Terror Watchlist "Crippled By Technical Flaws" 324
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The database used by the government to generate lists like the No-Fly List is 'crippled by technical flaws,' according to the chairman of a House technology oversight subcommittee. And the upgrade may be worse than the original. Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) says that 'if actually deployed, [the upgrade] will leave our country more vulnerable than the existing yet flawed system in operation today.' It seems that the current database doesn't have any easy way to do plain-text matching, forcing users to enter SQL queries. That might not sound so bad until you learn that the database contains 463 poorly indexed tables. How long until there's a terrorist named Robert'); DROP DATABASE; —?"
That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that's what happened in the justice department - is that true of other departments?
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the modus operandi of this administration, I'd be very surprised if this weren't a widespread practice.
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, boy, are you in for a shock. They dunk you in Holy Water. If you drown, you're hired on the spot. Otherwise, you're a terrorist, and they shoot you.
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cynicism is cute and all, but don't let it impair perceiving the world. Regarding the hiring policies for non-political-appointees at justice, previous administrations (of both parties) did NOT in fact do what this one did.
Sure, politicians in general, suck. But don't let your depression about this prevent you from noticing when some of them suck considerably harder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oddly enough changing lackeys can in fact change things. For example whilst they might both be corrupt, the more intelligent group remains aware that you don't fuck up the system when attempting to extract as much money out of it for yourself otherwise the system collapses and there is a whole lot less money to be made.
The other group represents the ignorant pigs at the trough, idiot children in a candy store or basically the sociopaths. Those whose greed destroys the system they are pillaging as they sh
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Err... yes. Just FEMA, the CIA, and nearly every other major department. Bush's loyalty test brought us the Katrina aftermath fiasco, and mass resignations at the CIA. He even tried to appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court. As they say, "sh-t flows down-hill." When the man in charge is a complete moron, the entire government suffers.
Sorry, you were probably making a joke. A lot of us on this forum don't get sarcasm as easily as we should.
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Informative)
I was intrigued! You gave me the info I wanted to google with - Mass CIA resignations lead me to this [washingtonpost.com]
I had no idea how bad it was. Retrospectively, the bashing the CIA got seems stupid considering the impossibility of what they have to accomplish... not just now, but after pissing off most of the world in the last 8 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As they say, "sh-t flows down-hill."
Nah. it much too often floats at the top.
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's what happens when.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah! I fail to see the problem here. So, due to design flaws the terrorist watch list is difficult to do searches on. Maybe they can just get the California Cobol [slashdot.org] programmers to fix it.
I fail to see how the terrorist watch list is ANY different from the communist black list of the 60s. All it takes to get put on there is a neighbor that doesn't like you. In order to get taken off, an agent has to be assigned to your case and you have to be investigated so that they are sure you're not a terrorist. With the current size of the list, good luck with that.
CNN has had several articles in the last few weeks dealing with the terrorist watch list. My favorite was about three people named "James Robinson" [cnn.com]. The article mentions that one of the Jameses would just get tickets using the first name "Jim" and he wouldn't be hassled. Another would just run his first and middle name together and it wouldn't get flagged. Of note from that article, "The TSA has said the problem lies with the airlines and threatened to fine airlines that tell passengers they are on the watch list." Yeah. Wow. They're trying to make it illegal to tell someone why they're being held and discomforted. If you don't want the information to get out, don't share it. Keep it to yourself.
Article V says, "[you can't be] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." This list deprives liberty (and sometimes property) and is missing a key element.
Article XI says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others by the people." Isn't that EXACTLY what's happening?
Robert'); DROP DATABASE; â" (Score:2, Funny)
xkcd. [xkcd.com] Always relevant.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Robert'); DROP DATABASE; (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the comic, it's "DROP TABLE." In the summary, it's "DROP DATABASE."
I wonder if I'm the only SQL noob who had to look up the "drop database" command to see that indeed it is valid?
Granted, not everyone gets to play with their first database with the rights to even use the 'drop database' command...
Re:Robert'); DROP DATABASE; (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if I'm the only SQL noob who had to look up the "drop database" command to see that indeed it is valid?
