Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the suspect-wears-a-funny-hat dept.

United States 242

Advocatus Diaboli sends this report: The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither "concrete facts" nor "irrefutable evidence" to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept. ...The heart of the document revolves around the rules for placing individuals on a watchlist. "All executive departments and agencies," the document says, are responsible for collecting and sharing information on terrorist suspects with the National Counterterrorism Center. It sets a low standard—"reasonable suspicion"—for placing names on the watchlists, and offers a multitude of vague, confusing, or contradictory instructions for gauging it. In the chapter on "Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria"—even the title is hard to digest—the key sentence on reasonable suspicion offers little clarity.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

McCarthyism v2.0 (5, Insightful)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about a month ago | (#47518275)

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (1, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a month ago | (#47518457)

No idea how you're modded a troll, but fuck anybody who did.

This is actually worse.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (3, Interesting)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a month ago | (#47519277)

These days, you don't even have to be a dirty commie, or Chinese, or both, to be Anti-American; the Commander-in-Chief hisself is one.

How does the current POTUS fair ... (5, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a month ago | (#47519443)

These days, you don't even have to be a dirty commie, or Chinese, or both, to be Anti-American; the Commander-in-Chief hisself is one

I can't help but wonder if Obama's own dossier is to go through the same expanded terrorist watchlist system would Obama be labeled as one of the terrorists?

Especially when neither "concrete facts" nor "irrefutable evidence" is required

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about a month ago | (#47519433)

Simple, it's the same people who get into a hissy fit whenever someone posts something that's contrary to their view of the world. The group think on /. is thick, and the site is screaming in decline as noticed by the lack of comments on topics and poor commenting.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a month ago | (#47518463)

Worse, really - even McCarthyism required some sort of evidence by way of associations, party memberships, and etc.

In this case, you don't even get that.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518549)

Right out of the East German playbook. Suspect everyone & have all neighbors fink on everyone else to generate mind numbing paranoia.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month ago | (#47519317)

The East German parallel is intriguing I'll admit, but the former DDR was literally using an abacus for math compared to the power and omnipotence of current electronic data collection.

Question is, just how low will they set the bar?

Posted sarcastically on Slashdot = one demerit. Brother-in-law waited on a table of Americans of Arabian descent at the Steakhouse = one water-boarding.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518907)

Well not really. McCarthy did not use the standard rules of evidence or required proof beyond a reasonable doubt. McCarthy went after people who weren't communist at all. He just relied on personal interpretations and circumstantial evidence, which is exactly what the government is doing with its terrorist classification system.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47519181)

No, they'll still nail you for associating with the wrong people. This is just how they'll nail you.

I think they took a page Object based programming. They just do:

varMinority = "Jews"

For each person
  If Person(i) = varMinority

excuse my horrible syntax. I'm not fluent in fake code.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518553)

Barack Hussein McCarthy.

Fuck him.

Re:McCarthyism v2.0 (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a month ago | (#47518561)

I don't know why this is marked troll. We may not be there yet, but all it's going to take is one guy in a position of power with the will to use it the way McCarthy did. That's a pretty damn small barrier between "freedom" and "blacklists".

Re: McCarthyism v2.0 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518675)

Instead of blacklists, I think we're quickly moving towards whitelists. By default you're a terrorist or a criminal until proven otherwise.

Actually, (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519103)

McCarthy was not spying on all Americans, tapping all their phones, reading all their mail, groping them at the airport, sifting through their medical records (after forcing those records to be electronic and part of a national system) and so on.

Furthermore, McCarthy was onto a real problem before he went way overboard (I hate being in a position that looks like I am defending him, which I am NOT). There actually were a few commies in the government (as we learned decades later after the collapse of the soviet union and the opening of the archives) and there actually were a few commies in Hollywood having secret meetings (though they were more like social gatherings and the form of communism was more of an innocent idealism about "some other way" borne from the great depression). There also really were spies in the US transferring military (particularly nuclear) tech to the Soviet Union, which really was an actual national security matter. A drunken, bloated, publicity-hungry man with no sense of self-restraint and common sense was not the best person to dig into these issues.

