)? Why do we continue to argue whether a specific terrorist prevention mechanism will work or not? Are there not other priorities that should be getting our attention?

-AC

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[sg_oneill]

Thats the thing really isn't. You could get some Iranian woman , who might be really white (As many Iranians are) , give her a passport with a name like "Maria Jones" or even "Frances Cohen" or something, swing a cross or star of david around her neck, some fake ID papers and some lessons on affecting a perfect accent, and you have someone that won't raise an eyelid. Comes up on the test as a bit fundamentalist inclined in personality? Sure, she's heading to the US for an Assemblies of God, or Jehovas Witness conference. Theres NOTHING you can do to stop that , and a smart terrorist knows that.
tt
Its all symptoms of dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes of terrorism. If the world thinks the US is "The happy country with coca cola and Levi Jeans" then you won't recruit a damn soul. If the world thinks the US is a violent country with a military mad government that claims morals whilst going around blowing up shit they don't like, well you won't need to look hard to find those recruits. Its in fact the infuriating thing about this whole 'terrorism era', we didn't even need to have it. Its like we *chose* to piss off the middle east and make them go crazy and hate us. You don't 'fix' bee nests by hitting them with rocks.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Anonymous Coward]

... the "war on terror" isn't about keeping people safe, it's about keeping people scared.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Kadin2048]

Who, exactly?

The only people who are stopped from getting guns by the gun-control laws are the law-abiding. Getting an illegal gun isn't particularly hard in any major city, and I've been told by LEOs that the market price for them is in some cases substantially lower than you'd pay for one legally (especially if it's already been used in a crime and been discarded).

If you want to get a gun for some nefarious purpose, it's not hard at all. And in return for this situation, we create an onerous burden on people who have no criminal intent, and never would use their guns for any illegitimate purpose.

Likewise, if you want to cross either the northern or southern border of the U.S. without going through the CBP rectal-probing, you can do it. By piling the restrictions on people who come through legal checkpoints while basically ignoring the massive challenge that actually trying to seal a thousands-of-miles-long border would entail, we're creating the same black/white-market division that exists with guns. Only the people who are committed for some personal reason to staying legitimate will go through the official channels. Everyone else will go around it. The result is nothing but a false sense of security and the imposition of unnecessary, do-nothing procedural requirements on those who follow the law.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If the world thinks the US is "The happy country with coca cola and Levi Jeans" then you won't recruit a damn soul.

I'm not so sure. I bet there are people out there who find the US's rampant consumerism offensive enough to kill for.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The fad these days is to pretend that people that screw up are evil people and punish them forever, then wonder why reoffense rates are so high (must be those evil people).

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[localman]

What makes you think that? It's not like there's any evidence of that because, you know, we _did_ fuck up the middle east. We went in and toppled democratically elected officials and regularly manipulated things to our benefit at their expense. It's serious stuff, and is bound to piss people off. To then say "well, I think they would have hated us anyways" smacks of imperialist propaganda.

Maybe they would have hated us anyways, but we simply don't know that and it's disingenuous to use it as an excuse.

Sigh.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[jimicus]

There are always people out there who will find something offensive.

There are always a few nutjobs who will go so far as to kill because of this offence.

However, if you go barging into other countries claiming you're going to "solve their problems with Democracy and Freedom!" without first checking whether or not the people of those countries want you barging in to solve their problems with democracy and freedom, sooner or later you're going to piss an awful lot more people off than if you'd just stayed at home.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Stanislav_J]

Exactly. Cos the way to make sure that criminals have a chance to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society is to make sure that when they get out they become a pariah with little chance of landing a decent job, obtain decent housing, or get the social or medical services they need, right?

We lock up more people by far than any other "civilized" country, and has it lowered the crime rate? Nope. And with background checks becoming easily available to all potential employers and landlords, combined with the climate of paranoia fostered by the government, we almost guarantee that offenders will face a steep uphill battle in trying to become law-abiding, productive citizens again. The only potential saving grace is that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes a criminal offense, so maybe someday just about everyone in the country will have a criminal record and it will all even out.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[vidarh]

I went to Canada a while back, and must say that the difference to arriving in the US (which I do regularly) is simply staggering. I'd made an error filling in the customs form, but was just told to correct it, and asked when I was leaving and that was it. Hardly looked at my passport. Not to mention the much more relaxed checkin when I was flying back home. Compared to the make-you-feel-like-a-criminal fingerprinting and photographing + visa vaiwer forms asking if you've ever committed genocide and whether or not you're planning to commit terrorism or other crimes while in the US (WTF? Does anyone EVER tick yes on anything on that list?).

Even Chinese border control makes you feel more welcome than the US.

And that's ignoring the occasional asshole behind the desk when visiting the US - it's not so much the behavior as the overall process. Even the nicest, friendliest US border guards (and I've come across a few who were really nice, and most are courteous enough, which is impressive when you come across someone who's clearly nearing the end of a shift with the kind of crap they have to deal with) still has to follow a procedure that makes visiting quite a few dictatorships seem nice and friendly.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[10101001 10101001]

Its all symptoms of dealing with the symptoms rather than the causes of terrorism.

