Slashdot Mirror
40% Of People On Terror Watch List Have No Terrorist Ties
Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) writes with the chilling, but not really surprising, news that the U.S. government is aware that many names in its terrorist suspect database are not linked to terrorism in any way. From the article: Nearly half of the people on the U.S. government's widely shared database of terrorist suspects are not connected to any known terrorist group, according to classified government documents obtained by The Intercept. Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government's Terrorist Screening Database — a watchlist of "known or suspected terrorists" that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments — more than 40 percent are described by the government as having "no recognized terrorist group affiliation." That category — 280,000 people — dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.
I guess it's a matter of perspective.
Let the government do as it pleases in the name of stopping terrorism, and it will abuse its powers? Wow! It's not like history has countless scenarios like this or anything.
Then it means that 60% from this list have terrorist ties ? Good result.
What does this word mean again? The government doesn't seem to know either...
Things like owning a firearm or not being registered as Democrat or Republican makes you fringe. It doesn't take much more than that to become a terrorist in their eyes. Saying something like "I support the constitution" is probably enough to push you into that category.
If there are 280,000 people on the watch list that are there despite having no recognized ties to any terrorist groups.. why are they on the list at all?
So if they know that 40% don't have terrorist ties, perhaps they should clean up their list?
It would be interesting to see how many politicians families and families of DHS/FBI/etc are on the list.
Obama - stop posting here
In which mathematical system is 40>60?
Best Slashdot Co
I do not think it is supposed to be particularly easy to join hamas, particularly for an American. You do not just look up "Terrorist" in the yellow pages and call 1-800-alQ-aeda.
The ability to join a known terrorist organization is limited to a few people based on genes, friendships, and geography.
The ability to hate the government and to build bombs is universal.
Ergo, most terrorists will most likely not have any affiliation is known terrorist organizations.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Terrorism doesn't have to be organized. Just look at Breivik!
Isn't it funny how so many documents are "classified" despite having no real national security applications but instead are solely indicators of government incompetence and/or misconduct.
Realistically, how many people share the same name as a terrorist? I had a friend by the name of Chris Johnson who had been flagged. If one Chris Johnson is a bad guy...all the rest are not, and I bet that's a lot of Johnsons. What made it funny was that he had a top secret clearance but still got flagged at airports.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. In these types of situations it is the innocent who are seen as the enemy, not actual criminals/terrorists.
Let's see who gets a FOIA request for their entry criteria and see what it takes to get into this DB. I've read of at least 2 stories (Army and FBI) where government sensitivity training is already classifying some conservatives or Christians as "extremist", somehow forgetting about the people with the black flag that have a stated goal of terminating all of us.
“It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”
—Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna
"...the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.”
—Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
that was setup by George Bush....
All that means is that the selection process has some small error rate. Lets say the list of all travellers is 200 million*. That's about a 1.4% error rate (false positives). Not bad.
Of course, its a bitch for those caught on the list for no good reason. Which is why some quality control measures need to be implemented to improve this number.
*Don't rely heavily on this number. I just pulled it out of my ass to illustrate error rates when selecting a small subset out of a large population.
Have gnu, will travel.
Here's another:
98% of people on the sex offender registry are non-credible threats to children.
But hey, that boogeyman list really works great as a reelection campaign tool.
Let's face it.... a group of 20 people could do major damage to the U.S. If I had cells of 5 people in a few states.... I could cause wide spread chaos and fear. If they were watching 100 people, I'd think the list was excellent. If they were watching 500 people, I'd think the list was almost prudent. That they are watching 680,000 people? That list is USELESS. Needle in a haystack useless.
If there ARE plots to hurt Americans, we need much better, much TIGHTER scrutiny of specific individuals... A Terrorist Watch List, to be effective, should have the top 50 suspects, and their closest associates. 500 people at the most.
That list didn't catch the Boston Bomber..... even though Russia TOLD US he might be a problem. Needle in a haystack.... Forget the 40%. The sheer number of people on that list makes it useless. Lets face it, there are probably a few hundred people out of 300 million that really need watching.
