Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday July 25 2014, @06:25AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the peeking-up-the-skirt-of-goverment dept.

The Intercept brings us Blacklisted : The Secret Government Rulebook for Labeling You a Terrorist

The "March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance," a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government's secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place "entire categories" of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to "nominate" people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as "fragmentary information." It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

Over the years, the Obama and Bush Administrations have fiercely resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the databases though the guidelines are officially labeled as unclassified. In May, Attorney General Eric Holder even invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent watchlisting guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list. In an affidavit, Holder called them a "clear roadmap" to the government's terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: "The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed ... could cause significant harm to national security."

"Instead of a watchlist limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future," says Hina Shamsi, the head of the ACLU's National Security Project. "On that dangerous theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out." Shamsi, who reviewed the document, added, "These criteria should never have been kept secret."

The fallout is personal too. There are severe consequences for people unfairly labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government, which shares its watchlist data with local law enforcement, foreign governments, and "private entities." Once the U.S. government secretly labels you a terrorist or terrorist suspect, other institutions tend to treat you as one. It can become difficult to get a job (or simply to stay out of jail). It can become burdensome or impossible to travel. And routine encounters with law enforcement can turn into ordeals.

In short; the Intercept is publishing the previously unavailable government guide for putting you, and another several million people onto a watchlist; that has a crippling effect on your ability to live and no means to remove yourself from the list or the suspicion that goes with it.

Sure I suspect most of you are going to say "Why does this matter to me? I'm not a terrorist." but it does. For a society to be "free" you need to have disclosure of the law; and you have to have due process. a lack of either and you are no longer a free citizen; rather you are just another suspect or worse.

I've seen the effect of this on people I know. Good people who happen to share a name with someone on the list; People who went and talked to Occupy Wall Steet protesters (and didn't stay to protest) who found themselves under the scrutiny of police. We shouldn't sit idly by and let this go on. How would you purpose to get the government back to arresting criminals, instead of just accepting that America is just one large prison system?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by deimios on Friday July 25 2014, @07:19AM

    by deimios (201) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 25 2014, @07:19AM (#73650) Journal

    The sheer size of the watch list shows it ineffective. If anyone tells me that there are 1.5 M potential terrorists in the US at the present date I'll ask them to review their definition of 'terrorist'.

    On a semi-related sidenote I just turned down an invitation to an Oracle event in San Francisco for this exact reason. The US is on my watch-list and on my no-fly list. Not sure if I'm on theirs...

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by BsAtHome on Friday July 25 2014, @07:36AM

      by BsAtHome (889) on Friday July 25 2014, @07:36AM (#73656)

      It is effective for several things; a) keeping people busy maintaining a bureaucratic monster, b) sustaining an atmosphere of fear and doubt to further an agenda that only the people in control now about, c) create a new generation of people who will dislike the country to a point where they eventually will become violent, validating the need for said list.

      The first is a job-creation measure, the second to keep those in power in control and the third a way to create a perpetual system. Each of such structures are known to explode at some time. History shows the examples.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Mainframe Bloke on Friday July 25 2014, @10:28AM

      by Mainframe Bloke (1665) on Friday July 25 2014, @10:28AM (#73694) Journal

      I also refused travel to the US for the very same reason. I like the US, have friends there, and would go back there were there not the prospect of a body search.

    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday July 25 2014, @06:26PM

      by davester666 (155) on Friday July 25 2014, @06:26PM (#73895)

      it's just got the 'terrorist' label to make it hard for anyone with any power to change/stop it from being able to do so.

      it really is just a 'troublemaker watch list'.

  • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday July 25 2014, @07:35AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Friday July 25 2014, @07:35AM (#73655) Journal

    We discuss how to undermine/disable current "security" procedures. Does this make is a threat? In the eyes of one government official?

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by metamonkey on Friday July 25 2014, @02:37PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Friday July 25 2014, @02:37PM (#73769)

      I'm pretty sure the NSA/PTB watch slashdot, so not long.

      I clearly got targeted by a fishing expedition on /. a few weeks back.

