3 ms·
As the article points out, "Hasan Ali" is a stupendously common Muslim name. Imagine blocking anyone called "John Williams" and then claiming you were blocking
by davidgerard 11y ago
As the article points out, "Hasan Ali" is a stupendously common Muslim name.
Imagine blocking anyone called "John Williams" and then claiming you were blocking terrorists, not just people with English-sounding names.
It turns out that in practice (and law), companies are held responsible for grossly discriminatory effects of their actions, without a detailed process of examining motivations at the time.
- wmt 11y agoTerrorists really should start using aliases like "John Williams", "George Bush", "Donald Trump" etc. to circumvent these name lists, as they already managed to max out the patdown ineffectiveness with the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.
- CamperBob2 11y agoThey could use the name "Ted Kennedy." That'd show 'em. Oops, no, our wonderful, benevolent, and omniscient government is one step ahead of the curve as usual. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug...
- tedunangst 11y agoImagine blocking anybody named "academy of natural sciences" and then claiming you were blocking terrorists, not just organizations devoted to science.
- peeters 11y agoThat's not up to Sophos to know though. Companies are required to comply with the regulations, at the penalty of incredibly stiff penalties. And the cost of paying manual attention to every match would be debilitating. It is much more advantageous for them to automate it and be safe rather than sorry. Their policy of asking for more information on an initial positive match is reasonable. If you want to blame anyone, blame the U.S. agencies who implemented these restrictions. Sophos is just obeying the law.