The problem is, people are trying to solve the problem of terrorism. On top of this is a more pervasive/fundamental problem, the immorality of the populace. As TheVelvetFlamebait points out (indirectly), there will almost always be someone who feels they have a valid reason to attack another people/nation. So, what happens if/when the US turns towards those corrections you suggest? Then the people who now argue against torture will be the ones most pushing it, while the ones for torture now will push towards making the system go their way.

This boils down to, as I said, the immorality of the populace. Individuals feel that part of being strong is being willing to commit an immoral act (aka "being pragmatic") if it is "necessary" to fulfill a "greater" end. And thanks to a representative democracy, that means that politicians are elected to do "the dirty work" for the populace, leading inherently to immoral politicians. But, politicians have their own code of conduct that doesn't involve violence in the government (in general). So, persuasion, guile, etc are used in Congress/Presidentcy/Supreme Court.

Noone's law ideals are perfect, however. So, when something "bad" happens under one's own set of laws, it is easier for already immoral politicians to violently suppress those people instead of either (a) working to fix one's ideals to resolve the problem or (b) accepting that ideals are imperfect and bad things invariably happen no matter how one tries, so merely fixing one's ideals for the sake of change is useless. And again, those politicians who don't respond with violence aren't doing what they're paid/voted-in to do and are eventually removed from office.

This is why "dealing" with terrorism isn't the answer; it is one of those "bad" happenings that invariably occurs. The only thing to really argue is morality/ideals. Torture is self-evidently bad. Violating human rights is self-evidently bad. Trying to boil it down to a cost/benefit analysis to somehow justify going against morality isn't the answer. But, then, I consider it more important to be able to live with oneself than to merely live (be it oneself or one's country). Too bad most Christians don't follow that Christian philosophy.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Kintar1900]

Isn't that mostly because anyone can get them from a store? If you had to import these things from other countries (unless you want a hunting rifle) that wouldn't be nearly as easy.

Yeah, because we're so good at keeping out people who shouldn't be in the country, it's going to be a LOT easier to keep out small, easily portable devices that we don't want in here. :P

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Doc Ruby]

You talk like there's some fixed segregation between "law abiding" and "criminals". Which is the basic fallacy underlying "with criminalized guns, only criminals carry guns". A corollary to that fallacy is that a law means 100% enforcement, which is impossible with our large borders (for both immigration and gun control).

Security and function are a tradeoff, never black and white. The balance means strong controls on both weapon ownership and borders, to appropriately mitigate what can be neither eliminated nor ignored.

Some people will drive recklessly, drunk, or without knowing how to read signs. Requiring a drivers license of everyone doesn't mean everyone driving has a license, and therefore qualifications, but it does drastically reduce the risks. Which everyone knows about cars, but gun and immigration fetishes, which rely on a false image of "us and them" for suspendable privileges for "them" treated as rights for "us", isn't considered as sensibly.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[u-235-sentinel]

The only potential saving grace is that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes a criminal offense, so maybe someday just about everyone in the country will have a criminal record and it will all even out.

Hopefully someday this will include politicians.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Jason Levine]

So by fighting the war on terror like this, we've let the terrorists win. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[zoney_ie]

The US locks up a larger percentage of its population than possibly even all the "less civilised" countries too. Even if you consider some countries' reported figures dodgy - there's a huge gap between those and the US rates. At the very best for the US (i.e. wildly inaccurate figures for some "uncivilised" countries), the US is still going to be in the top few countries in the world for incarceration rates!

Nevermind that the US is also way up there in executing people.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Scrameustache]

We lock up more people by far than any other "civilized" country You have to keep those private prisons profitable somehow.

Re:plenty of people come in that way, too

[Em Adespoton]

The US locks up a larger percentage of its population than possibly even all the "less civilised" countries too. Even if you consider some countries' reported figures dodgy - there's a huge gap between those and the US rates. At the very best for the US (i.e. wildly inaccurate figures for some "uncivilised" countries), the US is still going to be in the top few countries in the world for incarceration rates!

Nevermind that the US is also way up there in executing people.

...and these statistics don't include deportations of people to other countries for imprisonment and execution, nor do they include the "secret extraditions" of people to the CIA prisons in other nations. I'd be curious to see how THESE statistics stack up against other countries.

This story is a month old

[daveschroeder]

Good job, slashdot.

Also, one would presume there is SOME level of checking at the borders, else there isn't really any need for borders or the concept of a nation-state, is there?

Awesome!

[garcia]

In a round-the-clock operation, targeters match names against terrorist watch lists and a host of other data to determine whether a person's background or behavior indicates a terrorist threat, a risk to border security or the potential for illegal activity.

So what they're saying is that they are going to use a high-tech facility to match names to a list of people known to cause false positives and is based on poor information at best so that a list of names can be created for the next half century for the government to track the travel habits of its citizens.