In the current situation, 99% of the population is easily identifiable as being NO threat at all... the people trying to harm us are all Muslim extremists and the vast majority are from outside the US. Oh, and SOMEBODY always injects Tim McVeigh in here as a "domestic terrorism" counter-point - it's not. He was a vile criminal who attacked a specific Federal Building associated with the Waco raid, NOT a terrorist randomly attacking civilians.... very bad and deadly, BUT a very different matter requiring a response not connected to the "war on terror" (lumping McVeigh in with Muslim extremists is precisely the sort of thing that wrongly enables the feds to pretend their universal spying is necessary). If the goal is to stop terror attacks (rather than eliminate all crime, which is an impossible goal) there's simply no reason to spy on any American atheist, Jew, Christian, Buddist, Hindu, Seikh, etc and very little reason to give even a second look at any Muslim who's not forcing his wife and daughters into personal body tents, not trying to slice-and-sice his daughter's "naughty bits", not trying to send his daughters "home" to the middle-east for arranged marriages, and not trying to cut-off the hand of a guy at the local mosque (as happened in Philly recently)... in other words: there's even a difference between "moderate" Muslims and the crazy evil bloodthirsty whackjob Muslims who we need to be spying on intensely. Groping little children of non-muslims, and elderly nuns at the airport is NOT security - it's "security theater". Snooping on a bunch of young guys who play Halo because your phone taps caprtured the word "explode" is just plain idiotic.

We currently have, in Barack Millhouse Hussein McCarthy a man who is completely out of control. His political opponents have found themselves being probed by the IRS, the ATF, the FBI, and the EPA, while he has declared that he has the right to single-handedly re-write the clear text of laws and choose to not enforce laws he does not like. He has taken programs originally designed to snoop on people outside the US (normal spying activity done by all nations) but expanded post-9-11 to also snoop on people within the US wo were in contact with outsiders who were possible threats (Constitutionally-dubious, but an understandable temporary reaction to thousands of dead bodies) and transformed it into a permanent program of spying on EVERYBODY at all times. When you unite universal comprehensive spying with using government agencies to hassle political opponents and a disregard for any inconvenient law you have totalitarianism. If people were looking at this clearly, they would be FREAKING OUT right now (Imagine if a "President Cheney" was doing it and the people in the cross-hairs were progressives...) but since Obama is supported by all but one of the news media outlets, most Amercians are being spoonfed a supportive view of some of this and not told about the rest. This is EXACTLY how the otherwise well-educated and civilzed people of Germany ended up supporting total evil in the 1930's (and NO, I am NOT saying Obama is anything like the failed German painter with the small moustache) ... the people of Germany were propagandized by a press and entertainment industry that were all-in for the guy in charge; they were told about every wonderful progressive thing he did and not told about the bad stuff, and the group-think in his media pushed the idea that his opponents were evil and that people who had nothing to hide had no reason to worry about their shrinking privacy...

Our founding fathers warned repeatedly against all of this; they had a pretty good grasp of basic human nature and were convinced that there were no human beings sufficiently righteous to hold this much power.

Actually, (3, Informative)

AHuxley (892839) | about a month ago | (#47519289)

Thats interesting AC but recall the FBI infiltration program called Patcon (Patriot Conspiracy) around 1991?
The laws, funding, interest was always ready. This new more simple legal listing is just a new next step to gather more people onto new and existing databases.
Patriot Games []
If you want to go back further you had Project MINARET []
i.e. "watch lists" of American citizens around 1967 and 1973.
No judicial oversight, no warrants for interception and even got some UK help too :)

Can I even fly any more? (1)

digsbo (1292334) | about a month ago | (#47518283)

I recently posted on social media how easy it would be to simply replace a DVD player on a laptop with explosives, clearly and simply showing the meaninglessness of the TSA's requirement to power on devices to get through security. I think it's perfectly likely that this, along with my consistent criticism of the US government and its policies, can put me on a list.

Re:Can I even fly any more? (2)

nytes (231372) | about a month ago | (#47518511)

As long as you don't get involved in a trial against the no-fly list, you're probably OK. [] for those who need a refresher.

Re:Can I even fly any more? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518567)

Meh. The joke's been around forever, except it's no joke:

There was a inter-agency meeting where various federal agents discussed what makes a person getting off a plane suspicious. They came to a conclusion that:
Anyone who gets off first, or near the front, is obviously rushing, and thus is suspicious.
Anyone who gets off last, or near the back, is obviously being cautious, and thus is suspicious.
And anyone who gets off in the middle is trying to lose themselves in the crowd, and thus is suspicious.

Point is, if they want you on 'a list', they'll put you on the list, no matter what you do or don't do. /isn't that a 'police state'? //...I mean "I love Big Brother!"

Re:Can I even fly any more? (4, Funny)

AHuxley (892839) | about 2 months ago | (#47519457)

Re "Point is, if they want you on 'a list', they'll put you on the list, no matter what you do or don't do."
Reworking the old Soviet "owning a western watch" joke:
Three frequent flyers in a military prison get to talking about why they are there.
"I am here because I always got to airport five minutes late, and they charged me with sneaking in", says the first.
"I am here because I kept getting to airport 2 hours early, and they charged me with spying" says the second.
"I am here because I got to airport on time," says the third, "and they charged me with owning a watch."