Why look it up when you can test it out for yourself?
Re:Robert'); DROP DATABASE; â" (Score:5, Funny)
I think you mean Little Ahmed Tables.
Re:Robert'); DROP DATABASE; â" (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Silence!
I kill you!
I, for one, welcome our meme neutralizing slashdot (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you (which is, in fact, my favourite meme.)
It'll all work itself out ... (Score:5, Funny)
The amount of people they want to include on their "t3rr0rz l1zt" it'll only be a matter of time before we have
Osama Bin CREATE INDEX;
and
Saddam OPTIMIZE TABLE;
Then everything will be hunk dory again.
Re:It'll all work itself out ... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I think the SQL 2012 standard only supports the short form, "SADDAMIZE TABLE".
Re:It'll all work itself out ... (Score:5, Funny)
Saddam OPTIMIZE TABLE
Actually, I think the SQL 2012 standard only supports the short form, "SADDAMIZE TABLE".
Not to be confused with the more penetrative command SOD... nevermind.
Re:It'll all work itself out ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget the Chinese terrorist
TRANSLATION ERROR
Number of tables (Score:5, Interesting)
That might not sound so bad until you learn that the database contains 463 poorly indexed tables.
This is not a good measure of how good or bad a database is. Its good to have a table for every type of data and every data type. Read about normalization. You can go overboard, but as long as your database is designed well, having 463 tables might be just fine.
I say this because once I heard consultant say something like "This web application shouldn't need more than 40 tables, when in fact they didn't know much about the details of the web app, which were quite sophisticated and the real application had more than 100 tables."
Number of tables, no Poorly indexed (Score:5, Insightful)
Data integrity? (Score:3, Interesting)
Please do explain how data INTEGRETY is affected by the way you define indexes, as opposed to the ways in which you have denormalized tables for performance.
From the article, it would be good to see an explanation of just what they mean by "poorly indexed". That seems much more likely to refer to the need for more indexes for faster search results, rather than indexes done badly...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A table has to have a primary key and foreign/unique columns are both keys and as such, double as indexes. What the GP was talking about was how would actual indexes affect data integrity and the answer is, they don't. Having or not having indexes set up in your database will only help with the speed of queries and has nothing to do with data integrity. For example, if you are calling Name, DOB, and Address anytime you scan for a match, if you do not have an ind
Re:Number of tables, no Poorly indexed (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, so create the indexes then. What's up with you all, this is elementary stuff...a few hours creating the required indexes.
Fixing or even working on, an application and database developed without proper indexes (and foreign keys) is a real pain in the butt, and fraught with 'danger'.
You lot are carrying on as if it's Y2K
Hey, Y2k was 'just' changing a two digit year to a four digit year. By what seems like your standards there shouldn't any 'work' behind that either. Just because it's easy to say, doesn't mean that it's easy to do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> This is not a good measure of how good or bad a database is.
Oh yes it is.
In order for a database to be USEFUL, you need to query it. If you can't
query the database because of the way that it's laid out or indexed then
it is infact broken.
400+ tables for an identity resolution database is absurd. There are MUCH
better ways to account for all sorts of bizzarre types of identifying
information.
This database probably isn't properly normalized either. With 400+ tables
and a simple problem you would think that a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? So, we need the SSN or DL number of Osama bin Laden now?
Name searching, as weird as it may sound to some DB people, is one of the most reliable ways to match record to person. Sure, you *want* to have additional information to know that you have the correct Sammy Smith, but you have to start with the name.
Of course, this is aside the fact that DNFL was a stupid idea. An idea brought as a *reaction* to 9/11 so politicians could point at it and say how much they are protecting the public. A list that in
Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Interesting)
One could wonder whether the project was set up to adress terrorism OR it was setup to generate media-attention ?
Both (Score:5, Interesting)
One could wonder whether the project was set up to adress terrorism OR it was setup to generate media-attention ?
It was both and then some.