I honestly doubt there are more than a handfull of people inside the US that have: actual terrorist desires, actual terrorist connections, an actual plan to hurt people, and enough fanaticism to overcome the fear of Gitmo or Death. There might be more with one or two of these, but look around you... if we're in so much danger, where's the actual DANGER? Since Sept. 11th, we've had ONE guy, the boston bomber... ok, and a bunch of right wing soverign citizen types.
Actually, I'm much more afraid of a crazy american trying to topple the government (all by himself, of course) than an actual terrorist.
No terrorist will fly under a name he used before, most certainly not his birth name.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
A successful terrorist doesn't necessarily need to join a club. Look at the villains our vast comic-book history: they're almost all scarier when they act alone and not as part of some terror franchise.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I would have expected that well over 90% of people on the terror list have nothing to do with terrorism. So, this number is actually quite low, and if true, means that (1) the government is successful in identifying terrorists, and (2) there are really LOTS of terrorists on the planet, which is really worrying.
I strongly suspect that 40% are confirmed false positives. Then there is a large group that they don't know yet, but who are just innocent and mostly harmless.
I've always assumed that if you are unlucky enough to be on a jet that has to make an emergency landing for any reason, you end up on a watchlist somewhere.
Tail light out? Watchlist.
Electrical fire due to a wiring short? Watchlist.
Drunk and disorderly passenger on the same flight? Watchlist.
The RFID Implant roll-out will begin soon enough
you'll have to prove you're a genuine human in good standing.
mark in hand or head
don't take it
...according to themselves:
http://www.securitronlinux.com...
http://www.techspot.com/news/5...
You gotta love how "scared" they are of us. They have NO clue.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Let's see who gets a FOIA request for their entry criteria and see what it takes to get into this DB. I've read of at least 2 stories (Army and FBI) where government sensitivity training is already classifying some conservatives or Christians as "extremist", somehow forgetting about the people with the black flag that have a stated goal of terminating all of us.
“It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”
—Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna
"...the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.”
—Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Muhammed Badi
Right, because every muslim is clearly part of the Muslim Brotherhood (a faction operating in Egypt and a few pockets of other middle east countries). Or did you see the word Muslim and just gloss over everything else? Sounds about right, fascist.
Well we know what to get them for Christmas then
Heres a marketing opportunity, ties with the logos of the FSF, GreenPeace PETA, Sierra Club, Pirate Bay, or even Charles Schwab (they do IRA's)
I'm surprised.
I hate to say it, and I know this will go against the common feeling here, but I think TFS misses the point. Misses by some distance, actually.
Timothy McVeigh wasn't, to my knowledge, associated with any recognized terrorists organizations. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been on a list of people the FBI is concerned about. Whether or not they are known to be a member of a known terrorist group isn't the important question. (Note also the difference between "we don't know which group they are affiliated with" vs "we know they aren't communicating with any group"). If someone is acting like a terrorist, such as buying explosives on the black market, the government should probably make a note of that fact, regardless of what groups they are associated with or not associated with.
The information in the report that is more concerning to me is that they have added 430,000 names to the "terrorist-related" database in the last four years. That sounds like far too many people. I was surprised the report said they REMOVED 50,000 names in those same four years. That's good news. I'm also concerned about the EFFECTS of being in this database. If there were that many people on the no-fly list, that would be troubling, but I don't think that's the case. If a listed person flies to the middle east and back and that triggers a notification to authorities so they can include that information in their larger understanding of what's going on, that's less troubling.
We should be asking "how is this list used?" and "what ARE the criteria to be put on this list?"
Those, I think, are more important questions than "how many act alone or in small groups, as opposed to recognized organizations?"
I know, that sounds like defining "is" or "sex with that woman" but...
TFA indicates that they have no "recognized terrorist group affiliation ties". So does that parse to
(1) American citizens who have no ties to a terrorist group
(2) no known ties to a terrorist group, but the NSA could have metadata that shows contact with one or multiple known members of those groups,
(3) ties to groups which we suspect may have terrorist motives/wings/connections but are not currently recognized as terrorist groups
(4) ties to or current or prior foreign citizenship from state which sponsor or harbor terror groups
Option (1) is what the article would suggest. Here's a similarly ambiguous statement, which is 100% truthful: "Of the 280,000 people on the list who have no recognized terrorist group affiliation ties, none are identified in the article as being Americans citizens." Of course, the infographic indicates that, of the 660,000 people on the watchlist, 3300 are American citizens (0.5%), but not that any of those 3300 are in the unaffiliated group. Which is why I suggest items (3) and (4), which (I'm guessing) make up the vast majority of those in the 40%.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Every passenger on a Malaysia Airlines flight is on a no-fly list!
