Slashdot Mirror


Terror Watchlist "Crippled By Technical Flaws"

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The database used by the government to generate lists like the No-Fly List is 'crippled by technical flaws,' according to the chairman of a House technology oversight subcommittee. And the upgrade may be worse than the original. Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) says that 'if actually deployed, [the upgrade] will leave our country more vulnerable than the existing yet flawed system in operation today.' It seems that the current database doesn't have any easy way to do plain-text matching, forcing users to enter SQL queries. That might not sound so bad until you learn that the database contains 463 poorly indexed tables. How long until there's a terrorist named Robert'); DROP DATABASE; —?"

7 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Robert'); DROP DATABASE; â" by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Informative

    Little Bobby Tables, I think you'll find

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  2. Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Technically, the Terrorist Watch List Database contains about 400,000 unique persons, of which the remainder represents known aliases. This is the so-called "green light" list, with no restrictions on them whatsoever. The "yellow light" list is much smaller, about 10,000 unique persons, and only subjects these people to desk check-ins and special searches. The *actual* No Fly list (the "red light" list) is itself a small fraction of that, perhaps 1,000 people at the most.

    Add that to the fact that Congress is starting to mandate some sanity checks and ways to be removed from the list, I could see this someday being useful... just not today.

  3. Re:That's what happens when.... by QX-Mat · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was intrigued! You gave me the info I wanted to google with - Mass CIA resignations lead me to this

    I had no idea how bad it was. Retrospectively, the bashing the CIA got seems stupid considering the impossibility of what they have to accomplish... not just now, but after pissing off most of the world in the last 8 years.

  4. Re:That's what happens when.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, boy, are you in for a shock. They dunk you in Holy Water. If you drown, you're hired on the spot. Otherwise, you're a terrorist, and they shoot you.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  5. Re:is this "obvious news day" again? by Pontiac · · Score: 5, Informative

    My co-workers 2 year old Daughter was on the list. It took 4 years to get her name removed.

    It must have been her evil plot to drop a bomb in her diaper.

    --
    If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
  6. Re:Large Systems are Hard by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry, you're not allowed to create an unnecessary and disruptive large system and then pull the excuse that "large systems are hard!" when it fails badly.

    If DHS created a program with a goal of kicking every single American citizen square in the nuts, and that program ended up being fraught with budget overruns, cases of mistaken identity, citizens getting kicked square in the nuts twice, some citizens not getting kicked square in the nuts at all, and people complained about the system, would you stand up and say "don't criticize them too much, large systems are hard"?

    A sane person should say that TSA does a pointless job in a worthless manner, and this, not the fact that it's a "large system", is the root of the problem.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.