Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DHS Creating Database of Secret Watchlists

Posted by Soulskill on from the veracity-is-optional dept.

schwit1 writes "Homeland Security plans to operate a massive new database of names, photos, birthdays and biometrics called Watchlist Service, duplicated from the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database, which has proven not to be accurate many times in the past. DHS wants to exempt the Watchlist Service from Privacy Act provisions, meaning you will never know if you are wrongfully listed. Privacy groups worried about inaccurate info and mission creep have filed a protest, arguing the Privacy Act says DHS must notify subject of government surveillance. DHS has admitted that it 'does not control the accuracy of the information in system of records' and that 'individuals do not have an opportunity to decline to provide information.' Additionally, the DHS Watchlist Service attempts to circumvent privacy protections established by the Privacy Act. Who's watching the watchers?"

18 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. on the plus side by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We'll probably eventually find out who's on it when all our personal info ends up leaked on a torrent somewhere.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  2. we need to dissolve DHS by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DHS has failed to make the country safer; if anything it made it easier for government to abuse the citizens.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:we need to dissolve DHS by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

      DHS has failed to make the country safer; if anything it made it easier for government to abuse the citizens.

      It makes it easier for government to abuse citizens. It makes it slightly harder for terrorists and drug-runners to do their stuff.

      When Congress was debating the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the House of Representatives voted to specifically exclude from its protection atheists and communists. So it was okay to discriminate against atheists or communists, or at least that's what they wanted. The Senate took out at least the atheist part.

      I suppose my point is just that we've never been Utopia. But yes, we all knew DHS would be a threat to civil liberties. I was honestly shocked, when they named it that--could you pick a more 1984-ish name?

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    2. Re:we need to dissolve DHS by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They could have named it the Ministry of Love...

      At this point, Department of War would probably be more accurate than Department of Defense. We haven't been overwhelmingly defensive in about a decade now.

      If Homeland Security wanted to really do it right, they should actually screen all incoming cargo and use tariffs on that incoming cargo to pay for cost of the screening. That in turn would make the goods coming in more expensive, which might make domestic options more profitable for consumers, which might also help us retain our manufacturing base.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:we need to dissolve DHS by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      Been there, done exactly that (Smoot-Hawley), at approximately the same point in the previous Great Depression.

    4. Re:we need to dissolve DHS by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Until September 11, 2001, cooperating with a hijacking generally resulted in everyone on a plane surviving and being released in hours or a day. It was a moderate inconvenience. Also, generally terrorist attacks, be they bombings like in Oklahoma City, the original World Trade Center basement parking garage attacks, church bombings, or the killing of doctors resulted in small scale hurt that didn't cascade us into financial ruin.

      If anything, the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are so remote in a given year that things really haven't changed. Mundane reasons for death, like car accidents, medical problems, even run-of-the-mill personal homicide massively dwarf terrorism. Additionally, anyone who attempts to hijack a plane is as good as dead, as the passengers will kill them if they can't apprehend them. That pretty much just leaves bombers like Richard Reid or the underwear bomber. Work on ways to detect the components of explosives like these people tried to use that detect in non-invasive ways, and stop confiscating nail clippers. Anyone who could take over a plane with a set of nail clippers can probably take over a plane without the nail clippers.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:we need to dissolve DHS by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      run-of-the-mill personal homicide massively dwarf terrorism

      Oh god! Now there are MURDEROUS MIDGET TERRORISTS!!! We'll never be able to stop them! All our scanners are for people of normal heights!

