Slashdot Mirror
2 Million-Person Terror Database Leaked Online (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Stack: A 2014 version of the World-Check database containing more than 2.2 million records of people with suspected terrorist, organized crime, and corruption links has been leaked online. The World-Check database is administered by Thomson-Reuters and is used by 4,500 institutions, 49 of the world's 50 largest banks and by over 300 government and intelligence agencies. The unregulated database is intended for use as "an early warning system for hidden risk" and combines records from hundreds of terror and crime suspects and watch-lists into a searchable resource. Most of the individuals in the database are unlikely to know that they are included, even though it may have a negative impact on their ability to use banking services and operate a business. A Reddit user named Chris Vickery says he obtained a copy of the database, saying he won't reveal how until "a later time." To access the database, customers must pay an annual subscription charge, that can reach up to $1 million, according to Vice, with potential subscribers then vetted before approval. Vickery says he understands that the "original location of the leak is still exposed to the public internet" and that "Thomas Reuters is working feverishly to get it secured." He told The Register that he alerted the company to the leak, but is still considering whether to publish the information contained in it.
How can a databse is said to be leaked online when the person who says he has it is still considering whether to publish the info?
he is lying , no proof he has it or that ts real .....proof or it doesn't exist
If the San Bernardino shooter, and the Orlando shooter are not in thr database, then it's a complete waste of money.
that "over 300 government and intelligence agencies" use this corporate run database of suspects is disturbing.
how does one become a suspect? who investigates using what criteria? how can one get a name off?
etc etc
private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.
2 Million-Person Terror Database Leaked Online
Summary:
2.2 million records of people with suspected terrorist, organized crime, and corruption links
I'm going to go out on a limb and say there aren't really two million people with terrorist links in that database.
Oh... right.
I wonder if Hillary is on the list?
And it's a good thing he posted it to /r/privacy. If he'd posted it to /r/news he'd likely have been banned, then shadowbanned for his trouble while the mods and admins would send him messages saying that he was banned for wrongthink or something along those lines.
Om, nomnomnom...
Well, me and 2,199,999 of my friends anyway.
I wonder if every distributed version of the database is a little different and finding the leak path will be straight forward.
You can bet that the current version of the db contains 2 million and one names on that last. I doubt Mr. Vickery will be getting on a plane anytime soon, plus he's got that IRS audit coming up too. Oh, and his FICO number is now 30.
And it's a good thing he posted it to /r/privacy. If he'd posted it to /r/news he'd likely have been banned, then shadowbanned for his trouble while the mods and admins would send him messages saying that he was banned for wrongthink or something along those lines.
Ah yes, the revisionist steps forward providing a false narrative of what actually happened.
/r/news and was removed for having no evidence and then got a group of fifty people to submit and rapidly upvote each other's submissions all saying the same thing that wasn't yet proven, flooding /r/news and the front page spreading as yet unsubstantiated claims.
You mean to say that if he submitted to
Is APK in the terrorist database? He should be.
He's too busy attention whoring on Twitter?
> private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.
I understand your concern. Your suggestion is:
It "should be unlawful" for public institutions to "use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced".
The list discussed in the article is compiled from open, public sources, so it wouldn't be covered by your proposal, but we'll stick with your suggestion now.
Closed source information sources include:
Google
Encyclopedia Britannica
TV news
So there should be a law public institutions, including police, state college employees, etc., cannot use information they found in Google, the encyclopedia, or the news when making decisions.
You've made a proposal which would have zero applicability to the event which caused your concern, while banning good and useful things. I'm going to try out my psychic powers and hazard a guess. My guess is you want to to ban guns too.
At work we have an decades-old Oracle database, with constraints turned off and the inevitable inconsistencies.
Ask anyone who has to work on it : "terror database" would be an worthy name.
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!
The US constitution assigns certain powers to the federal government; and limits the abilities of the government to infringe on a subset of the rights of the people. Through the auspices of the 14th amendment, some of those limits are passed along to the states (generally those in the bill of rights, amendments 1-10.)
It does not restrict the people.
This means that even if the constitution, via an amendment or article's provisions, is taken to limit the actions of the government with regard to the people, it does not similarly limit the actions of the people with regard to others of the people.