I'm trying to find the link of the guy who started this BS. It was a private citizen who, IIRC, was the one who was involved with Choicepoint. He wrote some code and his algorithm pulled up most of the 9/11 hijackers and then some. He had some false positives even then, but it was the Government's wet dream and it solved some of their problems (such as that pesky little Constitutional problem of spying on Americans. It's OK if a private company does it -Choicepoint.) and it makes great security theater and it creates some big fat Governemtn contracts for some big fat cats with Government connections.
Need more caffeine and I'm getting tons of false hits from Google trying to find the cite - it is over 7 years old, ya know.
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
C) Keep the terror level level artificially high.
http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/programs/Copy_of_press_release_0046.shtm [dhs.gov]
The United States government's national threat level is Elevated, or Yellow.
The U.S. threat level is High, or Orange, for all domestic and international flights.
So for the rest of you its only Yellow, but if your flying, its Orange!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, duh. The sky is blue, and when you're flying, you're closer to the sky. yellow + blue = orange.
[For you armchair optical physicists: I'm talking about color mixing at high altitude. Your classroom yellow + blue = brown doesn't work up there, because of sunspots.]
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whats sad about all this, is it never ever ever will get on green, If every single terrorist in the world was wiped out, it might, might get down to Blue, but I doubt it. Personally I'm shocked to find its at yellow.
Terrorism measures and the TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
One could wonder whether the project was set up to adress terrorism OR it was setup to generate media-attention ?
I work at an airport, in administration, and trust me when I say this has very little to do with dark political conspiracies, and a lot to do with the government's haste to show they were "doing something" after 9/11. This project was quickly rushed into service, and has been widely reviled by airports and airport police departments across the country. And other similar measures... the current background check process for giving access to secured areas, and the very creation of TSA itself, were all measures to reassure the public that something was getting done. The problem is that government enterprises like these tend to become bipartisan boondoggles, with every state and major city wanting a piece of the political and funding action these things entail. Federal agencies tend to become monsters that need to justify their own existence by constant growth. TSA in particular is quickly becoming a large federal law enforcement agency, not just a baggage security team. When they were first set up, several of their nascent teams moved and basically tried to take control of several airports... I know of one major southern airport where they simply showed up one day, declared that a series of offices now belonged to them, and when the airport director came down to see what was going on, they tried to have him arrested by his own police force for "violating federal facilities". Anyone that works with AAAE members (airport execs group) knows what incident I'm talking about.
Did you know that TSA will now be issued police-like blue uniforms, with metal badges, just like cops? Airport police and the metropolitan police departments that supplement them just looooove that, and there's the inevitable talk of actually giving said TSA agents firearms. Unlike some other police departments, TSA agents are being encouraged to wear their uniforms and badges in their spare time, in order to enhance the agency's "visibility" to the public. There are already jokes that TSA SWAT teams are inevitable at airports. The problem is, the laughter doesn't last very long when we realize that the way things are going, that might not be a joke so much as a prediction of the future.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I work at an airport, in administration, and trust me when I say this has very little to do with dark political conspiracies, and a lot to do with the government's haste to show they were "doing something" after 9/11.
I didn't need an airport administrator to tell me that this is all just Security Theater, but thanks for the confirmation just the same.
Did you know that TSA will now be issued police-like blue uniforms, with metal badges, just like cops? Airport police and the metropolitan police departments t
Re:Large Systems are Hard (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, you're not allowed to create an unnecessary and disruptive large system and then pull the excuse that "large systems are hard!" when it fails badly.
If DHS created a program with a goal of kicking every single American citizen square in the nuts, and that program ended up being fraught with budget overruns, cases of mistaken identity, citizens getting kicked square in the nuts twice, some citizens not getting kicked square in the nuts at all, and people complained about the system, would you stand up and say "don't criticize them too much, large systems are hard"?
A sane person should say that TSA does a pointless job in a worthless manner, and this, not the fact that it's a "large system", is the root of the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Interesting)
I like the idea of having a fly at your own risk airline where you can just "risk it" and not have all these so called "protections". I bet it would put the airlines with the TSA out of business in a week.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I like the idea of having a fly at your own risk airline where you can just "risk it" and not have all these so called "protections". I bet it would put the airlines with the TSA out of business in a week.