Now, the vast majority of people coming in and out of this country are legitimate and yet our freedoms are being restricted for a handful of people worldwide that would most likely not appear on that list as there are new "freedom haters" popping up every second -- especially when news, like this, keep coming to light.

I'm ashamed that my future tax dollars and my children's future tax contributions will be going to pay for this fucking horseshit and no one is doing anything to stop it. Hey, politicians listen up... Want my vote? Put a fucking stop to this waste of time, energy and money. Thanks.

Re:Awesome!

[Dunbal]

Want my vote?

      The problem is there is no one else to give your vote to anymore. It's all the same bullshit.

Re:Awesome!

[garcia]

Your (and our) only option is to educate people, tell the general public what's going on, because the longer the masses stay ignorant, the longer the politicians will keep getting away with things like this, because - as sad as this sounds - people will genuinely think this is a good idea.

The douchebag politicians have coerced the public into believing that people, like us, who are trying to educate them on the reality they have created are nothing more than crackpot terrorist sympathizers who belong disappeared and tucked away from the prying eyes of any oversight groups and proper legal advice.

Someone needs to shut down TV networks so that the reality TV drugs for the masses end and the riots against the mind-numbing political machine can commence.

Re:Awesome!

[Kjella]

Hey, politicians listen up... Want my vote? Put a fucking stop to this waste of time, energy and money. Thanks. I think you're confusing being right with being in majority. I think that's why everyone has a little mini-dictator inside them that says "If only I could decide, I would..." not seeing all the issues where we'd probably be wrong. But sometimes, just sometimes you can swear you'd at least do less things wrong. Unfortunately, so do many who should not be put in a position of power even if hell froze over.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true for the most part, but some of it is that you adopt that defeatist attitude, and you basically let them stay in power.

In the 2008 Presidential election, there are a few candidates who are mostly sane: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. Most people seem to actually prefer these rather than the lunatics promoted by mainstream media -- but what answer do people give whenever you ask them about it? "I don't want to waste my vote on someone with no chance of winning."

Well, of course, idiots. If you don't vote for them, then they can't get elected.

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It might be the case now, but let's see how things stand in 20-30 years.

Oh, I think if you ask around, you'll find a great many non-US citizens don't take the view you described even now. I, for one, have actively refused to travel to the United States simply because I object to the government's treatment of foreigners as second-class humans, not deserving of the same basic rights and respect as a US citizen, starting with the whole fingerprinting and photography thing the moment you arrive. Welcome to the United States, suspect #1,075,375!

It's interesting how often on Slashdot we get some discussion going on about infringement of privacy or the like, and a load of US citizens pipe up with how it's an infringement of their Constitutional rights. Screwing over the foreigners is apparently OK, because they don't have any rights under the US Constitution. The rest of the civilised world calls them human rights, and extends them to everyone; draw your own conclusions about how US policy looks to the rest of the civilised world.

Re:Awesome!

[hax0r_this]

But there's a presumption that the US is fabulous and sacred and utterly superior and different to all other nations, and that people will accept whatever probing and scanning and recording Washington decides to impose simply for the honour and privilege of visiting. No offense intended, but it seems similarly arrogant to assume that for some reason the US should care whether or not you visit. Except insofar as we can take your money while you're here.

No, I think you have most likely been given that impression by the media wherever you live. American's are not "arrogant" as you describe them, it is simply that a tremendous portion of our population is mind-blowingly self absorbed. All day long my roommate watches these football (American football I should say) games on TV, and I sit here and listen to the announcers, the players, the fans, the coaches, etc and every single one of them is caught up in their worship of these blundering morons who run about on a piece of grass, and of the so called "actors" in Hollywood. The attitude that the highest status one can achieve is that of a sports, movie or music celebrity, living within this sort of reality tv world where everyone assumes that they are the center of the universe is what I think you may be trying to refer to.

American's for the most part are not "arrogant" as you describe them, they are simply too caught up in all of this media bullshit to open their eyes and realize there is an entire world full of people around them. That is why if you actually come here and actually meet real Americans you will find that individually we are, in large part, very pleasant people, eager to help those around us within the limits of convenience, and eager to make sure that as a foreigner you come away with a good impression of our country. The problem is not arrogance, it is ignorance and this media/hollywood/sports addiction that so many Americans need to feed.

...Well.

[Elyscape]

I was trying to think up some kind of response to this but, honestly, it's so infuriating and, more importantly, so stupid that I simply can't.

Re:...Well.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why this sort of bullshit keeps going on in America. Because those people who can speak up and make a fuss, such as yourself, sit there silently.

Since you seem so incapacitated by rage, let me try and help you out here. Just follow the steps below, one after the other:

1. Email that article to everyone in your email address book.
2. Call up other people you know, and tell them about this.
3. Write a letter to your congressman, indicating your displeasure with this plan.
4. Write a letter to your senator, indicating your displeasure with this plan.
5. Write a letter to the mayor and councilors of your town or city, indicating your displeasure with this plan.
6. In the next election, do not vote Republican or Democrat. Vote for a third-party candidate, an independent, etc.
7. Encourage everyone you know to do the same during the next election.
8. Look into moving out of the United States. Europe and Canada are possible destinations.

