The U.S.'s Net Wide For 'Terrorist' Names 223
Several readers concentrated not just on the undesirability of government snooping on money transfers in the first place, but on the unintended but likely side-effects of heavy-handed government oversight of conventional money-transfer methods; as the AP article explained, there are ways to route around large-scale commercial services like Western Union, including informal networks called "hundis" or "hawalas." Reader quantaman calls increased control on conventional money-transfer services "worse than useless," writing:
"From what I can gather from the article this policy is actually harming security.... If law abiding people are avoiding official institutions what makes them think that terrorists are stupid enough to use them?
More than that, by driving additional people to the hawalas it circumvents existing security measures. For starters, it means that more money (even the legit stuff) is moving around and they have no idea where it went. Also the additional people using the hawalas will mean they are more developed for the terrorists [to] use them. Additionally, when you uncover a hawala network it will be that much harder to pick out the terrorists, since you've added all these false positives. And finally, for the terrorists who would have used official institutions in the past since it was easy and the hawalas weren't developed, now you no longer have a money trail you can inspect later on.
All this security measure does is inconvenience and alientate a whole bunch of people while making the world a little less safe."
No matter how legitimate the ends to which it will be put, high-handed interference with the transfer of money isn't popular for other reasons, too. Reader ColourlessGreenIdeas writes "I know of a charity that works with (mostly Christian) organisations in the West Bank. Their usual way of getting money to their partners is to fly into Israel with a big bundle of money. Otherwise it tends to get massively delayed by U.S. banks."
(And at least one reader points out reason to suspect that Western Union in particular might have been willing to turn over information on its customers even in the absence of Treasury regulations.)
The Treasury regulations on which the name-filtering is based are clearly imperfect, but not quite as simplistic as certain comments painted them. Responding to the claim in the AP article that "Western Union prevented [taxi driver Abdul Rahman Maruthayil] from sending $120 to a friend at home last month because the recipient's name was Mohammed," reader lecithin says "Not true. They prevented him from sending the cash because his name was Sahir Mohammed. A bit of a difference. Perhaps a Sahir Mohammed has some links to 'bad guys'? Well, it happens here in the U.S. too. There are plenty of stories regarding people being put on the 'do not fly' list due to circumstances like this as well."
Reader bwcarty, too, calls "FUD" on claims that the list is indiscriminant or exclusively targets those with Arab names, writing "I work for a division of a large financial firm, and we are required to download a list of Specially Designated Nationals from the Treasury Department and compare names from it against new accounts and transfers. The list includes lists of suspected terrorists, and they're not all Arabic (think Irish Republican Army)."
Reader rhsanborn offers a similar account of the regulations and why they affect one-time transfers so significantly:"... They aren't blocking people because they have some generic Arab name. They are blocking people who have names that match the Federal list of suspected terrorists. As someone mentioned above, something like Sahir Mohammed. Probably a perfect match for the list.We too have to run periodic checks against the names in that database. If a match comes up, we have people individually check other information to confirm that it is an actual match (e.g. same name, different birthday).
We have open accounts with these people though, so we have a significant amount of time to deal with these. Western Union has a very short period of time because it is a one time transaction that happens relatively quickly."
Several readers related personal experience with the no-fly list, and a few pointed out some of its better-known shortcomings, such as a Soundex-based name database which has the potential to needlessly flag passengers like Senator Ted Kennedy and the former Sex Pistol Johnny Lydon (though as dan828 points out, Lydon has never actually been stopped because of the list).
Many readers denounced as racist the use of common Arab names to justify interference in money transfers. One response to that claim comes from reader mrxak, who offers a more innocuous explanation, namely imperfect information and a limited pool of names, which will inevitably contain variations of commonly used names. Such a system, he argues, is therefore based on pragmatism — not necessarily racism." Arguing that a similar system would pose just as much risk for "John Smiths" on the list as for those with Arab names, mrxak concedes the need for "a better system," and asks "but what kind of system would work?"
To this, reader eln had a ready answer: "Maybe a system where you gather a little more information about suspected terrorists other than their name before throwing them on some sort of list that prevents anyone with that name from doing all sorts of normal tasks. ... [O]f all of the pieces of information that can be used to identify a person, his name is probably the one that's most easily falsified. So, instead of doing some actual police work and gathering some actual evidence against an actual person, we decide to cast a wide net, and end up catching a lot of innocent people while actually decreasing our chances of catching the actual bad guy."
