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.

Comments

Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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?

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, he should put it on a torrent server or shut up.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[WarJolt]

Other users may have a copy. It's leaked to anyone who payed the subscription fee.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[popo]

The real question is this:

How many American citizens are on the list?

And do they have a right to know that they're on said list? What are the due process protections for these people?

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a list of people who ask stupid questions. Do you have a right to know whether you are on the list?

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's more than one question but hey, Americans aren't so good at math. Or politics. Anything else for that matter, apart from racism and accumulating body fat.

So let me answer those questions for you in short order, armchair politico:

1) I can gurantee you that if there are Americans on the list, it will be poor to middle-class Muslims or other "undesirables," rather than people like Donald Trump, people like George W. Bush, anyone who uses fear and hatred to control a subservient population.

2) Of course you have a right to know you're on the list. If you pay a fee anywhere up to and including $1 million. If you haven't paid your fee, fuck you, you're probably an ISIS recruiter anyway.

3) The same "due process protections" that were available for the people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay -- jack fucking shit. You THINK you have rights. I'm sure you have your handy novelized copy of the Constitution handy and all, feel free to look them up. If you think that any of it applies when the government decides you're a terrorist, you're both wrong _and_ hideously stupid to boot. These people don't care about "rights." These people redefined the word "torture" in the American legal system so that they could waterboard people and build human pyramids out of naked prisoners. You know, to pose with for the ol' Facebook account.

The _REAL_ question is this:

Are you so deluded, so blind to the world around you that you're still waving your little red-white-and-blue flag on the fourth of July, so glad to be in the land of the free? Land of the torturers, land of secret prisons, land of Homan Square and corrupt politicians, land of militarized police forces and George Fucking Zimmerman? If so, I'm glad. I'm glad because it indicates to me that you are at an evolutionary dead end. You are a human being with zero worth. THAT is how your government sees YOU. A potential source of revenue or a potential terrorist, there is no in-between.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal in the United States to use race or religion as a factor when deciding who can get loans, who can open accounts, who can fly on planes, and so on. This list is generated using black box sources and methods which could very well make use of race or religion as a factor. One can certainly argue the merits of profiling (much of the rest of the world sees it as beneficial), but in the United States these metrics are illegal to consider, and in some cases, even collect. Without a bit more transparency into this list, it may very well be illegal for any of these governmental organizations or private companies operating within the United States to make use of this list in determining *any* of the aforementioned activities, hence the need for transparency and due process.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice of you to show that you're only interested in the civil rights of about 5% of the world's population. Everybody else is an acceptable target, right?

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[kaur]

The real question is this:
How many American citizens are on the list?

Why is this relevant?
Are American citizens somehow more or less entitled to be on the list than, say, Germans or Japanese?
Due process should apply to everyone regardless of their citizenship.

Imagine you learn that there are no Americans on the list.
Would it make the list and related contoversy a) better b) worse?

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[geekmux]

... 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 understands that the "original location of the leak is still exposed to the public internet"..."

It sounds like he is aware of the current leak location, which the administrators of the database are apparently trying to shut down.

I agree, proof is needed to validate these claims, but publishing it online for the masses may not be a wise decision for a database like this. From a reputation standpoint, this is akin to labeling a teacher a child molester, with a due-process capability of the No-Fly list. And that's before you find the list was tampered with prior to a mass leak. Could be rather career-ending for many, accurate or not.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[houghi]

Because he was not the intended person. Leaked does not mean 'published'.
If one person that should not have access to data has access to data, it is leaked.From that moment on the data must be considered unsecure.

And I mean access, not even in possesion of said data. Used to work in a bit of a security enviroment and one day the police came in who had a meeting. (Non-uniform guys) We all locked our monitor as they walked by to the meeting room as they might have seen something they were not allowed to see. Stoopid manager who selected that meeting room and he never did it again.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[ACE209]

+1 "too insulting but I see your point"

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[markdavis]

>"And do they have a right to know that they're on said list? What are the due process protections for these people?"

Then what is the due process for the USA's "terrorist watchlist"?? Thinking there is any due process for ANY of these types of list is a fantasy. And yet there is now even a movement we should start denying citizens their Constitutional rights for being on the secret list without even being told they are on a list, must less having any due process to challenge it.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[drinkypoo]

I agree, proof is needed to validate these claims, but publishing it online for the masses may not be a wise decision for a database like this. From a reputation standpoint, this is akin to labeling a teacher a child molester, with a due-process capability of the No-Fly list.

Yeah, it could be bad for a lot of people, but the only way we're going to solve the problem is by being completely public about it. You can't solve a problem by pretending you're not having it. That's the same reason why the EU's "right to have your bad behavior forgotten" directive is evil. The wealthy will have the most ability to have things forgotten (they have the power to be aware of more of the information: they can pay someone to look for it) and to hide their misdeeds. As ever, the people we need most to hold accountable will receive less accountability as a result. And meanwhile, we pretend that certain problems don't exist, or we pretend that certain things that everyone does are problems when they aren't, or aren't problems when they are, because we hide the scope.

Some people may suffer, but freedom demands the full release of the list, so that the full scope can be understood.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[fustakrakich]

When a private company becomes an agent of the state, it should be subject to the same constitutional restrictions, but few people are willing to enforce that unwritten rule. Very unfortunate.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[TheCastro1689]

He put an encrypted torrent up.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[TheCastro1689]

That's my problem with domestic spying, I never had a problem the NSA and CIA spying on all the other countries and their leaders and their people, that's their job to protect the US through foreign intelligence gathering, Those people don't get the protections of our laws or our constitution, but we do and that's why the domestic spying pisses me off.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Hans Adler]

Yes, I know. The rest of the world are just your colonies. Because if we'd try the same kind of stunt the other way round all hell would break lose.