Re:Can I even fly any more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518835)

Providing instructions to purposefully make effective bombs or other devices to kill innocent people may not make you a terrorist...

"You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."

Re:Can I even fly any more? (1)

alen (225700) | about a month ago | (#47519055)

i think all you need is a redress number from the TSA. or just get a known traveler number

Re: Can I even fly any more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519177)

I just signed a few petitions and I am searched every time I fly. Shoes off, etc. it's my punishment for being mildly critical

Terrorist is an impossible label (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518287)

Conspirator just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? You can't be a terrorist unless you've actually done something terrorizing, so what the authorities have to do is predict, based on association, what you're going to do. And since we've all seen Minority Report, having to predict if someone is going to be a terrorist or not is a pretty lousy way to go about doing things.

Re:Terrorist is an impossible label (2)

Archtech (159117) | about a month ago | (#47518491)

"You can't be a terrorist unless you've actually done something terrorizing, so what the authorities have to do is predict, based on association, what you're going to do".

Which is merely an extension to US citizens of US government policy for at least the past 20 years: the One Percent Doctrine. As enunciated by Dick Cheney, it ran as follows: "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response".

In other words, it's better to kill lots of foreigners and destroy their country (with a 99% chance of doing so for no good reason) than to take a 1% chance that Americans might be hurt or incur loss.

Mind you, the logic becomes a bit less convincing if you replace "foreigners" with "Americans".

Re:Terrorist is an impossible label (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a month ago | (#47518585)

What was the quote from the Vietnam war era? "In order to save the village we had to destroy it"... something along those lines anyway. Except this time round the "village" is the "freedom" that so many claim to champion.

Re:Terrorist is an impossible label (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518781)

"Mind you, the logic becomes a bit less convincing if you replace "foreigners" with "Americans".

Why ? Simply keep free the 1% and let the other 99% rot, or go to re-education camps, or concentration camps etc...
Seriously the US has become 1930 Soviet Russia. Just wait some years when we will start hearing about persons disappearing, or hearing about big purges in the armed forces because your officers are not deemed american enough whatever that means. You want to know who'll start WW3 ? The US. This is guaranteed.

Hope and Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518297)

The Hope and Change you voted for. No, I'm not saying that "The Guy With The (R)" would have been better. The (R) and the (D) are basically the same thing these days, just one is more honest about wanting a big all-encompassing nanny state.

If the (R) and the (D) people both hate someone then that person must be doing something the right way. Look for those kinds of people, like that guy Thad Cochran screwed in a primary election with underhanded, shady, and probably illegal tactics. When the establishment is devouring its own people in order to keep hold of power, the establishment needs to go.

Re:Hope and Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518339)

Don't worry, liberals like cold fjord will be along shortly to tell you how the latest anal probing will save you from terrorists and hemorrhoids!

Re:Hope and Change (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518375)

The (R) and the (D) are basically the same thing these days

You can thank the people who vote for the lesser evil for that together with the people who refuses to vote for a smaller party for the only reason that "they can't win so it is a waste vote".
This led to a situation where the only way the parties could get more voters was to compete for those ideologically between them leading to a race to the middle.
Without the risk of even having a percent of the voters go off to some alternative party there is no reason to not be identical in every way but the color.

Re:Hope and Change (1)

Archtech (159117) | about a month ago | (#47518515)

"This led to a situation where the only way the parties could get more voters was to compete for those ideologically between them leading to a race to the middle".

I think it's more that most active voters have come to believe that no candidate or party can be credible or viable unless it spends billions on PR.

Re:Hope and Change (0)

Vladius (2577555) | about a month ago | (#47518417)

The guy that "Thad Cochran screwed" was a KKK sympathizer. Fuck him and the fascist Tea Party.

Re:Hope and Change (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47518811)

You sure about that? Last I heard that line was nothing but a Thad Cochran get out the vote lie. Do you have a creditable source?

You lose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519223)

You have been propagandized... you are the exact proof that the manipulation tactics work.

1. Thad Cochran's opponent had NOTHING to do with the KKK. Old Thad paid for lots of extremely vile and dishonest campaign ads on radio and flyers sprinkled in "black neighborhoods" to paint his TEA Party opponent as a racist PRECISELY to get your reaction and therefore motivate black Democrats to run to the polls and vote against the guy. Thad, being the real racist, did not even care that he was enticing many blacks to commit a crime on his behalf (voting twice in the primaries - once on the Dem ballot and then later on the GOP runoff ballot) and you can BET Thad won't be there to bail any of them out if jail time results...

