1,600 Names Suggested Daily For FBI's Watch List

schwit1 writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post: "During a 12-month period ended in March this year... the US intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a 'reasonable suspicion,' according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week. ... The ever-churning list is said to contain more than 400,000 unique names and over 1 million entries. The committee was told that over that same period, officials asked each day that 600 names be removed and 4,800 records be modified. Fewer than 5 percent of the people on the list are US citizens or legal permanent residents. Nine percent of those on the terrorism list, the FBI said, are also on the government's 'no fly' list."

Comments

How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[HalAtWork]

How do they define "reasonable suspicion"? I couldn't find that information in the article.

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[OzPeter]

How do they define "reasonable suspicion"? I couldn't find that information in the article.

By asking that question I think you just became entitled to be placed on the list .. so perhaps you can do an FOI request and answer your own question?

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[ColdWetDog]

How do they define "reasonable suspicion"? I couldn't find that information in the article.

I'm a reasonable guy. You look suspicious. And so do you. And in fact YOU are looking kinda odd today. I think I will stick you all on the list, just to be sure.

I wonder if anyone over at the FBI understands the concept of signal to noise?

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[hedwards]

The answer to that is no, they don't understand the concept of SNR.

Which is obvious since some of the names on the list are extremely common names in various parts of the world and all they list is the name. Which has been obvious for many years given that they haven't actually been able to analyze all of the information they've been given. It would be just as effective to just pull over or tap random people on the list. Possibly more so since they'd at least know if those particular people were or were not terrorists.

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[MagusSlurpy]

How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

That's their euphemism for "foreign."

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[interkin3tic]

How do they define "reasonable suspicion"? I couldn't find that information in the article.

Judging by the numbers, I have a guess. If they arrest a terror suspect and search his house and find your contact information, you're on the list. Terrorists incidentally keep a LOT of contacts in things they call "Phone books," suprisingly well organized. Alphabetical and everything. Very neat handwriting as well. Business contacts are usually kept in books with yellowish pages, the significance of which is unknown. What's scary is that they have a number of contacts IN THE GOVERNMENT, on blue pages indicating they may be democrats.

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[grcumb]

Which is obvious since some of the names on the list are extremely common names in various parts of the world and all they list is the name.

Nonsense. I'm sure that B^HTuttle is a perfectly unique name and entirely worthy of our attention.

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[AHuxley]

How many times do you have to post about the NSA and CIA before your phone starts having issues and your Mac, Windows or Linux box starts becoming extra unresponsive?

Re:How do they define "reasonable suspicion"?

[falconwolf]

They don't. It's modern-day McCarthyism, it's just that no one senator has stepped up to bat and get his name attached to this whole racket.

Sen, Ed Kennedy was on the No Fly list.

Falcon

91% of terrorists are allowed on planes

[SSpade]

If 9% of the list o' terrorists are also on the no-fly list, that means that the feds are happy with 91% of terrorists being on airplanes.

Re:91% of terrorists are allowed on planes

[ScrewMaster]

If 9% of the list o' terrorists are also on the no-fly list, that means that the feds are happy with 91% of terrorists being on airplanes.

Suspected terrorists. Let's not through due process out the window just yet. And I doubt that the Feds believe that those 9% are all actual terrorists, just people who may have links to some terrorist organization or other, and thereby deserve special attention. And of those, a few are considered bad enough to be kept out of the skies.

Re:91% of terrorists are allowed on planes

[sg_oneill]

And those who consider it shouldn't have the power to decide it except in a court of law.

Just because some paranoid mcarthyist hacks in the government think some guy seems a bit whack doesnt mean they should have a right to go around fucking people over with no fly lists unless its proven in a court.

The system is entirely at odds with the concept of liberty and needs to be *urgently* scrapped and subject to a public enquiry to identify the decision makers behind it so that they might be prevented from having anything to do with policy ever again.

Re:91% of terrorists are allowed on planes

[fyngyrz]

Just because some paranoid mcarthyist hacks in the government think some guy seems a bit whack doesnt mean they should have a right to go around fucking people over with no fly lists unless its proven in a court.

Actually, this has been to the supreme court, and so isn't going to change.

You see, when the public backed the idea that people convicted of certain crimes (sexual, violent) should be publicly listed (on web sites, etc.), the courts decided to find a way to pretend that wasn't an ex post facto violation for the previously convicted (and those not convicted, because they put them on there as well, for instance those with adjudication withheld judgments.)