      In one of the weekly 'NSA is pwning your shit everybody repost the same crap about them' threads there was some comment that had to do with the second amendment and the founding fathers. I posted a rant that this whole NSA spying scandal has proven what complete paper-tiger phonies the NRA/2nd amendment crowd is. While I support private gun ownership as an extension of the natural human right to self-defense, the whole "it's to stop teh tyranny! The 2nd amendment protects all the others!" refrain is bullshit. If the NRA really thought they'd use their guns to protect the constitution, here's their chance! The general warrants issued by the NSA are clear violations of the 4th amendment which calls for specific warrants. In the 1760s, general warrants issued by the king, allowing soldiers to search houses as they saw fit looking for seditious materials and unpaid taxes were amongst the primary offenses that led to the revolution. About this Thomas Paine wrote "these are the times that try men's souls."

      So there ya go NRA! Clearly, unequivocally, illegal and unconstitutional tyranny! It's your wet dream! If the NRA really believed their bullshit, they would have rounded up their well-regulated militia and marched on the datacenter with their flint-lock rifles and demanded the spying machines be shut off. Of course they haven't said a goddamn word about domestic spying, so they can just shut the fuck up about "teh tyrannys!"

      I posted that on a Friday. On Monday I get a message that someone has responded to my post. Now, /. has been my homepage for about 15 years. I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten a response 3 days after making a post. It's so far off the front page, nobody would possibly see that.

      It's an AC saying, "Hey, this whole marching on the data centers thing sounds pretty good, but I don't want to do that alone. Could anybody around here help me out with getting together with others about this..?"

      Geez, man, that's the best you can do? Did they teach you that in narc school? My post must have triggered something and prompted a fishing response. There's no way that's a genuine post from a /. reader. I would love to know the IP that post originated from. My guess would be somewhere in the Florida panhandle. Near a certain air force base.

      NOTE TO GOVERNMENT AGENTS: I am not suggesting anybody take up arms against domestic spying. I don't know anybody who is. That's a fucking stupid idea. I'm just saying the NRA likes to talk like they would, but they don't, which means they're full of shit. That's all! Please don't rendition me. I'm a good little worker drone, no threat to the plutocracy or the MIC here! xoxo monkeykins.

      --
      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 25 2014, @04:31PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 25 2014, @04:31PM (#73831) Journal

        The thing is, these are deep currents. They have a massive effect, but you don't see the effects on the surface right away. The NSA, Wall Street, DC, and the other Masters of the Universe (MoU) have publicly, openly blown away even the fiction that we live under the rule of law. That's not going to lead to revolution overnight. People have to rearrange their lives, search their souls, decide where they stand, and determine what to do about it. It's a big decision, not at all like hopping in the car and going down to the 7-11 to pick up a six pack of soda, because of its consequences for you and everyone else. 99% of human beings, even the sociopaths, would take precipitous action on a matter of this magnitude because there are so many angles to consider. For non-sociopaths, there's a lot of agonizing about whether you have the will to act even though your friends and family and neighbors might not understand or even oppose you.

        But because it's such a fundamental shift, the jettisoning of our Constitution, the rule of law, and our notions of freedom and democracy, it will not go away and not stop nagging you. You cannot ignore it. And you can be sure there are plenty of actors, malefactors, who will be spurred to greater crimes with the same intensity as honest, law-abiding folk are appalled and dismayed and angered by it. That will further dismay and anger the latter group. Eventually, person by person, red lines will be crossed and revolutionary action will spontaneously arise.

        If you look back through history, the history of the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, etc, etc, it has always played out that way. Even now, even here, in a country that went through a foundational revolution a short 200 years ago, some people argue that revolution is an artifact of the past that will never occur again, or, at least, never occur again here. Revolution, though, recurs.

        There will be a second American Revolution, and the MoU, NSA and Wall Street included, will hang.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 1) by dcollins on Friday July 25 2014, @05:35PM

          by dcollins (1168) on Friday July 25 2014, @05:35PM (#73875) Homepage

          When was the last time a revolution was successful, anywhere? I would argue that in the developed world, the military, law-enforcement, surveillance, and social control methods are so much more advanced today that it's effectively impossible. Crime is way down, the capacity to imprison people is way up, and people are much softer and more sheltered than they used to be.

          Both your examples of the French and Russian revolutions were cases triggered by simultaneous drubbings in major wars, with spikes in food prices such that hunger was widespread, and with old-style royalty still in charge. We're close to none of that today. When did any revolution ever work in a republic, ever?