I'd like to hear how you eventually do respond to this situation. I'd hope you follow at least some of the suggestions above. Of course, you may think up more on your own, and by all means, go for them!

Delusional

[explosivejared]

"We gather, collect information that is needed to protect the borders," Agen said. "We store the information we see as pertinent to keeping Americans safe."

It's sad but there are people that think this will result in tangible safety. They don't stop to think that just maybe people coming into the US through the proper means aren't the major threats. I've talked about this is in other posts, but this takes the cake. Every one is to be viewed as a threat. The government is forcing a paranoid world of survivalism on us. I hate being alarmist, and I hate ragging on the government for nothing, but this is serious. This a fundamental challenge to the idea of personal liberty, innocence until proven guilty, and pretty much every other tenet of the philosophical basis for our nation. This is a gross, paranoid, unrealistic power grab. After reading the article I don't have a whole lot of hope. It was a calm rational piece, which is normally what I would want, but this needs to be shown for what it is.

So to all newcomers... welcome to America where we aim to alienate and tread over any and everyone!

Re:Delusional

[lendude]

You're a bit confused about who is being the generic idiot here - he IS doing something that contributes.

He's not visiting / passing through your country. Enough international citizens do this as a result of your security theatre and the US tourism industry will soon notice. Whether the administration cares about this is another matter.

Re:Delusional

[G Fab]

Your reaction is legitimate and reasonable.

But one day, I think the US will have no trouble getting back to respecting liberty.

We have lost a lot/ A lot of respect, a lot of freedom, and a lot of business to people like you.

However, history shows that even the most wretched abuses (far beyond what is going on here) are quickly forgiven. I doubt you would mind traveling to Germany or Japan. And perhaps not Britain, which no longer fully recognizes human rights (in my opinion), but doesn't impact the world like the USA does.

So I hope you're right and we Americans realize what it's costing us. On the other hand, the war we're in is not fictitious. There really is a danger out there. The restrictions have very little ability to protect us (and are largely based on a misunderstanding of who our enemy is), but it's kinda natural for people to freak out and for government to do bad stuff in these times.

We are not killing all the Jews, raping the Chinese, giving smallpox to the natives, or rounding up the Japanese. We are totally in the wrong, but it's not something we can't come away from.

Largely, the improvement in abuses (that they are historically minor) gives me faith that mankind, as ugly, selfish, and clumsy as it is, can truly improve over time. Civilization is actually better now than ever.

But feel free to travel to Canada instead of the USA. I love Canada, but I hope you reconsider the States in several years when we are reacting less to fear. We're good people, and we've got a lot to be proud of.

1984?

[jonr]

Jesus Christ on a moped. What is wrong with you people? The emperor truly has no clothes and nobody dares to point it out.

Re:1984?

[thisissilly]

No, plenty of people point it out, but the emperor has no shame, either.

Brilliant.

[etnu]

Lets make legal immigration more time consuming and difficult (wouldn't want smart people entering the country, now would we?) and continue ignoring the illegal variety. I'm sure that terrorists who want to destroy america will go out of their way to obey laws.

Re:Brilliant.

[QuickFox]

terrorists who want to destroy america No terrorists can destroy America. They don't have that power. They don't even come close.

The Americans, however, can.

Profile?

[david_thornley]

In a case like this, with so many people and so few terrorists, a profile is not going to accomplish much. If as many as one in ten thousand people crossing the borders were terrorists, it would make a bit more sense.

Of course, if this program were worthwhile in the first place, it wouldn't be if Canada didn't do something similar. There is absolutely no way to stop anybody from crossing the northern border. It's thousands of miles long, unpatrolled, unfenced, and passes through some pretty wild territory.

So, it's another pointless exercise. All it will do is hassle assorted people, many of them innocent, and do nothing to prevent terrorism.

Re:So

[Tablizer]

Obviously this only applies to people crossing the border LEGALLY. People who for whatever reason cross the border illegally will never get a "terrorist profile".

This has got to be the dumbest allocation of resources ever. A more logical solution is to spend more on reducing illegal crossings rather than bulking up on background check cubicles (especially the leave-the-country ones).

Re:So

[Kjella]

You are aware that all the terrorists on the 9/11 attacks had valid visas right? And if there was an article about stopping illegal border crossings someone would quickly point out that fact. While I think the US is going overboard, it's fairly clear that:

1. What you don't know you can't assess
2. If nobody collects data there's no data to analyze
3. Unless it's analyzed you can't connect the dots

Now, this does not mean you have to build a new Berlin wall, resurrect the inquisition and make KGB/Gestapo's archives look like child's play. But quite frankly it's not entirely outragous if a country would like to regulate who's permitted to enter the country. Making everyone go through the door if the door is wide open and unattended wouldn't help anything.