Thinking of joining the air force?
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Interesting)
That could work.
Risk it airlines, where there are no security checks to get on board and the only security measures are to detect when a plane has been hijacked and once confirmed a killswitch is activated to simply blow it out of the sky. Might have to pay the pilots more but I'd travel on one of those.
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mythbusters disproved the "hole in the plane causes explosive decompression" myth.
From http://mythbustersresults.com/episode10 [mythbustersresults.com] :
So you could theoretically have armed people on the plane shooting at terrorists and not causing huge problems if they miss. (Well, except for passengers that get in the way.)
I think the best solution is to lock the pilot's door before boarding. Then the pilots are instructed to not open the door under any circumstances. If terrorists threaten to kill passengers, the pilots are to land the plane and won't be held accountable for any deaths that result. After all, giving into the demands to open the door and turn over control of the plane could mean the death of all on board as well as people on the ground. The pilot's door should also be bullet-proof (in case a weapon is smuggled on board).
El Al does this (in addition to other security measures) and they haven't had a single hijacking even though they're a huge target.
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No need to go that far. Two Marine Staff Sargent's would keep everyone in their place. Maybe three or four for the larger planes.
'Maggot! Sit down and shut up! Now!'
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Funny)
This airline is sounding better and better. Kill switches to blow it up in midair, marines to put passengers in their place. I can see someone running with this idea and making a fortune, and to think we were part of the thread that first hatched the idea.
My addition to this would be that to ensure the safety of people on the ground the planes in this hypothetical airline shouldn't be allowed to actually take off, but should instead hug the ground throughout the flight, perhaps on some sort of stabilizing rail, or a magnetic hover track. We might even build a system for running these planes across North America.
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was outsourced. Near the bottom of TFA it says that some of the money was used to renovate a building owned by Boeing.
Its amazing just how many "government screwups" are actually caused by politicians outsourcing to their buddies in private industry (with little to no penalties for failing to deliver what was promised), and have nothing to do with the abilities of actual government employees.
There's actually quite a few smart IT folks in government, but they're not the ones who make decisions on who to outsource this stuff to. In fact, most of them would probably rather build a team and do it In-House, since that way you build up the knowledge internally and can more easily support it later.
So please don't blame government employees for something that Boeing screwed up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really. So, all private industry is automatically good, or would you care to qualify that statement? The free market has failure modes, you know. Perhaps you've heard of natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities?
Re:Why Would You Expect Otherwise? (Score:5, Funny)
Really. So, all private industry is automatically good, or would you care to qualify that statement? The free market has failure modes, you know. Perhaps you've heard of natural monopoly, imbalance of information, and externalities?
Hear that noise? It's the sound of thousands of libertarians plugging their ears and yelling "LA LA LA" as loud as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Believe it or not but there are some good applications out there in the government. I worked on a Naval base for a year as a contractor and was fortunate enough to work on a really kick ass PHP application. I can't tell you what it was, but to this day it was the best web application I've seen as far as security, design, functionality and sophistication goes. I think it was over 130,000 lines of code and was written by 2 guys over 3 years. I learned a lot from working on that application. So there are
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Miller also alleged that some of the $500 million spent on Railhead already had been improperly used to renovate a facility owned by contractor Boeing."
Its easy to waste a lot of money when a department that has a virtually unlimited budget outsources with little to no oversight.
We had similar problems in Canada with the Long Gun Registry, which was a dumb idea to begin with. Then they outsourced it. All told it cost more then $1 billion to set up, and didn't work properly at first. (It does work now, thou
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the first person (Score:4, Funny)
Are you sure thats possible, I thought Microsoft Access Databases were invulnerable?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
invulnerable and inaccessible go hand in hand yes.
It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's crippled by being a moronic concept in the first place ("You've got the wrong name and _maybe_ the wrong date of birth, and you're not flying.") and an absolutely arbitrary process of putting names on the list, and no way of ever getting a name off the list.
Fix those points first, and _then_ worry about technical details.
Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, come on! We all know to be terrified of letting 5-year-olds onto the plane [king5.com] (video). If they share a name, they're bound to share ideologies. And what better place to hide explosives than in a shitty diaper?
And that kid was only wanted by the INS! I can just imagine the hillarity ensuing when they clear an airport because another kid "made a stink bomb" in his diaper - we all know how much the TSA loves words like those.
Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So do you wear diapers on transatlantic flights too? You know, in case of accidents.
Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, the Terrorist Watch List Database contains about 400,000 unique persons, of which the remainder represents known aliases. This is the so-called "green light" list, with no restrictions on them whatsoever. The "yellow light" list is much smaller, about 10,000 unique persons, and only subjects these people to desk check-ins and special searches. The *actual* No Fly list (the "red light" list) is itself a small fraction of that, perhaps 1,000 people at the most.
Add that to the fact that Congress is starting to mandate some sanity checks and ways to be removed from the list, I could see this someday being useful... just not today.
Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently Nelson Mandela was on the list, until the fact was embarrasingly publicized and he was finally removed.
So, easy solution - if you don't want to be bothered by the no fly list then change your name to Nelson Mandela...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If employees of the TSA can't sort out when someone, like a 6 year old boy, is not the right person named on the terror list, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH A REAL TERRORIST?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but the list is used for political dissidents too, not just terrorists or dangerous criminals.
ZOMG NO! The promised that they'd only use DHS/TSA authority to combat terrorism! They pinky swore!
If you can't trust a government pinky-swear, what can you trust? Man, I'm so disillusioned.
Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:5, Funny)
But hey, it's not that bad! After all, since all terrorists use their real names when flying, it is sure to catch them all.
Ever wonder why no suicide bomber has been able to strike twice? It's because of the no-fly-list, I tell you!
Re:It's _not_ crippled by technical flaws. (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, since all terrorists use their real names when flying, it is sure to catch them all.
The irony of your post is that most of the perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks in the West had valid ID and were, in many cases, citizens of the country they attacked. Even with all the intrusive surveillance, vast databases and draconian security measures, they still got through, just by keeping a low profile until they were ready to attack. Which tells you exactly how much measures like the list we're talking about are actually worth in practice...
Size Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Quel Surprise ! (Score:2)
Film at eleven !
*gasp!* (Score:2, Informative)
it may have been a good idea, but the implementation was horrible, come on....
"Technical Flaws" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure you can call having names on the list matching 1/3 of the population of the earth a "technical flaw".
What they really need to do to make it useful is get it down to perhaps a couple thousand real concerns.
Ethics vs. results? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the question that comes to mind for me is this: what if I were a database architecture guru who had been asked to build this system (or its replacement)? At first, my thought is that I'd refuse on grounds of my opposition to the whole thing...but now I'm suddenly wondering if some of the better options did just that, and then it got designed and built by the knob who would take the job. Unlikely, sure, but it's something that I've never thought about before. Is the ethical cost of not doing something like this (that's going to get done anyways one way or another) when you're the right guy for the job potentially higher than the ethical cost of doing it?
Are these names on the list... (Score:5, Funny)
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/snl-funny-terrorist-names/4040669571 [aol.com]
"M'balz es-Hari"
"Haid D'Salaami"
"Mustaf Herod Apyur Poupr"
"Usuqa M'diq"
"Hous bin Phartin"
"I'zheet m'drawrz"
The lists. (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine is the security manager for a fairly large company. They have offices all over the world and business in many countries. He tells me that there are at least three "terrorist" lists. The EU list, the UN list and the US list. They are listed from poor to really shitty.
If a person or a company is on either of these lists then they aren't allowed to do business with them as they are suspected terrorists r terrorist backers.
The US list can contain things like "Muhammad, Saudi Arabia", or "Iqbal, Pakistan".
The lists are of no use to them and impossible to follow, but they are required to do so or risk sanctions from EU or the US.
Happy times!
463 tables? (Score:3, Interesting)
Having designed a couple of poorly-designed databases myself, I can understand how this can happen.