2. "Fascist" TEA Party?!?!?!? Either you have never read the Constitution (TEA Partiers are fixated on it and want government put back into the box our founder created) or you have no idea what Fascism is. Fascism, FYI was the brain-child of Benito Mussolini, the famous Socialist dictator of Italy - hardly the sort of person and agenda TEA people like...

Congrats, you're the perfect Obama voter.... Obama said "Hope and Change" and promised to stop the rise of the oceans and you'll blindly follow him into hell even after you discover that a totalitarian hell is precisely where he is leading you (because he has you convinced that anybody else would be worse...). Remember: EVERY structure and policy and precedent Obama puts in place is available for every future President to use as he or she chooses.... Take off your knee pads for a moment and imagine Sarah Palin with all those same powers and then ask yourself if you still like this stuff.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for!" - Barack Obama.

I'd bet you are one of the few people in America who thinks he understands that quote and that it makes sense...

Re:Hope and Change (1)

Archtech (159117) | about a month ago | (#47518499)

True enough. But it's hardly a "nanny state" they are aiming for. More like a gradual, unobtrusive return to something as close to slavery as they can procure.

Republican claiming to be a Libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518827)

Nothing to see here.

Just another Republican claiming to be a Libertarian/Independent.

I've Had Just About Enough of You Two (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518839)

Too bad we can't post photos here on Slashdot.
This one states the message perfectly []

Re:Hope and Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518875)

Thad Cochran screwed Chris McDaniel? In what universe? Cochran's a party insider to be sure, but McDaniels is not some kind of outsider, and there's a good reason to despise a Chris McDaniel. They really are that fucked up.

You can listen to his own words. His radio show was not broadcast in secret. And no, Chris, every compromise the liberals reach, the Conservatives win. That's why the ACA is straight from the Heritage Foundation.

Liberals wanted Single Payer. Liberals did not want payouts to fraudsters like HCA and Oracle. Liberals didn't want delays.

Conservatives got them.

1.5 Million Suspect already on list... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518309)

and he ordered 100,000 on the deport list released on the street. Open borders, etc. Going nowhere fast.

Re:1.5 Million Suspect already on list... (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47518387)

that's an immigration thing. we're talking about terrorism here.

Re:1.5 Million Suspect already on list... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518431)

that's an immigration thing. we're talking about terrorism here.


Prove it.

Yes, tell me again how you have direct access to the National Counterterrorism Center database and can confirm that the list doesn't include 1.5 million people. Including everyone who has poured over our borders (as if we wouldn't have a reason to suspect them), along with natural-born US citizens who talk about things like "Rights" and "Constitution". Those aren't history references anymore, they are direct threats.

Mods, read the parent please! (4, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a month ago | (#47518623)

This is the real problem. We have no knowledge of who and what are on these lists, nor do we have any way of obtaining that knowledge. Every single person on them could be someone who trained in Pakistan with known terrorists or every single one of them could be regular people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant surveillance (which is what a "watch" list is, if you didn't gather by the name). We don't know, we can't know. The system is entirely and completely opaque to anyone outside it (and probably the vast majority of those tasked with updating it).

Re:1.5 Million Suspect already on list... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518443)

No, this is the suspect terrorist list before the border debacle was even in the news.

This leapt out at me (2)

Crashmarik (635988) | about a month ago | (#47518331)

“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,”

I thought that was an exceptionally silly idea when it used in Captain America Winter Soldier. Is Armin Zola running the DHS ?

The overreach of this goal, is very worrisome. Especially when you consider that the inevitable failures will likely result in its promoters just doubling down on what they claim it needs to work.

Re:This leapt out at me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518439)

i haven't seen that movie, but you do realize that what you are describing is purposely planted propaganda paid for with tax dollars and not some fanciful coincidence, right?

Re:This leapt out at me (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | about a month ago | (#47518717)

You need to see the movie. I highly doubt that the DHS used it as propaganda.

Re:This leapt out at me (2)

ChainedFei (1054192) | about a month ago | (#47518505)

Hail Hydra.

Tuttle (4, Funny)

kharchenko (303729) | about a month ago | (#47518335)

Finally, silly bureaucratic holdups will no longer preclude Mr. Archibald Buttle's addition to the terror list!

Keep lowering the bar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518341)

Keep lowering the bar. Eventually it'll be so low that everyone will be a terrorist... and then what will there be left to terrify?