--fyngyrz
anon due to mod points
Is more of a crime than the making of it.
I have a copy of the "leaked" database too, and I will allow anyone to search if they only pay me $900k - save $100k and get MY copy of that "database" instead...
See subject: After all, it takes 'great courage' (lol, not) to try smear my good name w/ unidentifiable ac posts like yours! My guess is that you're that FOOL Cryptizard I demolished today https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9302335&cid=52418783
APK
P.S.=> QUESTION: What's it like being a "ne'er-do-well" weasel that I have NO DOUBT utterly CRUSHED before in debates in things technical in computing? After all - I KNOW that's the why of WHY you do these "rumor monger" little girl BITCH TACTICS of yours posting totally unidentifiably anonymously - you KNOW I can toss your many defeats vs. myself BACK IN YOUR FACE... lmao! It's got to SUCK to be "someone like YOU" (a worm)... apk
so you find there is nothing disturbing in public institutions using a privately owned database of 'suspects' to make decisions(presumably security related decisions that may have far reaching consequences for so called 'suspects' and others )? database where suspects status as such is arrived at using unknown, vague, and closed, methods and sources, by people who are unknown and answerable to private entities. meanwhile 'suspects' (ie potentially everyone) have no way of knowing their status in database, and if they know cannot do anything about it.
i find that disturbing and think it should be illegal.
but there are always people who are willing to be controlled, and are willing to give up their decision making power to others along with all their lives. you one?
> so you find there is nothing disturbing in
This situation is a bit icky, sure.
Your proposed law, that government employees shouldn't be able to use privately-generated information is just ridiculous. A) It wouldn't affect this, because this is a compilation of primarily government lists, and B) most books, web sites, etc are privately generated. You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books.
Your suggested law doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve, and does create a lot of problems. Exactly like the people who want to ban "assualt weapons" and don't even know what an "assault weapon" is.
This is just another hacker looking for there 15 min. Weather anyone knows who they are or not. These hackers claim they do it for the people. They don't if you have it release it. Don't be a baby. Stand up for what you believe in. Most hackers say one thing and believe another. They are unorganized and dangers to everyone. Most of them are punks that don't want to live there parents tit.
We've access to an historically unprecedented amount of information and we use it for social ostracism. Pathetic. On the whole, humans are dumb animals with little beyond petty, vulgar concerns, despite our much vaunted "consciousness".
If you are going to make a list, it would be easier (and much shorter) to enumerate everybody who is NOT a complete dullard. I wouldn't make the cut.
wants its nonsense think back.
Perl Programmer for hire
Your new criteria sound much more reasonable.
Particularly "content cannot be questioned by those affected". That's important. That means that before hiring a new employee to work for them, an agency CAN verify employment history / experience (which is based on the former employer's private database, maintained by methods unknown), because the prospective employee can challenge any inaccuracy. It allows government programs which make loans to check the recipient's credit score, which is again a private database with scores calculated by a secret algorithm, but you can dispute any inaccuracies.
Wow this reminds me of a couple of episodes of Rockford Files, Season 04 Episodes 21 and 22 "The house on Willis Avenue" which was aired back in '78.
http://www.tv.com/shows/the-rockford-files/the-house-on-willis-avenue-2-18058/
Jim and Richie continue to investigate their mentor's death and follow leads to a massive computer data storage company that has a plot in a desert canyon...
Maybe you're right, you didn't change the criteria, just made it SOUND better. So tell me which of these criteria does not apply to Fortune magazine's annual list of 100 richest people?:
a) privately owned closed sourced database
b) whose methods are unknown
c) whose administrators are not accountable
d) whose content cannot be questioned by those affected.
Should it be illegal for a govt employee to read a magazine? Should it be illegal for an IRS auditor to see that while Bill Gates reported $0 income on his tax return, Forbes says he made $400 million dollars, and decide to look into that?
You're getting all upset for some reason; I'm trying to clarify what your position is, exactly. Laws are difficult that way. A law means what it says, reading your mind to "oh, he didn't mean THAT" doesn't work. If you say "we have freedom of speech, anyone can say or print anything they want", then of course people will ask "what about Nazi propaganda?". When you say "well not propaganda", of course someone will ask "how do you define propaganda, and who decides if a particular writing is propaganda?".