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."

20 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. So by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

    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". Well done, America, well done. Who advised you on this, the RIAA/MPAA/copy protection industry?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. 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.

    2. Re:So by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Informative
      They already ask this, and several other similar questions. All you US citizens can sleep safe with the comforting knowledge that evil people have to declare their evilness on the official visa application form:
      • Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action? Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance(drug), or been a prostitute or procurer for prostitutes? [ ] Yes [ ] No
      • Have you ever been refused admission to the U.S., or been the subject of a deportation hearing or sought to obtain or assist others to obtain a visa, entry into the U.S., or any other U.S. immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation or other unlawful means? Have you attended a U.S. public elementary school on student (F) status or a public secondary school after November 30, 1996 without reimbursing the school? [ ] Yes [ ] No
      • Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide? [ ] Yes [ ] No
      • Have you ever violated the terms of a U.S. visa, or been unlawfully present in, or deported from, the United States? [ ] Yes [ ] No
      • Have you ever withheld custody of a U.S. citizen child outside the United States from a person granted legal custody by a U.S. court, voted in the United States in violation of any law or regulation, or renounced U.S. citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation? [ ] Yes [ ] No
      • Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance or a dangerous physical or mental disorder, or ever been a drug abuser or addict? [ ] Yes [ ] No
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    3. Re:So by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 5, Informative

      At least three of the hijackers were here illegally, not because of the way they entered but because they didn't leave or renew their visas when they were supposed to.

      The GP post didn't say anything about Mexicans; he just pointed out that this plan would be ineffective against someone who entered the country illegally. Being Mexican isn't a requirement for that, though it seems to help.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:So by S.O.B. · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, no. None of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. via Canada. Here is a Washington Post article that discusses this myth.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  3. 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 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.

  4. Thirteen months, actually. by Elyscape · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was posted by the Washington, er, Post on November 3, 2006. Whoops.

    --
    I own itburns.net. What should I put there?
  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. Ok; but where's my luggage? by topham · · Score: 5, Funny


    Ok, if they track so much information could they inform the airline what happened to my luggage? I was flying from Winnipeg, Canada to Chicago, Il; and on to Norfolk.

    Somewhere in here United lost my luggage. They don't have a clue what they did with it.

  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Time to Leave by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If our current government would have spent some time in between debating pointless things such as the question of when a fetus is considered a baby, and when it's ethical to end the pointless suffering and grotesque indignity of a human puppet show by disconnecting a feeding tube, maybe they could have found some time to fit in a discussion of the abomination of the PATRIOT act, or the legislation that mandated we track the travel habits of normal law abiding Americans in an effort to stop some vague threat they call terrorism. I'm not one bit afraid of terrorists! Stop trying to protect me from them by taking away the rights that I value.

    Every day it seems I get more confirmation that I was right in deciding I should leave this country as soon as I can. A few generations ago my family came to America to escape communism in East Germany after the war, and now I'll be leaving the USA to escape the encroachment of my rights. Things aren't that bad here yet compared to many places in the world, but my family already made the mistake of waiting too long to leave once, I'm not going to make that mistake too. Better to get out early than not at all.

    The Republicans are authoritarians and religious zealots, the sane ones either left their party or are such a small voice that they're completely drowned out by the chorus of insanity from the party at large. Ron Paul, who is a real Rep. and not a Neocon, doesn't look like he will be popular enough among the wealthy, the war-hawks, and the religious--or as they call it "the Republican base"--to win. The Democrats are too spineless to stand up for their core values, favoring a centrist stance to garner support from the left leaning Republicans, Independents, and various minorities and they end up acting like Republican-Light(TM). There is virtually no minority party voice in this country that anyone takes seriously. Both sides spend outrageous amount of money, although one actually attempts to pay for it by increasing taxes where the other just spends and passes the debt off to their kids and grandkids. Meanwhile no one is willing to put a stop to America's current adventure in the desert even though we're spending enough money on the war to fund what could be the best health care system in the world, even after you account for typical government waste and inefficiency. The soldiers that come back maimed, crippled, or psychologically scarred are given a standard of care that we should all be ashamed of. And then there are the ones who only come back draped in an American flag.

    I would recommend everyone take a serious look at the idea of leaving the US. Figure out what it would take to leave, and how fast you could do it in. There may be a time soon when you have to put that plan into action.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.