In order to pull that bit of conceptual legerdemain off, they said that the government has the right to list the citizens, because such listing is (get ready now) "not punitive" because the government isn't the agent causing the listee problems. It's the other citizens, businesses, etc. doing it, you see. That whole... can't get a job, a place to live, credit, being the targets of posters on telephone poles, the occasional outright mugging or murder, and of course, being driven to suicide. Not the government's problem or responsibility.

Since, the justices said, while giving each other dancing hip shots on the head of this particular pin, such listing (cough) isn't punitive, it doesn't violate ex post facto, which explicitly forbids either the states or the feds from changing a punishment by adding to it after it has already been set at sentencing (among other things.)

Of course this concept -- the idea that such listing isn't punitive -- is utterly nonsensical, but the thing is, it is nonsensical at the level of the supreme court, which makes it a formidable thing to overturn (practically, it makes it almost impossible, actually.)

What falls out of it, though, is a magical government right to put citizens on all kinds of lists without their consent, and without any judicial process whatsoever, regardless of the consequences that fall out of such listing in trying to pursue one's life.

From this, we get no-fly lists, where the government isn't stopping you from flying, it's the airline; the no-buy lists, where the government isn't stopping you from buying, it's the car dealer or other dealer; the terrorist list, where the government isn't stopping you from getting a job, it's the employer, and so forth.

This is just one of many fine examples of why we should not tolerate the "re-interpretation" of constitutional issues by the people in the courts. The constitution obviously means exactly what it says; it is the literally the constituting authority for the government; therefore, the government does not have the authority to do anything that is outright forbidden in the constitution, not directly, and not by invoking this kind of legalistic bullshittery. If the people want to change something in the constitution, that's what article five is for.

So while the argument that the government "should" go through judicial process to commit these harms to the citizens and others within our borders is sound, sensible, and constitutionally obvious, the supreme court has made it a non-starter.

Re:91% of terrorists are allowed on planes

[benjamindees]

the government has the right to list the citizens, because such listing is (get ready now) "not punitive" because the government isn't the agent causing the listee problems. It's the other citizens, businesses, etc. doing it, you see.

I'm as much of a Laissez-Faire, free-market guy as anyone, but by now most Americans who are paying attention should be thoroughly convinced that corporations are now an arm of the government. It's time someone brought that fact to the attention of the courts.

Inefficient System

[Cabriel]

It only requires a few unscrupulous groups to voluntarily suggest names of innocent people to inflate the list, increasing the likelihood of false-positives on any given search and reducing the likelihood of being matched themselves within a meaningful time frame.

Re:Inefficient System

[NFN_NLN]

It only requires a few unscrupulous groups to voluntarily suggest names of innocent people to inflate the list, increasing the likelihood of false-positives on any given search and reducing the likelihood of being matched themselves within a meaningful time frame.

Then that's exactly how you defeat the system. If everyone suggested someone for the list, then in no time the list would include everyone, thereby making it useless.

Lessons from the STASI

[MarkvW]

The STASI (East German Secret Police) got awesome participation from its citizens when it asked them to help them spy on their fellow citizens.

There is a scary lesson in that.

Re:Lessons from the STASI

[NFN_NLN]

The STASI (East German Secret Police) got awesome participation from its citizens when it asked them to help them spy on their fellow citizens.

There is a scary lesson in that.

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/homeland_security_patriot_act_fema/news.php?q=1255711589

They don't need STASI, they already have the Boy Scouts:

"...military and police indoctrination of Boy Scouts at the Boy Scouts Of America Great Lakes Centennial Jamboree, held on September 25, 26, and 27 at Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

“I thought it would be a great adventure with thousands of scouts from all over the Midwest,” an assistant Scout Master writes in an email. “The official count was 10,144 people in attendance (Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Adult Leaders, Parents, and Staff).”

Instead of an old-fashioned Boy Scout event of camping and outdoor activities, the attendees were subjected to unrelenting military and police propaganda."

Re:Lessons from the STASI

[NFN_NLN]

Here's your precious NYTimes article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html

The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.

“This is about being a true-blooded American guy and girl,” said A. J. Lowenthal, a sheriff’s deputy here in Imperial County, whose life clock, he says, is set around the Explorers events he helps run. “It fits right in with the honor and bravery of the Boy Scouts.”

bummer

[tommeke100]

a socialist (caucasian) Belgian politician got on that list because the immigration officer thought he had too much South American stamps on his passport. So after taking him into a small office, they googled his name and found his articles to be too "left wing" to their taste and he was refused access and said that if he wanted to come to the US he had to apply for a visa. He did just that and of course it was refused. Lately, he took the plane to Brazil (a direct flight), and they had to detour the whole plane for hundreds of miles, because he was on it and they weren't allowed to fly over US territory (the crew told him afterwards) . And of course, there is no way to get off that list.