Re:Keep lowering the bar... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518579)

Keep lowering the bar. Eventually it'll be so low that everyone will be a terrorist... and then what will there be left to terrify?

The list will always be finite. Don't be ignorant. There will be people who will NEVER be on this list no matter what they do or say. However, we need to stop assuming the government does not have the ability to enslave (incarcerate) far more than you could ever imagine.

I never imagined that the city of Boston could be turned into a Stazi police state in a matter of hours. It happened. Right under our eyes. With ten times the law enforcement resources we thought we had on hand.

That capability can now be deployed to every major city across the US. Within hours.

Don't wonder or assume where your tax dollars go. It's the armored troop carriers and drones staring you in the face that ALL law enforcement agencies suddenly NEED to do their job. Regardless of the threat yesterday or over the last decade, Bubba Joe Sheriff apparently can't do his job tomorrow without it, so it's automatically approved in the budget. Fuck you and your privacy. Stop bitching. You're "safe" now.

Ahhh, can't you just smell the freedom in the air...

It's official... (1)

AZdeadhead (620786) | about a month ago | (#47518355)

The whole freaking govt has become infected with "Nixon" disease. An enemies list to end all enemies lists.

Clearance (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a month ago | (#47518361)

Sounds like security clearance language. That is an odd sieve to use.

Constitutional (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | about a month ago | (#47518555)

Sounds like security clearance language. That is an odd sieve to use.

Not at all. "Reasonable suspicion" is legal language, which is why they use it in both contexts. It is the minimum amount of information that a police officer (or other federal agent) can have to stop you on the street, even if they lack a warrant, without violating the Constitution. It basically means they have to point to specific facts that under the circumstances suggest you may be up to something criminal. (They don't have to identify those facts to you when they stop you, necessarily, but they can make a reasonable inquiry to dispel their suspicion.) Otherwise they have violated the Constitution, which doesn't help you a lot sometimes, but still sometimes results in either evidence they find being excluded or you being able to sue them.

Whether it should be the standard here is a different question, but the government wants it to be because it's a pretty low standard.

Re:Constitutional (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about a month ago | (#47518847)

I was thinking about Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria as an indication of where the thinking is coming from. That kind of balancing is used to assess counterespionage efforts. We're not looking for people who might be exploited by spies I think.

Re:Clearance (2)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47518919)

Sounds like security clearance language. That is an odd sieve to use.

actually it makes a lot of sense. Why should the govt have to go around proving that people are terrorists? Under PATRIOT 2.0, now every citizen plays a part because each of us has to prove to the govt that we are not a terrorist.

Not shocked. (1)

jgerry (14280) | about a month ago | (#47518403)

Not shocked at all. Which is sad.

Slashdot Users (2)

allquixotic (1659805) | about a month ago | (#47518421)

Soon enough (if not already), they will have "reasonable suspicion" to add all Slashdot users to the list.

Re:Slashdot Users (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a month ago | (#47518469)

Soon enough (if not already), they will have "reasonable suspicion" to add all Slashdot users to the list.

Hmm, let's see:

- technologically savvy? Check.

- Interested in/knowledgeable about cryptography/biology/chemistry? Check.

- Generally Libertarian (pro-individual-freedom) mentality? Big ol' check.

- NOT large donors to political campaigns? Good chance of another check here.

Sounds like yes, we as a group do indeed meet the Fascist, er Federal Government's definitions of "terrorist."

Any attributes I failed to list, that makes our community a target for clandestine government agencies?

Re:Slashdot Users (3, Informative)

bswarm (2540294) | about a month ago | (#47518485)

Using Linux? Check.

Re:Slashdot Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518541)

10 Ridiculous Things That Make You a Terror Suspect []

Re:Slashdot Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518739)

Completely without influence anywhere outside of slashdot. Strike.

Face it, this site and it's users aren't even on their radar.

Re:Slashdot Users (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a month ago | (#47519199)

Re:"Face it, this site and it's users aren't even on their radar."
Yes we are AC
Recall Quantum insert? "GCHQ Created Spoofed LinkedIn and Slashdot Sites To Serve Malware" [] [] (Nov 11 2013)
We are of interest to some part of the intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. What one nation finds is shared with the other 5 :) (and a few other nations too)

Re:Slashdot Users (1)

Todd Palin (1402501) | about a month ago | (#47519219)

Post under a pseudonym? Check

Use encryption for email? Check

Don't use Facebook? Check

Use DuckDuckGo? check

Use Tor? check

Re:Slashdot Users (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a month ago | (#47519335)

Use DuckDuckGo? Strike.
Use Check!

