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.'"

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

[elrous0]

I hear Pablo Escobar of Flushing, NY hasn't been able to get a car loan since 9-11.

But seriously, what really sucks about this list is that it has never been widely publicized. A would venture to guess that the VAST majority of businesses in the U.S. have never even heard of it, yet could find themselves doing business with someone on it, even in a minor capacity (and facing jail time as a result).

At the other, equally disturbing, end of the spectrum, we have even tiny businesses facing the possibility of just having to completely block out anyone on it (since they don't have the time or resources to verify if this is *THE* Hassad Al-Gurandi), locking many innocent people out of even the most basic business transaction. The law puts the burden of verification almost completely on businesses themselves, leaving them little alternative. The Treasury Department, when asked about this, ducks out of it with a lame "Hey, call the guys who made the screening software, not us."

The Treasury Dept. needs to either own up to this or abolish it. If they're going to have this, they need to provide an easy, quick way to both verify someone on it and and equally easy way to get off it, if you are wrongly included.

Right now it sounds like yet another law the government can threaten businesses with, even if they've never even heard of it. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse. But when the government is knowingly hiding the laws, it should be.

online services

[aalu.paneer]

Does this mean that {free} online services based out of US, like gmail.com, youtube.com, slashdot.org too have to screen users requesting an account soon?

Don't give up your SSN!

[MalleusEBHC]

I bought a car about 6 months ago, and I ran into this. Even though I was paying straight cash, they demanded my SSN so they could run a credit report. They said that they needed to run a credit report to see if I was on this list. I argued with them that I was paying cash, they didn't needed my SSN, etc., but it was late and I eventually relented just to keep the process moving. I had never heard of the list before, so I wasn't very prepared to put up a good argument. Later when I got home I found that the list was online. That made me even more angry, both at the dealership and at myself for not knowing better.

Don't give up your SSN to people who don't need it!

Re:Yankee doodle dandy

[Moggyboy]

That's exactly the sort of response I would expect. Although there's no mention of the list being of exclusively Arabic-sounding names, YOUR immediate assumption is that that's what it is. Or insert-whatever-the-TV-says-the-current-world-evil -is sounding names.

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

[mikael]

Britain had a similar privately maintained list for companies and people - it was the just about the only database that was stored on paper (a legal loophole allowed databases stored on paper to be exempt from data protection laws). The only problem was that Conservative company directors kept putting their business rivals on the list. One tabloid newspaper highlighted this by attending an annual conference and giving business owners their database details for ten pounds (then watching the resulting chain-reaction).

Having (almost) done business with someone...

[GiMP]

My business was contacted over a year ago by an organization on this list, looking to purchase web hosting. They had provided a credit card and it was automatically authorized. (but funds were not captured) I recognized the website as being that of a rebellion army listed by the USA and the EU as being a terrorist organization. They were at the time being hosted with another US-based company.

I had thought that providing services to them would be a double-edged sword. I did not have any particular interest in hosting a terrorist site, but I do not believe in censorship. Additionally, I suspected that such sites would be a good source of information for their enemies. (such as the US) On the other hand, there could be a legal danger of providing such services. Having myself worked for another hosting company that had itself hosted Al Qaeda's website during 9/11, I knew that this was no laughing matter.

Concerned, I contacted Homeland Security and the Department of Defence, which referred me to the FBI. The FBI expressed interest in this enough to have me speak with an agent via telephone. They requested to meet me in person, but due to string of bank robberies, they didn't have the time to follow through, and finally told me (by phone) that they had no problem with my company accepting money from this organization and providing services to them.

In the end, I thought it was too risky, only having a verbal confirmation of such, and decided to reject this customer. It was a few months afterwards, that I discovered this list, which was never mentioned to me by any of the discussed government agencies. At that time, I was happy to have rejected the business, but was angry that I was mislead into believing that I could safely conduct business with that organization.

In this case, I had gone through all the official channels I thought were neccessary and wise, and yet, if I had followed their advice, I would have been breaking the law! Heck, just by corresponding with these people, I likely broke some law or another. I'm quite certain at this point, that by running a small-business, esspecially online, you're just asking for reasons to be put into Guantanamo. Not that they need reasons, anymore.

At no time was I told that I shouldn't discuss this matter, so I assume that I'm free to do so, although I probably shouldn't make such assumptions.