Re:bummer

[tommeke100]

I don't know why I get modded down for what I wrote, maybe because I didn't give any references. So here is an official question asked to the Belgian minister of Foreign Affairs in the Belgian Senate about it. I was wrong about the destination though (but it doesn't matter in this context), it was to Mexico. Also, he isn't merely a left wing politician, he's actually a member of the European Parliament.
http://senat.be/www/?MIval=/Vragen/SchriftelijkeVraag&LEG=4&NR=4398&LANG=nl
It's in Dutch though, here's the google translation in english:
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=nl&js=y&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsenat.be%2Fwww%2F%3FMIval%3D%2FVragen%2FSchriftelijkeVraag%26LEG%3D4%26NR%3D4398%26LANG%3Dnl&sl=nl&tl=en&history_state0=

Re:bummer

[buchner.johannes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

In an article in The Atlantic[11], security expert Bruce Schneier described a simple way for people to defeat the No Fly List:

        Use a stolen credit card to buy a ticket under a fake name. Print a fake boarding pass with your real name on it and go to the airport. You give your real ID, and the fake boarding pass with your real name on it, to security. They’re checking the documents against each other. They’re not checking your name against the no-fly list—that was done on the airline’s computers. Once you’re through security, you rip up the fake boarding pass, and use the real boarding pass that has the name from the stolen credit card. Then you board the plane, because they’re not checking your name against your ID at boarding.

Among other problems, it is unknown
  - who is on the list,
  - what criteria are used to get on the list
  - how you can get off the list

Effectively, it is a reversal of the presumption of innocence. Terrorists should be treated as criminals, we should not forget that they are human. The situation is truly Kafkaesque, with the public being happy to not be on the list.

Watch list?

[girlintraining]

I'd be more interested in knowing what the average length of time a person remains on the list, and a demographic breakdown. The problem with compiling lists like this is the same as with sex offender registries: Even after people are removed from it (sometimes winding up on it for petty reasons in the first place), they continue to be linked to it. Computers don't forget, and there's always some bureaucrat who wants to keep a list of everyone that's ever been on the list available and searchable. There is a point at which even justice becomes injust.

So what are the numbers, Big Brother?

Re:Watch list?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I'd like to know why these people aren't arrested, if they're so dangerous?

Because there's no evidence of criminal activity. I'm fine with the fed keeping lists, just not with them being published or used to deny people their rights through intermediaries.

A question of resources.

[nuckfuts]

Does the FBI actually have the manpower and /or systems to effectively monitor the activities of 400,000 people? If not, they are are watering down their list and reducing its usefulness.

i'm on the list

[Anonymous Coward]

One family friend is a military lawyer; another works in sigint. Two things I learnt:

(1) Since I wrote a bunch of anti-war articles a few years ago, I am at least documented - although nothing much is said, I guess since most of what I co-wrote with my partner was published only under their name.

(2) It's worryingly trivial to obtain a list of recent peers of any particular US IP. IOW, even a routine background check will include a list of regular web sites visited.

What is needed is for any as many as possible to be on such lists: it is only by getting as many people as possible inconvenienced, while making the amount of data too great to focus too hard on harassing any one individual or small group, that such methods lose their efficacy.

Hey... that's how it goes...

[denzacar]

When you invent something - you get to do what you want with it. Even put mayonnaise on top.

Can I join in?

[Lemming Mark]

Dear US Authorities,

I have heard so much about your big list of suspicious people; with so many other people being included I am beginning to feel left out. I'm not a very naughty person but sometimes I wave subversively at CCTV cameras. If it would help, I could also wear a long trenchcoat and shades and carry a briefcase. I've been practicing looking at things through narrowed eyes a lot, so I would probably be quite good at being suspicious.

If you will put me on your special suspicious list, I will return the favour by putting you on my list of suspicious countries. It currently includes every other country in the world, ever - but I'm sure it's still not as long and impressive as your list is.

Love and hugs,
Lemming Mark

Slashdot effect and the watch list

[goombah99]

Okay let's test the slashdot effect.
monday: everyone reccomend sarah palin for the watch list
tuesday: everyone reccomend Nancy Pelosi
wednesday: Hannity
thursaday: Harry reid
friday: Lieberman.

either we'll slashdot the service or do the nation a favor.

The crap list

[thammoud]

My son, 12 now, with a middle eastern name but born in the US. We travel a lot and they always flag his name for a second check. Ever since he was a toddler. You would think that after the first or second time, they will somehow amend the records with my name, his mom's name and DOB. But no, we go through the process every time we fly. It is a minor irritant at his age now, but I am very worried about him when he is an adult. We are seriously thinking about changing his name but I am not sure that it will make a difference.