    6. Re:we need to dissolve DHS by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      Totally different. Parent suggested raising tariffs for the purpose of covering the costs incurred in scanning them - likely a very small increase. The other results he indicated as possible side-effects. Smoot-Hawley raised tariffs for the express purpose of shutting out foreign imports, and raised them sky-high. Even then, the actual negative effects weren't caused by the high tariffs, but by the inevitable international response to them.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  3. Not a new database.... by TimeOut42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While I don't like the Terrorist Screening Database operated by the FBI, this story is off the mark by making it sound like DHS is setting up a new list; which they are not. They are looking to improving how they get the information from the TSD. Read the abstract here:

    http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_dhs_wls.pdf

    1. Re:Not a new database.... by c0lo · · Score: 2

      While I don't like the Terrorist Screening Database operated by the FBI, this story is off the mark by making it sound like DHS is setting up a new list; which they are not. They are looking to improving how they get the information from the TSD. Read the abstract here:

      http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_dhs_wls.pdf

      Thanks for the link, but I think it is you that are way off the mark: the uttermost important thing to the matter is not how accurate the information is, but the fact that nobody from the civil society will know if they are or are not included in that database, much less how accurate the information is.

      Not very different from the files gathered and stored by every secret police (or "State Security" organisation, like STASI and KGB) used to. And I can guarantee you: the STASI/Securitate/KGB/Gestapo files were accurate enough for the purpose.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Not a new database.... by Evtim · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hi there! I see you are taking an active interest in this thread and as a fellow former citizen of totalitarian state let me add this:

      Do you remember the "fun" we had when those files were opened after 1989? When it turned out that people have been sent to camps because of a single "whistle-blower" ratting to the police? When we discovered that friends, colleagues, neighbors and even relatives were sending "annonimus" reports to the Secret Service? Wasn't that great!! Neighbor wants to fuck your wife - write a report, get you sent to Gulag, profit!! Colleague is too smart and you feel you deserve that promotion - write a report get him fired or locked away, profit!! You just hate the guy for whatever - write report, get him locked, profit!

      Before the Social Media era, they collected data through opening regular mail, wiretapping the telephones but most importantly spying on people and instigating regular Joes to spy on other regular Joes. Today, I expect the same level of human nastiness - I expect that a secret database will encourage people to rat on others. I fully expect that westerns would not show greater spirit than we did and will gladly use the opportunity to remove inconvenient people. Not to mention just plain mistakes a-la Buttle - Tuttle (sp?)

      My fellow Americans, for your own sake, do not go there!!

    3. Re:Not a new database.... by c0lo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you remember the "fun" we had when those files were opened after 1989?

      Yes, I do and I confirm this is how it goes. I can't however stress enough that, as innacurate as they were, they were just accurate enough for their purpose: no matter what, the purpose ends in not being the security of the citizens, but the "security" of a totally screwed up and nightmarish status-quo!

      My fellow Americans, for your own sake, do not go there!!

      By my feeling the correct expression should be: stop going there (before it's too late).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  4. Re:I wonder how many times... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like 1776 had been a wasted effort.

    Rum go, old chap.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  5. Little Bobby Tables? by formfeed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hopefully they heard of this guy and have him already in their database.
    http://xkcd.com/327/

  6. Re:I wonder how many times... by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

    It seems like 1776 had been a wasted effort.

    Rum go, old chap.

    Your freedom and privacy are secure. All you need to do is register for the DoNotWatchList and they are not allowed to watch you. I hear it's a $10,000 fine if you sign up for the do-not-watch-list and you catch them watching you anyway.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  7. Re:ethical and above board? by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just want to know which government supercontractor stands to gain most from it. That is who is behind it.

  8. Re:I wonder how many times... by Totenglocke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We got to elect our own government

    Eh, partially true. We have no say in who runs in primaries and even then, the party can overrule the decision for who runs for office, then we have a whopping two choices (which are usually 98% the same) for who to vote for. It's pretty much a big con job to provide the masses with a sense of control so that they don't rebel.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  9. I am an american... by tryptogryphic · · Score: 2

    ...and I live abroad for a large portion of the year. Whenever I come home, I make it a point, to enter the country illegally because of this absolute rubbish. The government, can kiss my American ass, I often hope to be arrested or apprehended by immigration so I can whip out my American passport and be like 'Fuck Off'. To be honest folks, at this point...only protesting and more protesting and more protesting is going to make this nonsense stop.

    Sitting here and talking about it, and writing blogs isn't going to do anything; throw your bodies onto the machine so the gears can't move.