Re:So

[MightyYar]

Is there really a danger of a Mexican terrorist? The only terrorists in my lifetime in the US have all been here legally. A couple of white Americans and some Middle Eastern fellows, IIRC. I suppose a Mexican could be behind the Anthrax scare, but I'll take that bet and give you odds.

Re:So

[hax0r_this]

No, it was the public. The public is scared of terrorists, so those in power have responded.

The problem, of course, is those in power are democrats and republicans. The republicans aren't going to do anything to tighten down the border because they want cheap labor. The democrats aren't going to do it because they need the hispanic vote.

Without a tightened down border the most they can do about terrorism is attack it elsewhere. So they have devised a simple strategy:

1. Appear to be attacking terrorism elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)

2. Appear to be securing the country here (terrorist watch lists, terrorist risk profiles, etc)

As usual, its about power, and as usual the two parties are in collusion to maintain control.

So much for ever visting the US again...

[Phrogman]

Well, I have been reluctant to want to visit the US given the rampant paranoia and siege state that seems to be prevalent down there recently, but this pretty much guarantees I won't ever visit again. Its not that I am a terrorist, its not that I am any sort of threat to anyone, and its not that I have anything to hide in fact, its that I don't want to have a profile that will be retained for 40-years, that will undoubtedly end up being incorrect in some aspect, which I can't update, correct, or most likely even view at any point during that period. Its that I don't want to risk having some mistake result in my being whisked away to some foreign country for a torture session that will produce whatever they want me to say (as erroneous as it will be) because I recognize I wouldn't stand up to sustained torture for very long. The chances are admittedly very very small, but why take any chances. When the mad dog in the junkyard is unpredictable, its better to just stay away from it.

Weighed against the benefits of visiting the USA, I would rather go to just about any other country in the world right now. I sincerely hope you folks manage to straighten things out, find your constitution again, resurrect Habeas Corpus and the rights of the individual, and perhaps find your sanity. As it stands the Terrorists out there are winning the so-called war, because they have convinced your government to turn the US into exactly what the Terrorists claimed it was in the first place.

Its so sad to see all this coming to pass. You folks down in the US have my sincere sympathy :(

Re:So much for ever visting the US again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have been reluctant to want to visit the US given the rampant paranoia and siege state that seems to be prevalent down there recently, but this pretty much guarantees I won't ever visit again.

It seems the only paranoid one here is you. Why do people keep insisting that the US is a 'siege state'? Is it fashionable to toss out '1984' as if it is even remotely close to the reality? Have you even bothered to read it, or did you just watch the movie? Seriously, thank you for not coming to visit. Maybe you should spend your misguided attention in dealing with your own problems in Quebec.

. Its not that I am a terrorist, its not that I am any sort of threat to anyone, and its not that I have anything to hide in fact, its that I don't want to have a profile that will be retained for 40-years, that will undoubtedly end up being incorrect in some aspect, which I can't update, correct, or most likely even view at any point during that period.

Uh, yah. Try going to a number of so-called 'free' countries in Europe, like say, Germany. Or France. Or Great Britain.
You think they don't collect information about you, your purpose in visiting, your destination, etc, for future reference? Do you think they destroy that information once they're 'done with it'? Where did this illusion that you can update/correct/view any of this information comes from? What kind of idiotic self-important ignorant prick seriously thinks that he has any chance of doing so?

Its that I don't want to risk having some mistake result in my being whisked away to some foreign country for a torture session that will produce whatever they want me to say (as erroneous as it will be) because I recognize I wouldn't stand up to sustained torture for very long.

The chances of that happening (unless you have some legitimate reason to be fearful, like say, spending time in the middle East and contributing/associating with terrorist organizations) are pretty much zero. The chances of your getting ran over by a bus walking out of your front door are possibly 10000% greater than those of you getting 'whisked away' by the black helicopters.

I would rather go to just about any other country in the world right now. I sincerely hope you folks manage to straighten things out, find your constitution again, resurrect Habeas Corpus and the rights of the individual, and perhaps find your sanity.

Yes, head out to Saudi Arabia and have fun being shut out of 1/2 the country, because it's Muslim-only. Prepare to have any items they deem non-acceptable confiscated at the border. Send us a postcard from Indonesia, where they'll kidnap you because you're white, and possibly have money to pay for a ransom. Oh, guess what, they do the same thing in Mexico, where they also happen to throw you in jail and deport you no questions asked if you can't show proper ID.
Yah, thank you for showing us how ill-informed you are, you sanctimonious bag of shit. American citizens never lost their rights, and Habeas Corpus is fine, provided you're a citizen (arguably, if you're not a citizen, you're not entitled to said rights).

I sincerely pity Canada for having such brain-washed pansies in their midst; no wonder you guys were never that relevant in the world stage.

Re:So much for ever visting the US again...

[rhizome]

Why do people keep insisting that the US is a 'siege state'?