I would call the US a pathetic bully - only the country actually gets away with it, so 'pathetic' isn't really the correct word. But what is worst is that most US citizens seem to be brain-washed to the point that they think this is OK and simultaneously wonder about why it is their country isn't more popular internationally.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[judoguy]

Then what is the due process for the USA's "terrorist watchlist"?? Thinking there is any due process for ANY of these types of list is a fantasy.

And the answer is: No due process As an aside, I find it incredible that the LGBT community constantly votes for Democrat politicians that scream for secret lists that can be used to take away constitutional rights. My god, if any group should fear that, it should be the LGBT community.Let's do away with civil rights

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[bbsguru]

"The real question"? Really?

You have no right at all to know what is on my "secret list". I have compiled it by digesting every news article published worldwide on the subject of underwater cribbage, and cataloging the names mentioned in any way. My reasoning is that people who have anything to do with that horrible sport are more likely to die by drowning, and I will base my Life Insurance rate quotes to them on that belief.
You want to know who is on the list and why? Tough.

You want to sue me for unfair business practices? Go ahead. But don't whinge about actuarial tables that say middle aged black men are more likely to die of heart disease than young females from the Mediterranean. While liars may figure, figures don't lie.

Any company has a fiduciary responsibility to manage risk. One way to manage risk is by getting as much information as you can and making decisions based on that information. If you have bad information, you're not doing it right. But if you have no information, or are proscribed from making decisions based on what you know, you are (rightfully) out of business.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Archangel Michael]

To be honest, the LGBT community is starting to wake up to the fact that the hodgepodge amalgamation of "united" interests that forms the Democratic/Progressive movement may not actually suit their interests. In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, the "progressive" anti-gun bits of the LGBT community pretty much disappeared.

My suggestion for the LGBT community is to look at the Libertarian Party, which views rights not as only for specific"Groups" but as absolutes for individuals.

I suspect that LGBT people will someday realize that Progressive politics hasn't and isn't suiting their real interests.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Decryption key or it didn't happen.
 
And if HR Clinton isn't at the top of that list then we know he's full of shit.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[drinkypoo]

This is yet another way of saying It'll never happen to me.

No, I want to know if it's already happened to me.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[david_thornley]

You might want to look at US participation in both European wars.

In the first one, US entry did change the strategic balance of the war, and the Germans knew that they needed to win in the first half of 1918 or not at all. They responded by launching offensives, which failed to break the British and French and pretty much used up German army capabilities. It was after that that US troops got in the line in large numbers. Belleau Wood involved a relatively small number of German soldiers.

In the second one, US entry was at the end of 1941, but the US wasn't a significant force in Europe for some time. The first Eighth Air Force raid was in mid-1942 using US-produced bombers borrowed from the RAF. The first US soldiers fighting Germans were about the end of 1942, after which it was pretty clear in retrospect that Germany was going to lose. The US had no more than one field army fighting Germans until June 1944, at which point German defeat was obviously the most likely result. US participation did hasten the end of the war and changed where the Western-Soviet demarcation line was.

The USN played a minor role in WWI, mostly in the Mediterranean, which was never a significant naval theater in WWI. In WWII, the USN was fighting Germans from September 1941 on, and not doing too well. The USN role in winning the Battle of the Atlantic was definitely secondary to the British, and perhaps less than the Canadian. The USN did make sure the Battle of the Atlantic stayed won.

Re:Is it leaked or is it not yet leaked?

[david_thornley]

The reason the government is involved with marriage is tradition.

The important thing about marriage is that it's a package deal of changes that otherwise would be difficult or impossible to accomplish. It establishes an artificial and close family relationship. If my wife or I were to be unconscious, the other would make the care decisions. It's simple for one of us to inherit from the other. The government recognizes us as an economic unit for tax purposes. If she has a baby, I'm automatically the father unless I object and demand tests. There's a host of things that marriage is involved in, some good and some not so good, and most of these aren't government benefits. (For income tax purposes, a married couple pays less taxes than a family with one worker and one stay-at-home, and more than they would if they were able to file individually and had roughly equal and substantial incomes. This certainly isn't an unalloyed benefit.)

What I'd like to see is some sort of declaration that would establish two people as each other's next of kin, with all that that implies. Legally, it would function something like marriage, but it wouldn't be called that. Marriage would then be a concept that various churches could latch onto with whatever religious restrictions they pleased.

corp run private law

[sittingnut]

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.

I guess "terror" is more exciting than reality

[rebelwarlock]

Title:

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.

Re:I guess "terror" is more exciting than reality

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there aren't really two million people with terrorist links in that database.

Probably be four degrees of Kevin Bacon. With six degrees, they could just lock anybody up. Wait, I should stop giving them ideas.

Where's Julian Assange when you need a wikileak?

[CeasedCaring]

Oh... right.

Well that's nice...

[Mashiki]

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.

I want to know, 50th bank?

[marke5139]

Well, me and 2,199,999 of my friends anyway.

Current version

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

"terror database", nice name

[GuB-42]

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.

Re:Important question

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you know? Hosts files protect you from being in terrorist databases, no fly lists, and all privacy breaches.

-APK