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; —?"
That's what happens when your interview questions are a political loyalty test.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
The same US government that screws everything else up should be expected to screw up the terror DB. It was probably written by a junior developer who had never heard of a SQL injection. Isn't making a search form about the easiest project there is to build? I hate to say it, but I'm glad our government is so full of screw ups: pity the list exists at all...
It's crippled by being a moronic concept in the first place ("You've got the wrong name and _maybe_ the wrong date of birth, and you're not flying.") and an absolutely arbitrary process of putting names on the list, and no way of ever getting a name off the list.
Fix those points first, and _then_ worry about technical details.
The problem is not the number of tables, but the fact that they are apparently 'poorly indexed'. Table indexes are important, both for the speed of queries, and data integrity.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
I'm not sure you can call having names on the list matching 1/3 of the population of the earth a "technical flaw".
What they really need to do to make it useful is get it down to perhaps a couple thousand real concerns.
Mods mod this flamebait? Bad bad bad, parent is merely explaining the post of ggp. Valid mod options: Informative, Redundant.
-If you have the same name, initials or hair color as a felon, you're on the list.
-If you've ever lived withing a 5 mile radius of a felon, you're on the list.
Any thoughts?
It takes more than just being a felon.
I have a felony conviction (non-violent). I've flown 3 times since being discharged from parole and haven't run into any difficulties at the airports.
There are many different types of felonies. Many felons are, indeed, very very bad people. However, I personally know several convicted felons who I would trust to babysit my children, or loan money to. Most of the people I know in that category got their felony convictions as a result of substance abuse issues and have since cleaned up their act.
Just wanted to point out that having a felony conviction doesn't necessarily mean somebody is an evil person.
One could wonder whether the project was set up to adress terrorism OR it was setup to generate media-attention ?
I work at an airport, in administration, and trust me when I say this has very little to do with dark political conspiracies, and a lot to do with the government's haste to show they were "doing something" after 9/11. This project was quickly rushed into service, and has been widely reviled by airports and airport police departments across the country. And other similar measures... the current background check process for giving access to secured areas, and the very creation of TSA itself, were all measures to reassure the public that something was getting done. The problem is that government enterprises like these tend to become bipartisan boondoggles, with every state and major city wanting a piece of the political and funding action these things entail. Federal agencies tend to become monsters that need to justify their own existence by constant growth. TSA in particular is quickly becoming a large federal law enforcement agency, not just a baggage security team. When they were first set up, several of their nascent teams moved and basically tried to take control of several airports... I know of one major southern airport where they simply showed up one day, declared that a series of offices now belonged to them, and when the airport director came down to see what was going on, they tried to have him arrested by his own police force for "violating federal facilities". Anyone that works with AAAE members (airport execs group) knows what incident I'm talking about.
Did you know that TSA will now be issued police-like blue uniforms, with metal badges, just like cops? Airport police and the metropolitan police departments that supplement them just looooove that, and there's the inevitable talk of actually giving said TSA agents firearms. Unlike some other police departments, TSA agents are being encouraged to wear their uniforms and badges in their spare time, in order to enhance the agency's "visibility" to the public. There are already jokes that TSA SWAT teams are inevitable at airports. The problem is, the laughter doesn't last very long when we realize that the way things are going, that might not be a joke so much as a prediction of the future.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
What? So, we need the SSN or DL number of Osama bin Laden now?
Name searching, as weird as it may sound to some DB people, is one of the most reliable ways to match record to person. Sure, you *want* to have additional information to know that you have the correct Sammy Smith, but you have to start with the name.
Of course, this is aside the fact that DNFL was a stupid idea. An idea brought as a *reaction* to 9/11 so politicians could point at it and say how much they are protecting the public. A list that in fact would do nothing to prevent 9/11 in the first place.
I think your comment is pretty irrelevant since the TSA has only gotten worse since it's inception. Not only has it made mistakes, but it has expanded and pursued its mistakes to a point where, like the GP implied, we have to take a step back and say "this has gotten a little out of control."
they should stop using MSAccess.
...and yet despite it's failure to protect us, we have not been attacked.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this is evidence that it is not necessary?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.