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by metamonkey on Friday July 25 2014, @05:59PM

            by metamonkey (3174) on Friday July 25 2014, @05:59PM (#73885)

            Egypt did it twice. And their military and domestic police was like 10% of their country, and they pretty well stood by and did nothing. Occupy sprung up overnight.

            I think the elites are terrified, hence the surveillance state and the militarized police. They've done a really good job of dividing the poor and middle classes for, well, basically since the start of civilization, over mainly petty differences. Race, sex, religion. But overt racism is practically dead (despite what the media would have you believe). The sexes are equal. They probably thought they'd get at least a few more decades out of gay hate, but gay marriage went from a thing that's never existed since the beginning of time to a right in about 12 years. The drug war, used for locking up undesirables and controlling south America is on its last legs, with state after state legalizing weed. Cocaine will follow (give it 10 years). The mask has been thrown off the war on terror. They're running out of things to make the lower and middle classes fight each other over instead of turning on them. And their response to growing dissatisfaction with their institutions of control will be exactly wrong, because they always double-down on stupid.

            I don't think there will be violence, but I think a massive upheaval is inevitable. It happens every 80 years. 1776...1861...1941...2021? It's going to be an interesting decade.

            --
            Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
            • (Score: 1) by dcollins on Saturday July 26 2014, @02:55AM

              by dcollins (1168) on Saturday July 26 2014, @02:55AM (#74063) Homepage

              But Egypt is right back with the same military dictatorship they had before, except more entrenched. As hopeful as I was for the Arab Spring, all it's accomplished is to flush out the dissidents and get them imprisoned. There was a brief window where the possibilities of social networks caught the old guard unprepared... but they won't be caught flat-footed again, and have all rushed to step up NSA-style network monitoring and capacity to shut down things they don't like.

              The fact that you're reaching for numerology support (80 years, classic cherry-picking) ends the conversation, I think.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:49AM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:49AM (#74076) Journal

            You must be very new to the world, or you pay scant attention. I've seen at least a dozen successful revolutions in my 42 years. Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, East Germany, Romania, Russia (remember Boris Yeltsin facing down the tanks in their whitehouse?), Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Serbia (the overthrow of Milosevic), Croatia, Slovenia, South Sudan, Yemen, Georgia. There's also Afghanistan, when they drove out the Soviets. And you could technically count Vietnam, though I don't remember it. You could count Moldavia as well, though most Americans don't even know where that is.

            Revolutions happen all the time. They haven't happened in the United States for 200 years, but they certainly happened to our opponent in the Cold War so if you need proof it can happen to a superpower, there you go.

            Revolutions don't have to be violent, but the more the MoU fight it, the likelier it will turn that way.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Friday July 25 2014, @05:41PM

          by metamonkey (3174) on Friday July 25 2014, @05:41PM (#73879)

          Change is inevitable. Polybius told us so. It starts with anarchy, then a loose feudalism (Dark Ages). The strongest feudal lord unites or conquers everybody else to establish a monarchy (Charlemagne, Bill the Conquerer). The monarch's descendants do not appreciate or understand the power they are born into and are spoiled and corrupted. The monarchy degenerates into despotism (George III). The wealthy grow tired of the despot's abuses and depose him, establishing an aristocracy (T.J., Sam Adams & pals). The aristocrats' descendants are corrupted just like the despots and the aristocracy descends into an oligarchy. This is where we are now. Eventually the people can no longer bear the oppression of the oligarchs and depose them, establishing a democracy. Then demagogues arise and fracture the democracy into anarchy, starting the process all over again.

          I think there will be a sea change, but I do not think it will involve violence. Primarily because there's no one to attack. The cops? The army? They're just doing their jobs. The politicians? The bankers? A hydra. Violence is so 20th century.

          I'm not sure what form the destroyer will take, but I imagine it will have something to do with the Internet disrupting the two-party power base. The Internet has democratized everything except democracy. It's amazing at eliminating middlemen, and politicians are the ultimate middlemen.

          I'm really curious to see what happens with the 2016 elections, and what kind of issue is made of domestic spying.

          Regardless, I think it's fairly obvious that the elites are terrified. I think Occupy and the Arab Spring scared them shitless, that massive demonstrations could pop up overnight. Hence the curfew laws, the militarization of the police, the surveillance state. It'll be an interesting next ten years.

