Slashdot Mirror


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."

36 of 710 comments (clear)

  1. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Awesome! by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Awesome! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Want my vote?

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

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Awesome! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  3. ...Well. by Elyscape · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I own itburns.net. What should I put there?
  4. Delusional by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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!

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  5. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by hax0r_this · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Profile? by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Re:So by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  8. Re:1984? by thisissilly · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  9. Re:So by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  10. Re:So by hax0r_this · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by wasted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. So much for ever visting the US again... by Phrogman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :(

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:So much for ever visting the US again... by Swift+Kick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
  13. Re:So by omeomi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  14. no-one else has stated it outright, so I shall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Brilliant. by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  16. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  17. Re:So by Bartab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
  18. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  19. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  20. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.)

  21. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  22. Re:Is it just me... by mikelieman · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  23. Re:Didn't do this already? by xkhaozx · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  24. Re:So by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  26. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  27. Re:So by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  28. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by Stanislav_J · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  29. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  30. well, at least you can still be our President! by misanthrope101 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  31. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  32. Re:plenty of people come in that way, too by zoney_ie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...