Jah-Wren Ryel's answer to the same question is more radical -- Ryel suggests that perhaps "none at all" is the best approach. He asks "What makes you think that any system could work?" Rather than spending money on elaborate surveillance or other intelligence-gathering efforts, Ryel says, "spend it on emergency services instead. ... No matter how many tax dollars you throw at the problem, terrorism is a tactic that can not be fully countered." Rather than concentrating on the prevention of terrorist acts, he argues, the most intelligent use of resources is on "the infrastructure that minimizes the damage. Better hospitals, better fire departments, better 'first responder' teams. That way, we get the benefit of the money spent regardless of if a terrorist blows up a building or an earthquake knocks it down."
The Israeli response to recurring attacks illustrates that these approaches may be in large part reconcilable; infrastructure improvements and intelligence gathering can certainly coexist, details of their implementation aside. The effectiveness of the pre-emptive side of any nation's approach to minimizing terrorist attacks, though, is slightly different from its approach to "fighting terror" in a broad sense.
On that note, reader karlandtanya describes measures such as the U.S. policies subjecting what might otherwise be private financial transactions to automated scrutiny as "effective, but still unfair," categorizing the use of name-based interference as what Bruce Schneier has described as "security theater." Karlandtanya writes, cynically, that in reaction to perceived security threats, "we present the appearance of security measures. Going overboard and causing outrage is just part of the salesmanship." To combat terror in a literal sense, he writes, "[t]he solution is, of course, the perception of security."
Thanks to all the readers whose comments informed the conversation, in particular to those whose comments are quoted above.
Tracking names just doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this was supposed to be sarcastic.
BTW - WTF is a name that a terrorist wouldn't use?
My Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
Spam Filtering (Score:4, Insightful)
"If the message contains "Viagra" or "V1agra" or "V I A G R A" then block it."
"If name contains "*/? Muhammad" then block it."
Heuristics work much better. How soon before we create a "Terror Score" system akin to bayesian filter's "Spam Score"? It seems like similar mechanism at work here.
Can you say pay-pal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's all fine until a bomb goes off (Score:5, Insightful)
but what he's doing, NSA wiretaps, financial snooping, gitmo, pales in comparison to lincoln (suspending habeas corpusm, imposing martial law, attacking democratic party meetings, arresting congressmen, imprisoning several thousand, shutting down newspapers, arresting editors), wilson (sedition act, arrests of dissenters), or FDR (interment, shooting spies on sight, massive censorship).
Shouldn't we be trying to improve on the past rather than use it as an excuse to current practices. That's like saying the KKK isn't so bad cause the Nazis were worse.
Re:it's all fine until a bomb goes off (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of quoting Franklin, as some people have done here, I will instead argue this point. When the founders of this country came here, they knew their security was in jeopardy. They knew Britain was going to attack us. But did that stop them? No. They said, "everyone here has these rights, and we will not bend over for our oppressors." So standing for liberty, not simply tossing it at any opportune time to help our security, is what this country actually stands for.
By the way, let's crack down on murder instead of terrorism, since it's killed a hell of a lot more people.
Flaimebaiting... (Score:1, Insightful)
George W. Bush has neither committed, nor ordered to have committed a single Act of Terror. What you may be objecting to are his Acts of War, which are quite a different thing.
More likely, though, you are simply using the word "terrorist" as a slur...
Re:Spam Filtering (Score:3, Insightful)
Biology may not even need to come into the picture with perhaps the exception of highly-elusive felons or Osama-caliber criminals.
It's all very theoretical, but don't you hope their using your data to *avoid* the innocent, rather then arrest people for petty crimes with so much else going on?
Re:it's all fine until a bomb goes off (Score:4, Insightful)
When does this war end? Do I *ever* get my right to privacy back?
Before "the terorists win" became trendy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anthony 'Hub' Hubbard: Come on General, you've lost men, I've lost men, but you - you, you *can't* do this! What, what if they don't even want the sheik, have you considered that? What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!
Re:Flaimebaiting... (Score:2, Insightful)
One man's terrorism is another man's "spreading of democracy." According to the Wikipedia, the US defines terror as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). I suppose the keyword here is "unlawful." Congress gave him the authority to pursue by force those responsible for 9/11. If you presume his administration are so disconnected from reality they actually believed their reasons for going to war and that Saddam and Co. were the responsible party for 9/11, then you are right - he is not a terrorist. Otherwise, he lied for political and social reasons, and therefore the entire Iraqi war is an act of terror. So, Bush & Co. are either terrorists, or they are an incompetent bunch of chicken hawks. Either way, are these the guys you want in charge of defending the US? Excuse me, but I think a Korean missle just landed in the parking lot.