          --
          Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Friday July 25 2014, @07:39AM

    by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 25 2014, @07:39AM (#73658)

    I remember the bad old times in my country when the communists kept such lists. They were called 'non-perspective persons' lists. All it took was someone important or wanna-be-important to submit a report about you and how you are untrustworthy. Also all people that ever were in jail were directly included. Once in the list, your children were denied uni/college education, you had no chance for white-collar job. Only if you beg enough you can get a very low ranked blue-collar jobs, often dangerous (coal miner, steel worker, very primitive work conditions) unofficially assigned. The only way out of the list is if you turn informer, reporting other non-thrustworthy people yourself and hoping to please someone enough to become their dog. Those people that were scumbags enough to progressed in such system, made their own dogs and climb up to the political caste. All this was encouraged by Kremlin masters because if someone decided to stray off their will, they suddently remembered their previous 'sins', the reason they were put in the non-thrustworthy list, and they destroyed the person. I mean physically, putting them in concentration camp, overnight, in secrecy, no questions asked. Two uniform and one civilian guy come at 04:00, ring the bell, break the door if nececerry, handcufs, get in the car, witnesses silenced, then you never return. Because you was on the list, and the society has to be protected, the children. Think about the children. Theirs, not yours.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Friday July 25 2014, @08:21AM

      by BsAtHome (889) on Friday July 25 2014, @08:21AM (#73668)

      And people still think that mass collection of "meta-data" is no problem.

      Just think how /more/ oppressive the regime would have been if it was able to infer state-of-mind from a wide variety of sources automatically.

      The trend, unfortunately, is to repeat history over and over again.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:39AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @11:39AM (#73709)

        The trend, unfortunately, is to repeat history over and over again.

        This is only because most tyrants, including US Congressmen, lack the creativity to invent new methods for imposing their power. It's far easier, and equally effective, just to follow the plan that worked so well for Stalin, Hitler, or Hadrian. If it ever looks like history is not being repeated, that is when you should really worry: it means someone has come up with a whole new scheme.

    • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday July 25 2014, @09:53AM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Friday July 25 2014, @09:53AM (#73685)

      Fortunately, Communism was defeated, so we won't see nothing like that again!

      Now, seriously, the same things you describe happened in my West-European, very-capitalistic, NATO-member country from the early 30s up until 1974.

      The same economic oligarchy who used to rule the country during the dictatorship came back and took over the reins again, just a few years after the 74 revolution. They used to hide behind the dictator, now they hide behind the "democratic" scumbags that we supposedly elect.

  • (Score: 2) by Bot on Friday July 25 2014, @09:59AM

    by Bot (3902) on Friday July 25 2014, @09:59AM (#73687) Journal

    Good news: the book is 166 pages long, nobody will read it.
    Bad news: not having read the instructions they will put random people whom they don't like in the terrorist list, anyway.
    Not news: Random labeling people as terrorists is itself a kind of terrorism much en vogue lately.

    --
    Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @10:14AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @10:14AM (#73691)

    That's essentially what the terrorism blacklist and no fly list amount to. They basically say that 1.5 million people are guilty and should be treated as criminals, without a judicial trial. If that isn't a bill of attainder, I don't know what is.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @10:29AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @10:29AM (#73695)

    My name's on the terrorist watch list. And by my name, I mean the name I share with thousands of people in the U.S.

    I learned my name was on the list at the airport, years ago. I tried to check into my flight on the self check-in kiosk, and it told me I couldn't check-in automatically, see a human. The attendant punched my name into her machine and acted like something was going on she'd never seen before. She called her supervisor who took my driver's license away, to some back room, for around 15 minutes. When he returned he punched some keys on the computer, printed my boarding pass and told me have a nice flight.

    This was the drill for a couple years. Never checking in automatically, always the attendant had to type something. At first the attendants never knew how to handle it, and the ID went to the supervisor and I had to wait. Eventually, the attendants got much faster at giving me the boarding pass. I asked one what they had to do, and she told me "I have to enter your birthday from your drivers license." In short, the terrorist watch list is not just names, also birthdays.

    During those years, I stopped flying southwest airlines. That airline does not assign seats, instead it lets you board the plane roughly in the order you checked in. Since everyone else was checking in online 24 hours before the flight, and I couldn't check-in until I was in front of the person at the airport, I was always last on the plane.