What I don't understand is why the hell there are 463 tables in this thing?
I mean, what all information do they need in there? Names, maybe a list of known addresses, social security numbers, phone numbers, other identifying information?
Perhaps a reason why they're on the watchlist at all? List of evidence putting them there? Political activities they've been involved in, letters to congress they've written? Types of books they've checked out of the library?
Maybe a list of all flights they've taken, and notes on how much trouble they've given to the TSA people when going through the checkpoints?
OK, that's three tables. What on earth are the other 460 for??
Who built it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Was this built in-house or by a contractor?
I ask, because I've been involved with government contracting work, specifically for the FAA. One aspect of the relationship I've repeatedly seen is private business' efforts to cripple the in-house engineering and software expertise of government agencies they do business with. We'd hire their key people away and call the legislators we owned to get funding for in-house projects killed just to drive the work out to us. Once the agency fell on its face a few times, political pressure would grow to quit wasting money and contract it out. To us. For big money.
Back when I was still in that biz, the Australian government's equivalent of the FAA, CASA, had undertaken a project to build some advanced air traffic control systems in-house. The attitude of our management was rage. "If this had been the United States, we'd have had them shut down."
If you need work done fast, you need people who can do it on the inside. Even if it goes out for contract, you've got to get the requirements written down correctly.
So, it doesn't work... (Score:3, Insightful)
...and yet despite it's failure to protect us, we have not been attacked.
Perhaps, just perhaps, this is evidence that it is not necessary?
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:5, Funny)
Because theres' nothing a non-USian can learn in such a "story", except that US-ians are teh morons.
Hold on, that's not true! In this story, we learn that the terrorist watch list is not only a bad idea, but it is poorly implemented!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Because theres' nothing a non-USian can learn in such a "story", except that US-ians are teh morons.
Hold on, that's not true! In this story, we learn that the terrorist watch list is not only a bad idea, but it is poorly implemented!
I think he may have been trying to indicate that we already knew that. Even more so, that pretty much everyone in the world already knew that.
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since he flew a lot for work, the unfortunate consequence was being FULLY searched EVERY time he went through the airport. He finally called up the TSA once and told them, "How about I just come into your office. If I am your man, ARREST ME! If I'm not, then get me off of this list!" to which they responded, "I'm sorry sir, but it doesn't work that way."
All in all, it took him over 3 years to finally get his name off. I think the criteria for being on the terror watch list are pretty well summed up here:
-If you have the same name, initials or hair color as a felon, you're on the list.
-If you've ever lived withing a 5 mile radius of a felon, you're on the list.
-If you've ever flown on an airline that a terrorist has ever attacked before, you're on the list. and finally.
-If airport security is bored, you're on the list.
Any thoughts?
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:5, Funny)
I just put you on the list.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure he'll not be missed.
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:5, Interesting)
My uncle had a similar experience to your relative when he was returning from Jamaica (he was there for his anniversary). He had the exact name (middle too) of a wanted felon and was detained in customs for hours before they finally figured out he was from the other side of the country as his evil name-twin. As he pointed out at the time, "If I was the person they were looking for, would I be quite so stupid as to travel under my real name with genuine IDs in my name?" It's not like the guy was just "suspected"...he was pretty much a known criminal/fugitive.
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:4, Interesting)
...when the watch list hit 1,000,000 names...
Holy crap...that's like one in three hundred Americans on the watch list. Think about that for a second. This means on any given airliner, chances are the government considers at least one of your fellow passengers a person of interest.
Me thinks the signal to noise ratio of this list is mighty, mighty low (not that I expected much, but still, 1:300).
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:5, Insightful)
-If you have the same name, initials or hair color as a felon, you're on the list.
-If you've ever lived withing a 5 mile radius of a felon, you're on the list.
Any thoughts?
It takes more than just being a felon.
I have a felony conviction (non-violent). I've flown 3 times since being discharged from parole and haven't run into any difficulties at the airports.
There are many different types of felonies. Many felons are, indeed, very very bad people. However, I personally know several convicted felons who I would trust to babysit my children, or loan money to. Most of the people I know in that category got their felony convictions as a result of substance abuse issues and have since cleaned up their act.