I'm not the original poster, but from where I'm sitting the evidence is that the people who purport to know what's really going on, such as yourself, will only do it under cover of anonymity. That's a pretty big red flag if you ask me.

Re:So much for ever visting the US again...

[Swift Kick]

Have you paused to consider that maybe it was done under anonymity to preserve whatever karma they may have here on /., and not because of fear of governmental persecution?

While I don't necessarily agree with the way he/she phrased his/her disagreement with the OP, I'll be the first one to admit that someone making a post against a popular opinion (Bush is the devil, the US turning into 1984, etc) will often time result in them getting modded down by 'activist' mods with a deliberate anti-government bias.

Try checking this comment later and you'll probably find it modded Troll/Flamebait/Offtopic, etc. Maybe then you'll understand why he/she went for the Anonymous Coward banner.

Re:So much for ever visting the US again...

[cliffski]

Agreed 100%. I love the US, I got married there, I long to return to see Vegas and Yosemite again. But no way am I going to have my fingerprints taken and be treated like a terrorist when I'm on holiday. Not when Europe has great scenery too.
I would HATE to work in US tourism right now.

Re:So

[ILuvRamen]

People who for whatever reason cross the border illegally will never get a "terrorist profile".

How do you know those people don't automatically get a ridiculously high rating when they're discovered in the country. This could all be a ploy to get rid of illegal immigrants in the name of terrorism. Let's say on the way back from Mexico some guy gets +10 points for failing to show a vehicle registration, the next guy behind him gets +30 for being arabic, and I get +50 for having a 50 pound barrel of potassium nitrate in the back of the truck. But if someone is discovered to have snuck in they get +100 which is over the limit and can be immediately arrested or deported or something. It's all speculation but it's possible.

Re:So

[omeomi]

You are aware that all the terrorists on the 9/11 attacks had valid visas right?

I'm pretty sure they didn't enter via the Canadian or Mexican borders...a fact which nobody ever seems to mention when discussing the security of our borders...

no-one else has stated it outright, so I shall

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of these laws is not to stop terrorism. They are to restrict the law-abiding so the government can become progressively more authoritarian and the instruments will be in place to quickly eliminate those who pose a threat.

Furthermore, this is the purpose of pretty much all recent anti-terror laws. Across the pond, extension of detention without trial, anti-free-speech laws, compulsory biometric identity cards, these are all designed so that, come the need to stand up against an increasingly oppressive government, resistance will be impossible.

In case it's not absolutely obvious, the whole "war on terror" - which is like a "war on guns", since terrorism is a strategy, not an identifiable enemy - is engineered to create the kind of fear that makes these laws appear legitimate.

(That's not to say there aren't some groups which pose a threat to American security which need to be dealt with. Germany and Italy overran most of Europe and were dealt with in 6 years. The sixth year anniversary of 9/11 has come and gone.)

Humanity has never faced a greater threat to its continuing freedom. We've had governments oppress with hands, with ears, with guns; but never with the sort of technology we have today to monitor, to track, to profile, in my home county and across the world. And every technologist is to blame who does not vigorously oppose government use of his creations beyond government's mandate, who will not quickly abandon any project so co-opted. That's includes you, reader. For it is better to halt the technology's progress entirely than to build a weapon that will ultimately point at you.

There are bigger worries

[PineGreen]

What is the problem? I am on a J-1 visa in the states and go in and out regularly. Why shouldn't they keep a profile of me? At least someone who cares... ;)

I think USA would be a much better country if people learned that coffee should be drank from a porcelain cup rather than a paper one and that beer should be drunk from a glass rather than a bottle. Next you should fix the medical insurance or at least regulate it more seriously if you don't think universal insurance is not good enough. Then you should do something about taking mentally ill people off the streets, this is really quite bad. There are real things that need to be fixed in this country, rather than worry about privacy!

Re:So

[rtb61]

I don't think you really get the idea. It is not about profiling for terrorists its is about establishing a legal reason for creating a security risk profile upon all US citizens. The typical US family going on an overseas holidays will have the father, mother and even the children all profiled aka a secret record established which will be updated as required through out the rest of their lives (with either valid or invalid data depending upon their political affiliations, their religious preferences, their willingness to speak their mind or the accidental aggravation of some mindless ignorant pencil dick in uniform).

Seriously do you think a foreigner will care in the US decides to keep a secret profile of them for the next forty years. For the majority of them it is a one off trip but of course for US residents coming and going, that secret profile, which they can not review, can not change, can not correct, will leave a permanent blight on their and their families future, get fired for no reason, cant pass a security check, cant fly, get random threatening visits from three letter agencies. If every citizens gets a terrorist profile then by definition every citizen is in part a terrorist suspect man woman and child, it is just the degree to which they are suspect.

Is it just me...

[Spy der Mann]

or it seems that George Bush is rushing to make the US as totalitarian as possible before leaving the chair?

Re:Is it just me...