    Hoping to save myself some time, I would walk directly to the humans at the check-in counter. Always they would gesture to the kiosk, like it was the only way to check-in. I'd explain my name is on the terrorist watch list. More often than not they'd act like I was crazy to not use the kiosk, but begrudgingly helped. One time when I said "terrorist watch list" the guy said "don't call it that" as if you're not allowed to say "terrorist" at the airport or something.

    Nowadays, for all U.S. airlines, you have to give your full name and birthday when buying the ticket online. Since the sites require a birthday, I've been able to use the kiosk or checkin online. I hate to give out my birthday on an online form, but basically I've given up on privacy to buy plane tickets. Because how else can you get one?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by WizardFusion on Friday July 25 2014, @12:04PM

      by WizardFusion (498) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 25 2014, @12:04PM (#73714) Journal

      Out of the thousands of people that share your name, 1/365 of them will be treated to extra "upgrades" because they will share the same birthday as the supposed terrorist. (not accounting for rounding errors and birth/conception patterns)

      Sucks to be them.

      • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 25 2014, @12:08PM

        by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday July 25 2014, @12:08PM (#73715)

        Unless the birth date includes a year, in which case it would be more like 1/(365*80) assuming a life expectancy of 80 years and a uniform distribution of the name across ages. So if the birth date includes a year, odds are against a match within a population of thousands.

        --
        [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Friday July 25 2014, @01:11PM

          by sjames (2882) on Friday July 25 2014, @01:11PM (#73734) Journal

          On the other hand, there are enough names on the list that it is nearly inevitable that there is a group of people who share name and birthday with someone on the list.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @03:34PM (#73799)

          For the birthday problem [wikipedia.org] ignoring the year, the probability of one pair of a set of N people with the same name having the same birthday passes 50% at N=23. If you look at the ages of people riding airplanes, it's peaked around middle-aged people, mostly 30-60, so the 0-80 range is a bit broad. So for a common name, the probability of a false hit is relatively high.

          • (Score: 1) by cbiltcliffe on Monday July 28 2014, @01:30AM

            by cbiltcliffe (1659) on Monday July 28 2014, @01:30AM (#74504)

            The birthday problem is the chance that "any pair of people in a group have the same birthday." This isn't the same as the chance that "anyone in the group has the same birthday as this specific group member."
            You need a lot more than 23 people for the second to be true by chance.

        • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday July 25 2014, @03:35PM

          by Alfred (4006) on Friday July 25 2014, @03:35PM (#73800) Journal

          The guys we are "looking" for would be in the 18-35 year range. So if you happen to also be in that range I would expect more problems. At this rate I also expect profiling works better.

          I always wonder...who are their these old guys, still alive, to train suicide bombers if being a suicide bomber is such a great deal?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jcross on Friday July 25 2014, @01:05PM

      by jcross (4009) on Friday July 25 2014, @01:05PM (#73730)

      If you can check in on-line now, I wonder how they verify that the birthday you enter is your actual one? I doubt there's anything stopping the actual person they're targeting from using your birthday, or some random one.

      • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday July 25 2014, @02:52PM

        by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 25 2014, @02:52PM (#73775) Homepage Journal

        Indeed. A terrorist would never enter false information into a form.

        Seriously, this just shows yet again how lame the watch list is.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by mrider on Friday July 25 2014, @03:01PM

        by mrider (3252) on Friday July 25 2014, @03:01PM (#73780)

        And THAT is why the list is such a joke. If you're looking for a needle in a haystack, the last thing you want to do is add hay. (Paraphrased from Bruce Schneier)

        --

        Doctor: "Do you hear voices?"

        Me: "Only when my bluetooth is charged."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 25 2014, @04:55PM (#73849)

      My name's on the terrorist watch list. And by my name, I mean the name I share with thousands of people in the U.S.

      So you're saying the list has an entry for Anonymous Coward?

      • (Score: 2) by jcross on Friday July 25 2014, @05:39PM

        by jcross (4009) on Friday July 25 2014, @05:39PM (#73877)

        Probably so. Have you seen the kind of subversive stuff that guy posts on the internet?

  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday July 25 2014, @02:55PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday July 25 2014, @02:55PM (#73776)

    I don't intend to read the 166 pages, I just want a simple checklist of things to do to get on the list. The hope is a couple million like minded folks will do the same, thus overwhelming the list and forcing the feds to see it as the useless pile o' crap that it is.

