Another Anti-Terror List Impacting Businesses, Customers

HangingChad writes "MSNBC is running a story about yet another government database designed to thwart terrorists and drug dealers that is having impact on people with similar names. Like a no-fly list for businesses, the Office of Foreign Asset Control's list of 'specially designated nationals' has been used in the past by banks and other financial institutions to block financial transactions of drug dealers and other criminals. Use of the list was expanded after 9-11 and now includes almost any financial transaction. Moreover, there is no minimum amount of money attached to penalties for selling to someone on the list: selling a sandwich to a 'specially designated national' can have a fine for up to '$10 million and 10 to 30 years in prison.' The article goes on: 'Businesses have used it to screen applicants for home and car loans, apartments and even exercise equipment, according to interviews and a report by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay area to be issued today.'"

First against the wall

[Bloke down the pub]

Businesses have used it to screen applicants for home and car loans, apartments and even exercise equipment, according to interviews and a report by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay area to be issued today.

A spokesperson for the organisation later added "er, please don't put us on it".

Which countries will be on the list?

[SpaghettiCoder]

This will be the difference between ill-advised economic protectionism that may adversely affect the computing/IT sector, and making a significant impact on countries that indirectly support terrorism. If we're serious about combating terrorism, only Muslim countries with sectarian influence at government level should be on the list. And since the Wahabi ideology behind terrorism come from Saudi Arabia, that would mean the oil Arabs should go on the list too.

Obligatory Quote

[C3ntaur]

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

Forgetting a fact

[stratjakt]

These are all foreign nationals and do not have any inherent right to do business in the US.

If you apply for any sort of credit they'll ask for proof of citizenship/residency and bypass this list. If you can't provide either, sucks to be you. Apply for credit in Iran.

Also, nobody has ever been jailed for selling a fucking sandwich to the wrong guy. That's just FUD.

Balanced Journalism

[YouTalkinToMe]

What I love about articles like this is the attempt at "balance". Notice that there are three or four examples of people who are wrongly denied services (of the how many thousand cases that have transpired?). And to "balance" this, they give what was probably the only case in history where such a check might have been relevant (at the end of the article). And even in that case, denying him a car wouldn't have changed anything. It isn't as if he couldn't take the bus to the airport.

Although this article isn't as bad as some (for example, most articles on global warming or evolution), it is a typical example of how trying to provide "balance" gives people the wrong impression of how likely different events are (i.e., in the article 4 false positives to one real hit, in reality probably many thousands of false positives to one real hit).

Lemme get this straight...

[blakmac]

"Molly Millerwise, a Treasury Department spokeswomen, acknowledged that there are "challenges" in complying with the rules but said that the department has extensive guidance on compliance, both on the OFAC Web site and in workshops with industry representatives. She also said most businesses can root out "false positives" on their own. If not, OFAC suggests contacting the firm that provided the screening software or calling an OFAC hotline."

That's great, unless you live in a place like I do in Southeast Texas (or probably most of the small towns in the south). People here are always making comments like "you never know, they could be a terrorist" or using what they call 'racial profiling' as an excuse to promote their prejudiced ways. Note: They call it racial profiling, (not political groups, but the rednecks I hear this from) so as not to sound racist. I call that a failure and a coverup. Their actions and statements reinforce their true beliefs. "Most businesses" around here are either not intellegent enough or biased against people to begin with, giving them a list (read: excuse) won't help matters any.

Re:Don't give up your SSN!

[Billosaur]

Your experience points up the reason for the list in the first place: to block transactions that might be used by drug dealers, et. al. A cash transaction is exactly the kind of thing that could be labeled as suspicious, since drug dealers and their ilk often use legitimate purchases as a method of laundering money. And they don't do it in large amounts; a few thousand here and there is often good enough. So even though you were paying cash, that could still be construed as suspicious.

Mind you, I'm not defending the practice. I frankly think no drug dealer or terrorist in their right mind would use their name or the name of any of their known associates to move money around. far easier to get faceless minions to do it, whom they can disavow easily. It only seems to be a trap for law-abiding citizens who have the unfortunate problem of having a name similar to their local drug kingpin or international terrorist.

Re:Don't give up your SSN!

[WindBourne]

Funny thing is that no known terrorists who comes to America uses their real name. They use a different one. Without a pix, this lists has only 1 use; the ability to harass and jail others. And even then, the pix can be easily fooled (add or lose weight; fake implants in the cheek; die hair; grow or lose a mustache; cosmetic surgery; etc).

reading my bills...

[eosp]

This note is legal tender for ALL debts, public and private. (emphasis mine) -- US $1 Bill

Back of bus

[Fuzzums]

One day the 'specially designated nationals' will have to sit in the back of the bus.