Wheww. That was close.

Re:Slashdot Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519383)

- Generally Libertarian (pro-individual-freedom) mentality? Big ol' check.

That is sheeple mentality - libertarians love political news feed by Dice Corporations.
News for nerds, right.

Re:Slashdot Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518551)

Let alone all Anonymous Cowards! Our incapbility of proper spelling is so terrifying.

Re:Slashdot Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518629)

Anonymous Cowards? Check.
Pore Speellers? Check.

Re:Slashdot Users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518587)

Except cold fjord. He's a good little lackey.

Re:Slashdot Users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519101)

OK, we get it, you have a giant hardon for the guy. Try to at least contain yourself until he actually shows up.

Rules for labeling a government a psychopath (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518447)

There are rules to label someone a psychopath.

They don't have to be applied to a natural person. The documentary "The Corporation" applied them to a juristical person. I think they can be applied to governments as well.

Whether the US Government matches these rules is a question which the reader may want to answer himself using the Wikipedia article on PCL-R:

Facet 1: Interpersonal

        Glibness/superficial charm
        Grandiose sense of self-worth
        Pathological lying

Facet 2: Affective

        Lack of remorse or guilt
        Emotionally shallow
        Callous/lack of empathy
        Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Facet 3: Lifestyle

        Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
        Parasitic lifestyle
        Lack of realistic, long-term goals

Facet 4: Antisocial

        Poor behavioral controls
        Early behavioral problems
        Juvenile delinquency
        Revocation of conditional release
        Criminal versatility

K. Kuhavy, Twibright Labs []

DHS hasn't learned from Star Trek's "Nomad" (2, Interesting)

tekrat (242117) | about a month ago | (#47518479)

In "The Changeling", the probe "Nomad" seeks to sterilize anything that is "imperfect" -- and of course, everything is imperfect to Nomad.

So essentially, *everyone* is a terrorist, and everyone is duty-bound to report their neighbors. Until everyone is watching everyone and we're all ready to shoot our neighbors to maintain the peace.

Those Aliens are coming to Mulberry street alright.

And I got to reference two 1960's TV shows that warned us of this very event, and we're too dumb to listen. Amurica f*ck Yeah!

Re:DHS hasn't learned from Star Trek's "Nomad" (1)

tekrat (242117) | about a month ago | (#47518513)

Sorry, it was "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street", not aliens on Mulberry... My brain is shot at this hour without coffee.... Either way, you get it, I hope! ..... screw you slashdot lameness filter.

Our Presidents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518481)

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.”

Is it that our Presidents have a knack for picking these guys or do lawyers develop shit for brains when they get that office? Bush has Ashcroft (Jack Booted thug) and then Gonzales (creative interpretations of the Constitution) and Obama has this guy with his double speak.

Bush had an excuse - he was just an MBA who got it by being a legacy.

Obama is a fucking Constitutional scholar!

See people, this is why we need civics in schools again - NOT programming or some other job training. Our Presidents over the last few decades have been running roughshod over the Constitution and people are OK with it because they do not know any better. I swear to god that the only things people know about the Constitution is freedom of religion and the right to bear arms.

Re:Our Presidents (1)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about a month ago | (#47518959)

See people, this is why we need civics in schools again

I definitely agree that we need civics, but most schools already have it, as far as I know; like everything else, it's just taught very, very poorly. Our education system is abysmal (focusing on rote memorization, teaching to the test, propaganda, and being a one-size-fits-all 'solution'), and it only works in favor of the government.

Speaking of McCarthyism... (3, Insightful)

macs4all (973270) | about a month ago | (#47518495)

I for one am glad they are continuing their rampant overreach.

The more they delve into the land of ridiculousness, like the McCarthy era "Un-American Activities" Lists, the quicker we will have those Congressional Hearings where it all blows up in their faces.

At least I hope history repeats itself...

Re:Speaking of McCarthyism... (3, Insightful)

Livius (318358) | about a month ago | (#47518879)

the quicker we will have those Congressional Hearings

Unless, of course, you don't.

None of these documents... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518523)

...are as interesting as the actual lists of people.

I want to see what I am on, if anything. I want to see how I'm graded. I would proudly publish my rating.

My ex's family work and my activist past will almost certainly have me on some low interest lists, especially because I'm a non-citizen (actually, I left the US again several years ago), but I would really be interested to know what they say!

Kind of terrifying (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about a month ago | (#47518563)

What's terrifying about this is, there has been a precedent set that being a "terrorist" voids your constitutional rights. If you're a terrorist, the US government can assassinate you, even if you're a citizen. They can lock you up indefinitely in secret prisons. They can spy on all of your communications, and conduct searches that are otherwise illegal. They can torture you. They can do anything they want in the name of "winning the War on Terror".