    --
    I fondly remember the day I made sandcastles with my grandmother. Just wish I hadn't done it in the crematorium.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by WizardFusion on Friday July 25 2014, @03:06PM

      by WizardFusion (498) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 25 2014, @03:06PM (#73784) Journal

      Just file a request to be taken off it, that's the quickest (and safest) way to get on.

      • (Score: 1) by darkfeline on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:42AM

        by darkfeline (1030) on Saturday July 26 2014, @12:42AM (#74037) Homepage

        All of a sudden, everything becomes crystal clear.

        --
        Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday July 25 2014, @03:23PM

      by Alfred (4006) on Friday July 25 2014, @03:23PM (#73792) Journal

      It is computerized, you/we won't overwhelm it.
      The IRS with its decades old crappy government contract gear doesn't get overwhelmed and this gear is maybe half as old.
      Rethink your strategy.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by urza9814 on Friday July 25 2014, @05:16PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Friday July 25 2014, @05:16PM (#73869) Journal

        Of course you can't overwhelm the list. You can't even overwhelm a paper list. That's not the point. You overwhelm the people *using* the list.

        If companies refuse to hire people on the list -- get enough people on the list and they can't hire *anyone*.
        Airlines giving extra screening to people on the list? Well, they better hire more ticket agents and TSA screeners.

        The list is useless unless somewhere, at some point, an actual human being is given and acting on that information. THAT is who you overwhelm.

        • (Score: 1) by cbiltcliffe on Monday July 28 2014, @01:41AM

          by cbiltcliffe (1659) on Monday July 28 2014, @01:41AM (#74506)

          If companies refuse to hire people on the list -- get enough people on the list and they can't hire *anyone*.

          They're already offshoring as much work as they can, so this is just more ammo that they won't be able to find qualified Americans.

          Airlines giving extra screening to people on the list? Well, they better hire more ticket agents and TSA screeners.

          The only way your idea might be effective is if the list grew so large that the government couldn't find enough people that weren't on the watch list to hire as TSA screeners. That would be kind of amusing, actually.....

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday July 28 2014, @11:21AM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Monday July 28 2014, @11:21AM (#74575) Journal

            Airlines giving extra screening to people on the list? Well, they better hire more ticket agents and TSA screeners.

            The only way your idea might be effective is if the list grew so large that the government couldn't find enough people that weren't on the watch list to hire as TSA screeners. That would be kind of amusing, actually.....

            Not at all. Many airports are already trying to replace the TSA screeners. The more people on the list, the slower the line moves and the larger the incentive for airports to consider alternatives.

    • (Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Friday July 25 2014, @06:14PM

      by Blackmoore (57) on Friday July 25 2014, @06:14PM (#73891) Journal

      If we aren't already on the list for being on this site; go to boingboing.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @03:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @03:33PM (#74642)

      This would be a great idea if people weren't such spineless shit sacks. They will not do it. Only you and I end up on the list... (and possibly quite a few other people on Soylent)

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 25 2014, @04:38PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday July 25 2014, @04:38PM (#73837) Journal

    The beautiful thing about a bureaucratic document like this is the infinitely deep loopholes they hide within pages of specificity. Note 3.13.2, where a Suspected Terrorist can be designated by any government agency (TSA, DHS, DIA, CIA, FBI, etc) through their own secret lists of criteria, which are not specified in this document. So, the FBI could have a criterion in its list, "Suspected Terrorist cut off FBI Director in traffic, forcing him to miss his highway exit and a very important meeting on the new Obamacare benefits," and flag you and there's nothing you can do about it.

    Another loophole is the Lone Wolf one, where they don't have to demonstrate any connections to terrorist groups or any actions of any kind, and call you a Lone Wolf suspected domestic terrorist. And the interpretation of "preparing to commit terrorist acts" is so broad, and so vague, that heading out to shoot targets on your back lot could constitute "terrorist preparation."

    We have an American government whose intelligence and security apparatus is rogue, completely out of control.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @03:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 28 2014, @03:12PM (#74631)

    There is a word "haven’t" in TFS. (-- how the heck did that trigger the CAPS filter??)

    EDIT: my copy/pasta of the error doesn't render correctly... lol recursive UTF8 fun FTW!