[photomonkey]

Unfortunately, you can't blame this on King George squarely. He has a more than compliant Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court (all full of Democrats and Republicans) willing to let him do whatever he wants while they debate whether or not next Thursday should be the National Purple Day or National Yellow Day (in a non-binding resolution kinda way).

In the 18th and 19th Centuries, throughout Western Europe and the New World, this was the stuff revolutions and uprisings were made of...

I guess that was a time before big screen TVs, MasterCards and corporate fiefdom.

Re:Is it just me...

[mikelieman]

Just wait until you see what the NEXT totalitarian to hold office does, now that Bush has lowered the bar....

Re:So

[soundhack]

are you also aware that there were enough facts and analyses and at least a few low level FBI personnel that "connected the dots" all with existing systems before 9/11? The only problem was the institutional behavior of mid-level managers ignoring what subordinates push up.

So I really think these new data collection schemes are the administration's goal to check up on the domestic populace and weed out the real enemies (in their eyes anyway), which are Democrats, libertarians, and any other non-neocon or non-Republican.

Re:Soviet Vespucciland

[QuickFox]

Which was extremely undemocratic despite its name. One of the most extreme dictatorships of the Warsaw pact.

Most countries with "democratic" in their names have been dictatorships.

Re:So

[Bartab]

I'm pretty sure they didn't enter via the Canadian or Mexican borders...a fact which nobody ever seems to mention when discussing the security of our borders...

A completely irrelevant distinction. Our "borders" are the areas you arrive in the country at. Ellis Island was once our "border". LAX is our "border".

Re:So

[MightyYar]

I know that the word "terrorist" has been diluted quite a bit, but I'm pretty sure most would still exclude a street gang.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

"Border security" is about keeping poor Spanish-speaking Mexicans out of the white communities. You can try to reason and rationalize it until you're blue in the face, but this is the impetus behind the immigration and "border security" debates going on right now. Terrorism is merely a convenient PR excuse.

If you think this post is a troll, guess again. Try going and talking to the people who feel most strongly about border security, and probe deeply about the reasons for it. They pretty quickly forget about the idea of terrorism, and start talking about jobs, communities, culture, language differences, and so forth. (This is why there is no fence on the North side, and no serious discussion of building one.)

Re:Didn't do this already?

[xkhaozx]

Um, Walmart can't send you to some foreign country to be tortured and forced to confess things you haven't done.

Re:So

[Skuld-Chan]

You are aware that all the terrorists on the 9/11 attacks had valid visas right? And if there was an article about stopping illegal border crossings someone would quickly point out that fact. While I think the US is going overboard, it's fairly clear that:

There was a book written a while back (of which I wish I could remember the name) where the author basically argued that anti-terrorism measures were basically useless because any measure to mitigate threat we put in, they would think some way around it.

Case in point - probably some of the earliest hijackings the terrorist simply carried a bomb or a gun on board.

Want to fix terrorism - maybe we should fix or foreign policy. These people honestly believe they are fighting for a cause and their freedom.

If by yesterday, you mean a year ago.

[CrazyDrumGuy]

Actually, more than a year ago. TFA is dated November 3, 2006!

Quota system

[Anonymous Coward]

I would propose to remove the quota system from Slashdot. Zonk is obviously overworked and submitted news from 2006.

Just another step to the Bush dictatorship agenda.

[milette]

Here's a simple question for all you pro-Bush wankers...

Where are all the terrorists? Do you really believe that since 9/11 one single Bush tactic has prevented a single event of terrorism in the USA?

Face it simpletons -- there ain't any terrorists in the homeland, and they aren't coming in any significant number.

(Study history -- the first steps of the dictator is to create a 'false enemy' for the people to rally aginst -- while giving up all their civil liberties in the process. Before WW2, Germany was also a democracy -- with even more freedoms than Americans have left.)

If terrorists wanted in -- they'd use the same methods as the other illegals -- through the southern border. One should assume that highly-trained, physically fit terrorists would have just as good a chance as some mexican grandmother?

And what would they do once they are IN the USA? You may think that they'd buy guns (as anyone with a hundred dollar bill can do walking into a biker bar), and start having some sniper fun. (Remember how much terror a single pair of snipers can invoke on an entire city?)

There are a MILLION acts of mischief, vandalism and 'terror' they could indulge in. All it takes is a cutting torch and about half an hour to take out a section of track large enough to derail any commuter train. Or a piece of chain, a stolen (or rented) truck and about 2 minutes.

C'mon -- if there WERE any terrorists do you think they wouldn't have DONE SOMETHING in the past 7 years? You figure they're maybe 'saving it up' sitting on their hineys for 'something BIG'?

This whole terrorist scare is a Bush invention -- just like the weapons of mass destruction -- nothing more than an excuse to put into force whatever measures are on the 'agenda' -- like getting free Iraq oil, or sealing off the borders.

One wonders how long the monkeys are going to be running the circus.