Re:Tracking names just doesn't work. (Score:1, Insightful)
The American government are currently fighting two major wars in foreign countries, mostly against people who had no problem with them before they were invaded. They have however now managed to piss these people off to such a degree that they are joining the terrorist ranks in their 1000s.
Thanks to the Patriot Act, and the general lawlessness of the various government agencies, their own citizens have fewer rights than most zoo animals.
That's quite a feat for a country which figured out powered flight, practical atomic energy and managed to put men on the moon.
Re:Flaimebaiting... (Score:2, Insightful)
BS. Any Act of War is "unlawful" according to the laws of the target. It is still an Act of War. Killing enemy troops qualifies. Destroying enemy's infrastructure qualifies — it has military purpose (actually, Clinton's bombing campaing against Serbia is a bit suspect, but I would not call it terrorism either).
Targeting enemy's civilians (like blowing up a pizza parlor, an office building, or a discotheque) does not qualify — it is an Act of Terror... It may be all, they can do — for whatever reason, but Acts of Terror those still are.
Oh, it is laws of the acting side, that you are concerned about? Well, then, none of those suicide bombers, the Bali-bombing planners, nor, indeed, the 9/11 perpetrators are terrorists, because whatever cause they were answering to gave them fully qualified permission and encouragement to commit these Acts.
Do not change the subject. Wipe your mouth.
Re:Flaimebaiting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Normal person: "So the U.S. kills civilians entirely by accident?"
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "Nobody knew that any of these people were going to die?"
Conservative: "Oh, we knew. There is always collateral damage in war."
Normal person: "So you knew that innocent people were going to die... and then you went in and killed them just like you expected... by accident."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "Tens of thousands of them, more innocent civilians than combatants."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "But the 'enemy,' they're terrorists because they mean to kill innocents."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "And you're not because even though you knew you would and you went in and did it anyway, you didn't really mean it."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "For you, killing all these innocents is just holding the banner of right and freedom on high. Not at all like the terrorists."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "And you're sure that whomever remains among that population is going to love you for it, rather than want to kill you for it."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "Because you killed their family knowingly... erm... by accident... er... without meaning to... I mean... It was nothing personal, you didn't mean specifically to kill them, and you're totally sorry that they're dead, you promise (and who doesn't take a promise from an American?) and really, the terrorists would never be so kind, humanitarian, or enlightened. You're totally different from them."
Conservative: "Yes."
Normal person: "So you approve of the war in Iraq, the job that Bush has done as president, and measures that seek to crack down on Muslims all around the world, and if a few innocent ones have to die in the process, it's great, because Bush is great and even though you know bad things will happen to good people, it's... by accident. Merely a just war. Not terrorism."
Conservitive: "Yes."
Re:Flaimebaiting... (Score:4, Insightful)
2) What is happening in iraq is not war. It's occupation. The war was over when saddam was captured and the stated reason (getting rid of tyrannical rules) was over.
3) no matter how you look at it the war is illegal. MOST of the brightest legal minds of our country and the world have come to that conclusion.
And beefore you say it. There is very little difference between purposfully targeting civillians and indiscrimately shooting knowing that innocent civillians will die.
Oh and one last thing. Torture, rape, and murder are wrong, even when they happen in "war".
Re:Flaimebaiting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Before you go on with the "illegal war" rants, I advise you to search hard for UNSC resolution(s) condemning it as such...
I'm sorry, but that's just a ridiculous, impossible standard. Security Council resolution? USA is ON the security council. Permanently. With a VETO . It's kind of like demanding that a rape victim go get an affidavit from their attacker confessing the crime before they can go to trial.
And there I was all agreeing with you, till you pulled that.
Re:Have you done a traceroute lately? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would never advocate violence. I am trying to bring the issue to peoples attention at least, the more people aware of the issue the better. I don't live in the US, and I don't think a similar thing could happen in the county I live in..
public awareness and opinion is a powerful tool..
Re:Flaimebaiting... (Score:3, Insightful)
The word "terrorism" is given too wide a use - it can be applied to a twelve year old with a small rock, which is just as irrelevant and silly as using it against a US President. Oddly enough a jewish settler that goes mad and shoots twenty people in a mosque is put in perspective and labelled as a common criminal - just what the kid with a rock should be called if he manages to actually hurt someone instead of being labelled "terrorist" by a right wing government that tortures people looking for an excuse for a land grab.