Just wanted to point out that having a felony conviction doesn't necessarily mean somebody is an evil person.
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:5, Funny)
Just wanted to point out that having a felony conviction doesn't necessarily mean somebody is an evil person.
... nah, it just means that they didn't have a very good lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So I'm guessing their Access database just looks like this:
ID | First | Last
I guess they just took KISS way too far.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They also thought there was a comma and that it was hiring advice: "Keep it simple, stupid".
Re:is this "obvious news day" again? (Score:5, Informative)
My co-workers 2 year old Daughter was on the list. It took 4 years to get her name removed.
It must have been her evil plot to drop a bomb in her diaper.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well let me give you my personal experience about it. I have a relative named "David Hall." Pretty common name huh? Well he was put on the terror watch list years ago because there is a suspicious person named David Hall. He was able to determine that the person they were after was many years older, had a different birthdate, SSN, and even lived in a state he had never been in.
Since he flew a lot for work, the unfortunate consequence was being FULLY searched EVERY time he went through the airport. He finall
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The worst part is that the government hasn't figured out that some contractors, with few exceptions, are just routinely bad and should be avoided at all costs.
What makes you think they haven't figured it out? There is good money, bad money, corrupt money, etc ... but the best type of money is *my* money, ie money in my hand. Frankly, if I was purchasing something that's of no benefit to me I'd hardly bother with quality, I'd just like to keep as much money in my hands as possible.
For example *ahem* if I was forced to purchase something (say, furniture) for ex-wife after she moved out, why would I bother spending money on anything more than patio chairs and a p
Re:More wasted money! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure somebody at the Justice Department decided that this database should be easy to build ("It's just a list!"), and rather than bring in some professionals to design it, they slapped it together on their own.
If you'd bother reading the report, available at http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/Staff_Memo_toBM_terror_watch_8.21.08.pdf [house.gov], you'd see that Boeing is responsible for the current system. So, yes, a private professional company, employing experienced DBAs is responsible for the current system. If you'd spent much time consulting for private industry you'd know that this sort of thing isn't unique to the government. It's just that it's much more likely to come to light if it's a government project. I've seen many examples in private industry where companies, large and small, end up in the same same bind. This is what happens when rapidly evolving requirements are shoehorned into databases whose original designs could never have anticipated those requirements. Projects like this don't have scope creep so much as scope leap. Software messes that are difficult to migrate almost invariably occur.
Re:Oh hey (Score:5, Interesting)
I was for a while. I apparently got taken off of it a few months before they publicly admitted its existence.
It was fun. During my time on it, I flew 37 times. I got "randomly" selected for the extra search all 37 times. I ran the numbers for a TSA agent once who insisted it was purely random, and came up with something like one in a few hundred quintillion chance of that actually happening if it was truly random. Still failed to convince the agent it was not, though.
It was great when I had to fly out of LAX. Unlike most airports, that one had a special line for the special searches. So, instead of standing in line for an hour and a half to walk through the metal detector in ten seconds like most people, I waited in line for five minutes, then spent another 2-3 getting searched.
Most airports made me wait in line with the non-terrorists, though.
I'm still not sure what it was that got me on the list, whether it was carrying a knife onto the plane, twice, or the rather obvious joke I made while taking off my shoes. ("It's a good thing that that guy didn't put the bomb in his underwear").
Did you know that it's illegal to even say the word "bomb" in an airport? TSA explained this to me at great length that day.
(The knife, by the way, was a cub scout pocket knife, and it had already been through three searches without being noticed. Four if you count my checking the bag before I left to make sure I didn't leave anything in it.)
Anyway, at some point I got dropped off the list. I don't know why. Maybe it got too full, or maybe they decided that after 37 flights I wasn't a threat, or perhaps they were cleaning up the database before they publicly admitted its existence.
Before I dropped off of it, though, I purchased one-way tickets for a couple of friends who'd helped me move to another state. (We drove out, they flew back). They've both been pulled over for the extra "random" searches now, too.