TFA says 40% have “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” So the Unabomber would fall into this category, as would someone who had expressed a desire to set of a bomb, or someone who says "as a member of the blah blah group I am committed to terrorism" (if there is no recognised blah blah group).
Given that 99% of us are terrorists, I would say the terrorists have lost.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There is a many to many mapping of those. (Should be many to one, but nothing is perfect.)
That is, my slashdot user name is one "name", so is my "real" name that people call me, which is not the full name on my birth certificate. So that's three names for one person.
Also, not all terrorist groups are in the middle east, or Muslim. Several are right here in the US, and Christian. (Or Jewish, not sure if any atheist groups are in the US).
Best Slashdot Co
Right, because every muslim is clearly part of the Muslim Brotherhood (a faction operating in Egypt and a few pockets of other middle east countries).
Sounds about right. Since Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to speak for all of the US I assume that every American agrees with them. I don't see why I should treat Muslims differently.
Perhaps they simply put all Doe's and Smith's into the database? (yes, the ' is incorrect but makes more clear the does and Does :) )
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
... so they can have terrorist suits to go with their terrorist ties.
-- Make America hate again!
The govt had a communist list full of people that the administration did not like.
The "terror list" is honestly nothing more than a shit list.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That is why its terrorists and "suspected terrorists". You can't just watch the known terrorists, you have to watch the people who might be, or could be terrorists. And why not? Better to be safe then sorry. Don't turn this into a political issue democrats. What am I saying...everything is political to democrats.
So 40% of the people on the list either have nothing to do with terrorism, or are independent terrorists, or are sufficiently sneaky that they don't know what group they belong to but not sneaky enough not to attract attention.
And 60% of the people are suspected of having ties to terrorist groups.
So anywhere between 0% and 100% of the people in either category could be terrorists.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Aka, 113 new names on that list!
If you remember how low their standards are for marking someone as affiliated with a terrorist group, this 40% must be super-whitebread middle-Americans who have never met a foreigner.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I am curious.
Do people in America really support this?
Are you aware of the path you are on?
Are you really ignorant of where this leads to?
Are you all in agreement?
(R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The government has long had the membership of organizations like ACLU, PETA, Greenpeace, etc. on thier watch lists.
Obviously there are a few people affiliated with mid eastern mad bombers and the like. There are also revolutionaries among us without such affiliations. Then there are just plain bitter people who strive to bring down the nation. Often behaviors can be quite similar among these people. For example if I keep hammering at "release the secret files concerning the JFK murder" it may be because I am a patriot who wants to know the truth. It may be because I wish to bash and weaken America due to my own personality quirks or it just could be that I think that somehow I am aiding the mad bomber nuts. The catch is that without investigation and getting deep into a persons life just how can a government know who is trying to bring it down? Personally I see people that deny climate change as committing acts of treason or crimes against humanity. I also see those that simply want to maintain the status quo at all costs as criminals. And i really do think we need to have every single document concerning the JFK , BFK and MLK murders displayed before the public. And i am beyond words that people in the Bush administration are not on trial as war criminals over the use of torture. We only have the right to ask the name and rank and serial number of a captured enemy and we do not even have the right to ask them that over and over again. We set those rules and we betrayed ourselves by failing to follow them.
That's the difference between "terror" and "terrorism". Terrorist lists should include terrorists. Terror lists can include all manner of other people like Freddie Krueger, clowns, and Martha Stewart.
Somewhere somehow someone slowly turned travel to be a privilege, which the Executive can withdraw at a whim. It ought to be explicitly declared a right, which only the Judiciary can suspend — after a trial.
And it is not just airtravel — under Obama, Bush-created TSA are expanding their "jurisdiction" over all other mass transit, nor can you drive a personal car without the government's permission (driver's license). And having somebody else drive you without a government's permission is troublesome too.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Fuck Homeland security All of them
They are, after all, 'God's chosen people'. How modest of them.
What is shechitah?