Re:The crap list

[Alomex]

It's all security theater. If they really cared about the security of the country they would whittle down the list as fast as they can, so that they can concentrate on the true potential threats.

For nearly five years I was on some form of list and an analyst back in Washington DC had to waste an hour looking at my file every time I crossed the border just to confirm that, as in the previous n-1 times, I still pose no threat to the USA. Eventually I did get off the list (no reason given) and for the last two years or so I can go through without any hassle.

Due Diligence

[mindbrane]

Recently, in Vancouver, RCMP officers were publicly challenged for stopping known protesters to the upcoming Olympic winter games and asking them why they were against the games. I don't know the ins and outs of the whole episode but the criticism of the RCMP in the media seemed to centre on their stopping people in public places and questioning the reasons for their political opinions. A news broadcast carried the response from an RCMP public relations officer who used the term "due diligence" in defense of the RCMP's actions. Due diligence as I was schooled in the subject matter had to do only with commercial dealings wherein a party to a contract was expected to have scrutinized the terms of a pending contract to ensure they understood the value they would receive for their part in the contract. It may be that in law the term "due diligence" has a wider meaning, but, I think, the RCMP's use of the term is symptomatic of the use of law suits to resolve many issues in terms of monetary damages and contractual obligations that tacitly put aside principles that should invest more fundamental laws addressing vital issues like freedom of speech. There seems to be developing an adversarial, highly litigious approach to addressing issues that rightly belong to more sober venues.

Law enforcement agencies wield what should be illegal force. Force that necessarily must be used for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the infantile need among a high proportion of people to make the world in their image, but, if we take the core principles of democracy and subject them to remedies that belong in commercial enterprises then, I think, we run the risk of debasing those principles and turning democracy into a commercial venture wherein all principles and actions are arbitrated by monetary awards, and, the duties and responsibilites of persons with extraordinary powers are also simply monetized.

I'm a strong backer of the military and the police, the more so because I believe the current state of affairs places them collectively and individually in conflicts both individual and collective that subject them to more stress than their pay warrants and, perhaps, more stress than can be expected to be suffered without considerable negative consequences, but, I sure, this being /. many will disagree.

Re:Fucking-a.

[Hatta]

Try making your own, it's a quality condiment. It's just the stuff in stores that they call mayonnaise that's disgusting. It's just some egg yolks and a bit of lemon juice in a blender, and you slowly drizzle oil in until it's stiff. You can add some flavor too, a bit of nice mustard and black pepper is good. Sometimes I'll add garlic, capers, or a touch of cayenne. Whatever I have on hand really, it's fun to play around with. Of course, everyone's tastes vary, but I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't decide you don't like something until you've tasted it done right.

Re:You may not have room to complain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something is SERIOUSLY fucked up if the FBI is putting 1600 new people on their watch list every day. There is no way that there is even a reasonable fraction of people on here who deserve that suspicion. That is over 500,000 people a year.

The FBI is supposed to be looking for terrorists, not spying on the populace at large. Yes, we *can* most certainly have it both ways. The FBI should be looking for terrorists, not random people who may have expressed some sort of sentiment that rubs the FBI the wrong way.

Where's the terrorism?

[Maltheus]

1600 suspected terrorists a day? If even 1% of that was real then we'd be dealing with 58,000 people a year intending to commit terrorist acts a year? Are we suppose to believe that the FBI has managed to stop them all in every case??? It's not that hard to blow a bus up or derail a train, so why aren't they doing it? Oh I know, because it's all bullshit.

The only terrorists I see are in the government and the media. They're the only ones using terror to get us to change our way of life. Ooh, Iran is gonna nuke the world, global warming/cooling is going to put our cities underwater/put us in a deep freeze, swine/bird flu/monkey pox/SARS is going to be the next plague that kills us all, main street will starve to death if we don't give your money to these bankers over here, Islamofascism seeks to establish a dictatorship over the world. Eurasia is our friend, Eastasia is our enemy. Eastasia is our friend, Eurasia is our enemy. It's gone well beyond the little boy who cried wolf at this point and has become more akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater. And in each case, the cry is the same: "We can protect you from all these horrors if only you give us more power. We all have to sacrifice to do what is necessary."

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt

Re:Really Good Idea

[AHuxley]

http://mrl.nyu.edu/~dhowe/trackmenot/
'TrackMeNot runs in Firefox as a low-priority background process that periodically issues randomized search-queries to popular search engines"
Now load that up with your 600 congresscritters and Senators and do your part to help warm up the NSA.