So once you have that kind of policy towards terrorism, there's only one thing, in theory, protecting your constitutional rights: a strict definition of 'terrorist'.

If terrorist have no rights, and anyone can be considered a terrorist, then nobody's rights are protected. Now someone might respond, "No, you still have your rights. You can speak freely, you can bear arms, there are no soldiers in your house, and the government isn't searching through your belongings." And you're right. I currently have all of those freedoms. However, if those freedoms are contingent on the will of a government official, and those freedoms can be arbitrarily taken away, then they aren't 'rights' anymore.

Re:Kind of terrifying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519205)

This has nothing to do with terrorism. How long ago was 9/11? How many similar events have occurred? How many have been stopped?

At least with the War on Drugs, they can actually find people with drugs on them and say "Look! We caught an evil drug user!".

There is nothing like that in this "war", but none of you seem to mind that really.

Re:Kind of terrifying (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a month ago | (#47519427)

The government is chosen by and working for the rich and wealthy. That is how many
permille of the entire population?
That means the great 99 point umpty is being screwed, for taxes, for wars, for bailouts,
for coprorate subsidies, for tax breaks for the rich, you name it.
Everybody knows this.

Who is the greatest threat to that shameless paradise for the wealthy?
That grand mass of the population. The country's own population. Nothing to do with
terror, nothing to do with foreigners. When the motto is "keep the rich happy and the
rest frightened", words like terror, terrorist lists, and so on and so forth, work like a
charm to keep the dangerous masses off your back. All the 15 trillion of the NSA or
the entire US Army are not gonna be able to stop say and odd 100 million mad

That's a nice bubble, and as bubbles do, it's gonna burst.

And what about Economic Terrorism? (4, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about a month ago | (#47518611)

I mean, if I had to name someone a terrorist, I'd start with Rupert Murdoch, and then think about the CEO of Goldman Sachs (Blankenfein?)... Then there's that bank HSBC, that knowingly laundered money to terrorists and drug cartels.
  If you really think about it, the 1% are the nastiest bunch of terrorists around, but I'll bet you the entire planet (which the 1% own), that these terrorists never, ever, ever get their names on any terrorist list.
  So, what's a terrorist then? Someone, I guess... who represents a threat to the real terrorists running the world.

Re:And what about Economic Terrorism? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47518911)

Are you sure you know what the word terrorist means? The 1% likely can just buy their politicians and political favors- they wouldn't need to resort to terrorism. And no, being a greedy douche or a stingy bastard does not make someone a terrorist.

Re:And what about Economic Terrorism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519121)

If you've lived in America since the 1980s you have experienced plenty of the 1%'s terrorism. /now on the list

Re:And what about Economic Terrorism? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47519161)

I've lived here a lot longer than that and to date have not. I've experienced corrupt cops, greedy bosses, incompetent politicians, but never this 1% terrorism.

Do you work for DHS? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519291)

The person you heap your hatred upon (Rupert Murdoch) is the ONLY media person opposing Obama and his massive overreach ... you seem very suspicious to me. Obama keeps whining and complaining [] that there's this ONE media outlet that disagrees with him, and YOU decare that the owner of that channel is a "Terrorist"....

Have you ever heard of the word "Irony"? I suggest you look it up.

The Power of a single Word (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month ago | (#47519421)

Terrorist: No right to a speedy trial, no right to habeus corpus, No constitutional rights at all. Actually it's the Cold War equivalent of hauling people from their homes in the middle of the night... except that once you affix that label to them, you can operate in broad daylight.

Who watches the Watchers? (2)

Virtucon (127420) | about a month ago | (#47518637)

This is the most blatant disregard for constitutionally protected rights I've ever seen. I'll make sure I carry copies of "Catcher In He Rye" and "Anarchists Cookbook" wherever I travel. I'm surprised that this has been allowed to continue but it's utter nonsense and just the first fucking page of the document shows how fucked we are with all these shields representing stakeholders into the system. I especially like the part where one person in the White House can immediately include a group or individual on the terrorist watch list as they see fit. Have any political enemies? They're on the list.

Yay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518653)


Not a problem. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518671)

If you've done nothing wrong, then you don't have anything to worry aboot.

Say what? (2)

djupedal (584558) | about a month ago | (#47518673)

From the article: 'As the rulebook notes, “watchlisting is not an exact science.”'