What is bris?
What is kapporot?
Why are they allowed to commit these atrocities?
And here's the meta story
The watchlists contain names, not "people". Names are mutable non-unique identifiers used by people. 280,000 names could very easily map to millions of people. To subvert the system, you'd simply need to be credentialed with an alternate name (and perhaps birthdate) not on the list. That might be tricky to pull off in the USA (but not impossible), but I imagine that in many other parts of the world getting false attestations of birth and identity as well as official travel documents bearing the false name is fairly easy.
There's a few ways this can go, but if they intend to continue monitering this largely innocent section of the populous, they're probably going to need to come up with something to say to justify it. Will it be a "precautionary measure" that takes up 40% of their attention, a "necessary evil" resulting from their highly efficient survailence technology, or will they just blame it on bureaucratic error? I'd say they'll shift the blame onto the leaker, like they did with Snowden. Stay tuned for more word from your mainstream media.
Completely, totally absolutely false. Obvious Republican propaganda!!!
With the greatest human being who has ever lived in the White House, who has chosen the best of the best, all of them members of the Democrat Party, to serve in the most sublime and grandest Administration of all times, these things cannot happen.
After all, the entire mainstream media in the United States cannot be wrong, now can they?
Timothy McVeigh wasn't, to my knowledge, associated with any recognized terrorists organizations. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have been on a list of people the FBI is concerned about.
Yup, if only they had put him on a no-fly list there is no way he could have driven a truck under the federal building.
Keeping an eye on people you believe to be terrorists makes sense to me. If there is actual evidence then arresting them makes even more sense. The only reason to put them on a no-fly list would be if you are trying to arrest them, and just want to ensure they don't blow up a plane before you get a chance to do so.
If you don't have enough evidence to arrest somebody, how do you justify putting them on the list in the first place? That is right up there with seizing and selling off assets before you even get a conviction.
> If you don't have enough evidence to arrest somebody, how do you justify putting them on the [no fly] list in the first place?
That's a question I'd like answered. I did find out that about 280 people on the list are US residents or citizens, so that gives us some sense of the level of threat required. Many more people have the same name as someone on the list, and therefore have to go through extra hassle. The number of people on the no fly list doubled in 2012.
> That is right up there with seizing and selling off assets before you even get a conviction
If there is actual evidence then arresting them makes even more sense. The only reason to put them on a no-fly list would be if you are trying to arrest them, and just want to ensure they don't blow up a plane before you get a chance to do so.
Doing a few minutes of research, I learned that the no fly list doesn't actually stop them from flying. It's a list of people not allowed to fly INTO the US, or out of the US. It doesn't apply to domestic flights. I would say that a nation has the right to deny entry for any reason whatsoever. I don't have to justify why I don't invite someone into my house, and the US doesn't have to justify why we don't invite a certain person into the country. Not letting people leave is a little different. However, it seems that most often no-fly people are indeed arrested if they try to leave the country, so apparently there is cause for arrest - law enforcement would have preferred to wait longer before arresting them.
Based on what I've learned this morning, it seems the process needs improvement, particularly in regard to false positives, but there probably are about 280 people who really SHOULD be on that list. The other list, the terrorism watch list, is much, much larger.
There is an interesting philosophical question when it comes to US citizens.
> if there is enough evidence to arrest them I'm sure the foreign government will do so.
Suppose Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, had escaped to Iran. Should we not declare that we don't want him on any US-bound airliners? I know I don't want a known terrorist on the same plane _I_ am on. Would Iran arrest him for us? Maybe.
We do know that at least SOME of the people on the no fly lists HAVE been arrested for terrorism related offenses. They did their time and got out, or one juror felt there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There might still be enough evidence to say we don't want them flying on on an airliner, without even going through US security first.
Again, the other list, the terrorism watch list, is much more concerning to me, especially because of the number of people on it.
McVeigh was associated with the michigan militia. In my book thats a terrorist organization.
My point wasn't that checking passenger lists for known terrorists isn't a good idea.
My point was that simply excluding people from flying and not doing more doesn't make sense. You don't need a special no-fly list for Richard Reid. You need a known fugitive terrorists list that is an arrest-on-sight list for him, and of course that also includes not letting him board a plane, bus, train, boat, etc.