And don't think that you're all comfy-cozy in the USA by sealing your borders to the rest of the world -- it just so happens that the rest of the world is putting very specific measures in place AGAINST AMERICANS in a tit-for-tat fashion. For example, when the US required anyone from Russia to fill out a big questionaire about everything from where you went to high school, to what organizations you are a member of -- the Russians did EXACTLY THE SAME for the Americans.

So, unless you are content to stay in Butfloss Alabama for the rest of your life and never leave the country -- you're going to be seeing up close and personal just how the world is responding to what your commander-in-chief is having done to them.

As for me, a Canadian, I see no reason to go to the USA anymore. With cheap flights to Europe and no hassles (thanks to NOT being an American), the world is open. Cuba is a really nice place to take a vacation too!

Re:So

[amRadioHed]

3. they're barely enforcing it because US citizens aren't cooperating and turning people in enough because they think it's mean Or because they aren't assholes out to ruin someones life who isn't doing anyone any harm.

Re:So

[mpe]

Even if you closed the borders entirely, the terrorists would try to recruit people who were already in the country...

Assuming they needed to. Terrorists associated with "Animal Rights" and "anti-abortion" are typically "domestic" in the first place. Foreign, even foreign corrected, terrorists are probably very much the minority in Europe and North America.
This obsession with "Islamic Terror" (and it's associated conspiracy theories) is probably very helpful to the vast majority of terrorists.

Re:So

[aurispector]

Yup, It's stupid. Why didn't they ask "Are you now or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organization?" Bring back HUAC!

I understand the need to keep a database of the names of known or suspected terrorists and checking people against that list when people enter or leave the country. I can even understand keeping lists of names so you can at least backtrack in event of emergency.

Creating a detailed database of EVERYONE that enters or leaves for 40 years is pure fascism.

Re:So

[KKlaus]

I think you totally misinterpret the intent of those questions. They aren't the asking people to remember to set the "evil bit" if they're going to do something wrong. They're preemptive legal maneuvering against people who are ultimately caught. It's a good move because, 1) authorities can add fraud to the list of crimes committed, and 2) authorities can prove that the law was clear and defendants had been made aware of it. Those are both real benefits, and particularly that second one. So even if the policy comes off as stupid because it's enforced in a somewhat silly and arbitrary bureaucratic manner, it actually (at it's core) isn't.

Article is a year old.

[Anonymous Coward]

"U.S. Plans to Screen All Who Enter, Leave Country Personal Data Will Be Cross-Checked With Terrorism Watch Lists; Risk Profiles to Be Stored for Years By Ellen Nakashima and Spencer S. Hsu Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, November 3, 2006" Year old news, the world has not come to an end. Everyone who says they won't come here wasn't coming here to begin with. My friends from Canada have no trouble crossing the border.

well, at least you can still be our President!

[misanthrope101]

Seriously, compassion and understanding for wrongdoing has been stigmatized out of our culture. I was watching the news at work a few months ago and I said about some miscreant "maybe we shouldn't judge too much, since we don't really know the story." A co-worker responded, "you must be a liberal." What's a liberal? A dirty varmint, which has undermined and weakened our nation.

Recognizing that people make mistakes and that we also make mistakes, that perhaps we should forgive, or even trying to understand what led to the act...all of these have been caricatured and stigmatized as "liberal" soft-headedness. Even pointing out that someone's childhood may have an effect on their actions as an adult elicits scorn and contempt. No doubt there are some "liberals" out there who wouldn't even punish a serial child rapist/axe murderer, but instead of arguing against specific bad arguments, our entire capacity to understand, forgive, and move on has been thrown out like a baby with the bathwater. To understand and forgive wrongdoing you have to have humility, which is not only lacking in our culture but which is actively discouraged.

I've been faulted multiple times for trying to have humility. You aren't supposed to admit that you could be wrong, or that that person in the dock could, by the grace of God and bit of luck, be you as well. Everything is black and white, all the time. Well, unless we're talking about Rush Limbaugh's drug conviction or something like that--people seem to have no trouble handling nuanced arguments about blame and addiction when it comes to Rush. Anyway, I can't tell you how surreal it is for me, an atheist, to be lectured by an evangelical Christian I work with that I shouldn't be so humble, that I should be more proud of what I've done, and so on. Humility and forgiveness go hand in hand, and right now forgiveness, and that whole "don't judge a person till you've walked a mile in their shoes" thing, has been caricatured and shunned almost out of existence, or at least out of influence, in the USA.

Re:well, at least you can still be our President!

[monkease]

Those are less "data points" than "unsubstantiated and vague anecdotes", in all fairness.

It's interesting that you're so specific with size & weight & age, & offer no details that would actually allow us to verify the stories. I won't even get into your slanted rhetoric.

And hell, I totally agree with your point. But if we're going to expect the other side to engage in a real debate, we better be paragons of the form ourselves.

Re:You should actually be grateful...

[shenanigans]

You mean like the Germans stood up to Hitler or the Russians are standing up to Putin?

2006 != 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal government disclosed details yesterday

The TFA is from Nov 3, 2006! Someone missed a whole year?