Re:Say what? (3, Insightful)

Hartree (191324) | about a month ago | (#47518791)

"As the rulebook notes, "witch hunting is not an exact science."


1 million terrorists identified so far. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518687)

Why do they hate America so much?

Re:1 million terrorists identified so far. (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about a month ago | (#47519393)

Why do they hate America so much?

According to the US government, apparently the terrorists hate America so much because of all the Freedoms that American citizens have.

Ill admit, it took some work, but I actually said that out loud without falling off the chair in laughter at the delicious irony.

how about the kremlin butcher? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518809)

has putin been designated a terrorist yet?

Taking part in the discussion in this thread? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518823)

You're on the list.

Suspecion is acceptable for some things (1, Interesting)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month ago | (#47518917)

Its okay to say someone is a "suspected terrorist" with no hard evidence in the same way the police can suspect you of murder even though they can't really prove it yet. Suspicion doesn't mean you get hit with hellfire missiles from a drone of course. That should require proof especially if they're americans.

That said, if you're walking around in a war zone talking to terrorists... I wouldn't blame the pentagon for lighting you up at a certain point. If you're going to go to those places, at least tell someone first so you don't get people's imaginations running wild.

We have to keep in mind this is war. If you went to Nazi Germany and started hanging around with Nazi leaders and military personnel I'm not going to feel bad if you got killed one afternoon by a B-17 carpet bombing the area. Its war.

Kindly don't associate with the enemy until hostilities have concluded or at least signal to both sides that you're a non-combatant and those that care will try to avoid taking you in the cross fire. Short of that... via con dios.

Re:Suspecion is acceptable for some things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47518991)

Have fun in North Korea, fool. You don't belong in 'the land of the free,' especially since you can't even be assed to read the article and see that just about anyone can be arbitrarily declared to be a terrorist.

"war" is no excuse to give up freedom and principles, and never was.

Terrorism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519175)

I am constantly terrorized by the united states government.

Every time I fly back from a foreign country I live in constant fear of US customs taking my shit or screwing with me because they are inherently unpleasant (true in most cases) and by construction can get away with whatever abuse they feel like dishing out.

Every time I fly domestically I live in constant fear of encountering that one pervy TSA agent who landed his dream job and is intent on exploitin. I fear what it says about a society willing to tolerate such inhuman treatment.

I fear what I post online is being collected, analyzed and used to pass judgment upon all with no judge or jury. I know a couple of nice middle aged ladies who .. umm.. have some very extreme political views and who get fucked with every time they if there were five S's permanently tattooed onto their foreheads.. yet you would never know police records, never hurt anyone, never would but they obviously have been shit listed for their flaky comments sent in private email or facebook messaging.

I fear police running amok confiscating shit and generally acting like thugs because they operate in an environment which reinforces covering for bad behavior of their peers.

I fear a legal system that is by far world leader in incarceration beyond the most backwards and dictatorial regimes where prosecutors are rewarded for seeking convictions above truth and potential sentences so whacked plea deals have effectively become analogues of forced confessions. The only thing worse than commision of crime is blemish on the prosecutors record if found innocent.

I fear the rise of police/intelligence/military industrial complex seeing profit in conflict and monies wasted on "terrorism" by legions of Jack Bauer wannabees while objectively useful social programs statistically standing a non-zero chance of benefiting society go unfunded.

I fear being sued for some nonsensical reason and being forced to spend countless thousands of dollars and waste countless hours to defend myself by a system designed by lawyers to benefit lawyers.

I fear the erosion of rights by constant parody of highly skilled wordsmiths, third party doctrine extremism, dossier building without cause, legal environments making everyone guilty of something by default(CFAA,DMCA), objectively illegal behavior (Wholesale NSA metadata collection) not only not being punished or investigated but continued.

I fear what it says about this country when high crimes against humanity such as knowingly propagating WMD lies as pretext to start wars costing lives of hundreds of thousands is allowed to stand with no punishment or culpability of any kind. It is hard not to find oneself agreeing with the conspiracy nuts when they say the US government funds Al Qaeda because it is factually true. While perhaps not intentional so much of the modernity/terrorism problems are a direct result of decades of shit headed morally bankrupt policies.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519263)


Reasonable Suspicion is CLEARLY defined (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47519321)

Reasonable Suspicion is a CLEARLY defined legal doctrine. It even has a thorough wikipedia article: []

How do I get on this list? (1)

Snotnose (212196) | about 2 months ago | (#47519459)

Aside from doing anything illegal, hurting anyone, etc. Seems that if enough of us buy the Get On The Terrorist List for Dummies then the problem sort of solves itself by making the list useless.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>