My apologies to the people who I may offend now, but these measures are getting more and more ridiculous by the day (just like it was rediculious that people based on skin color had to sit in the back of the bus), and nobody is doing anything about it (yet).

Since I'm a law-abiding citizen...

[dpilot]

There's the old line:
Since I'm a law-abiding citizen, I see no problem with government surveillance, wiretaps-without-warrants, etc. They NEED these things to fight TERRORISM!!!

Are you SURE you're a law-abiding citizen? Do you know about this "Anti-Terror List?" How about the other Anti-Terror List, and that other one, over there? Do you KNOW for sure that everyone you've ever done any sort of business with is not on one of these lists, especially the secret ones that you're not allowed to see?

Then maybe you're not really a law-abiding citizen, you just don't and can't know it, at least not until WE want to tell you.

By the way, have you ever had sex using any technique other than missionary position? If so, depending on which state you live in, you may have committed a crime!

Re:Good

[solevita]

There is absolutely nothing funny about any of this. Wake the hell up guys - this isn't a game.

This statement is, by the very definition of terrorism, incorrect.

The aim of terrorism is to instil terror into the population at large. If you become terrified, then the terrorists have beaten you.

World governments and their agencies can fight terrorism with (supposedly) practical measures, whilst the rest of us can fight terrorism by not being terrified. By mocking terrorists we're showing that they're really not achieving their goals. Go outside and declare that you're not afraid; keep flying in planes, keep going on underground trains, keep buying exercise equipment. Keep living your life, not some shadow of previous freedom you once enjoyed. The chances of being involved in a motor accident are much higher than the chances of being the victim of terrorism; don't tell me that you've stopped driving as well.

Mark of The Beast

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just about here. You will not be able to buy or sell *anything* (legally) without being branded with "The Mark". If you refuse to take the mark, then you must be a terrorist and that will get you added to the list.

Perhaps the religious wackos aren't so wacko after all, because every fucking wacko thing they predicted is slowly but surely coming true.

Re:online services

[FesterDaFelcher]

If you can explain how those companies are selling them a product, then yeah. Since they are not, I don't see why this is modded Score: 5, Interesting.

Mark of the beast

[happy*nix]

I know that there is a general negativity hear towards Christian beliefs. (more of a negativity towards organized religion in general without general bias against Christians, but I digress) There is also a general knowledge of biblical stories and prophecies. This immediately strikes a cord with me from Revelations: (13:17) "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

10 years ago this was hard for me to imagine how we could ever get to such a place in history. Now given the methods employed or tenuous holds on on freedoms and "self-evident truths" it is easy to see the path. Lists of bad guys are not all that effective, bad guys (terrorists) o not submit themselves to mis-identification nor do they willfully register themselves. There is no automation (for Joe CashRegister) to check the list and worse business are left with the difficult (and dangerous) task of validating a customers claim in cases of identification. The biggest danger of course is racial prejudice. We must make America free (I mean safe) for all Americans. The best solution of course is a national-id card. Anyone wishing to do commerce will simply need an inexpensive card reader and a phone/cell line or a connection to the internet. We'll make it easy to tie your bank/credit card accounts to to you ID card so those less secure/safe (and potentially illegal) methods of monetary transfers need not be used. Even yard-sales can be secured. We will of course need to be wary of anyone handling large amounts of cash. Fore those individuals are either fragrantly disregarding their civic duty to protect and uphold the laws of this country or they are simply an out and out criminal and/or terrorist.

Re:Once again, I'm glad to have an English surname

[CodeBuster]

This whole issue touches on a problem that I and others have long perceived with our current legal system and that is the presence of thousands of laws, most of which the average citizen is completely unaware of, that proscribe strict penalties for activities that well meaning and good intentioned citizens engage in on a regular basis (i.e. selling the sandwich to the personal on the "no fly list"). The unwritten rule, of course, is that these laws are invoked only as part of a larger prosecution when the state wants to, "throw the book", at someone, but there is always the threat that they *could* suddenly become arbitrarily enforced on otherwise law abiding citizens to which the authorities only offer the rather weak assurance of, "Trust us, we wouldn't do that to you. This law only applies to criminals." However, recent experience has given even the honest among us pause when that assurance is offered. The other problem inherent to these types of laws is that they engender a lesser respect for the law in general among the population due to the perceived arbitrary nature of the enforcement and that is a very dangerous road to go down for the sake of catching a few more criminals and, "throwing the book at them". The irony here is that through our continued attempts to "get tough on crime" we are increasingly sanctioning ourselves for living normal law abiding lives.

Re:Once again, I'm glad to have an English surname

[GiMP]

For many states, not wearing a seatbelt is a crime. If a cop pulls you over for this, can you really prove otherwise? Judges tend to the cop's side.

A cop *can* pull you over for driving out of a dealer's lot.