9 ms·
After seven years, exactly one person gets off the government no-fly list
- ARothfusz 13y agoI firmly believe more [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] or else we're all [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]!
- ARothfusz 13y agoWow, that's recursive -- downvoting (and thereby censoring) a comment satirizing censorship and redaction. I'm ok with that, since my comment could have been more explicit: did anyone else think it was weird that the thing the judge ordered the government to tell Dr. Ibrahim has been redacted? http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Screenshot-2014-03-17-12.40.46.png http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Screen...
- ggchappell 13y agoIt is possible that the headline is incorrect. According to the article, > Last month, US District Judge William Alsup ruled that Ibrahim must be removed from the government's various watchlists. At Tuesday's hearing, a Department of Justice lawyer said that the government did not intend to appeal the ruling. So we have an unchallenged order to remove the name. However, the article presents no evidence that Ibrahim's name has actually been removed from any lists.
- bobbles 13y agoIt also says in the article that other names may have been removed, but the proceedings were handled privately.
- nl 13y agoSo we have an unchallenged order to remove the name. However, the article presents no evidence that Ibrahim's name has actually been removed from any lists. Are you proposing that the US government is planning - as a matter of policy - to ignore that ruling? That's a pretty serious allegation, and one that isn't supported by the evidence in this case.
- delinka 13y agoPlanning? No. But have they implemented a system to guarantee compliance with such an order? Doubtful. It's almost assured, through the inefficiency of bureaucracy, with the help from the fallibility of humans, that this name will not be completely expunged for quite some time.
- ggchappell 13y ago> Are you proposing that the US government is planning - as a matter of policy - to ignore that ruling? No, I was simply saying that the headline is not supported by the article. Regardless of government policy & plans, a court order and compliance with that order are different things. Let's not conflate them. However, I think the reply by delinka to your comment makes a good point.
- darkarmani 13y ago> However, the article presents no evidence that Ibrahim's name has actually been removed from any lists. Well, they can't say it was removed, because that would admit that she was on a list. /sarcasm
- ElliotH 13y agoIt amazes me that legal costs aren't going to be definitely paid here. That alone makes this system almost impossible to appeal, pro-bono lawyers aren't likely to work on this issue after the first one or two high profile cases if there isn't a payout.
- joering2 13y agoI can believe that a lawyer working on someone's case for 8 years can credit enough hours to build up to $3.5MM, that's reasonable. I'm sure she (lawyer) won't let it go easily, as nobody should work for free, for 1 day, or 8 years. The good hope is that eventually couple years from now her bill will be kicked through different departments and different manager's hands, enough times that at some point someone will cut her a check. It may be settled for $1MM or something, but eventually I don't see why she shouldn't get paid and some judge sooner or later will rule some sense into it. Bad news is that she will get paid from mine and yours pocket. Hopefully, this will learn FBI something, but honestly I highly doubt it....
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- downandout 13y agoThe problem here is that the conduct that led to the lawsuit must be intentional and exceptional in order for a court to be able to award attorney fees. While our laws made this an incredibly difficult situation to resolve, the conduct in this case consisted of a simple mistake made on a form by an FBI agent. Unfortunately, that was neither intentional nor exceptional, and thus doesn't meet the standard for a court to award attorney fees.
- davorak 13y ago> intentional and exceptional How obvious was it that it was a mistake by an FBI agent? Does the DOJ intentional defending a mistake count as exceptional enough?
- 13y ago
- theatraine 13y ago"As explained in Alsup's opinion, the whole dispute stemmed from an errant check placed on a form filled out by FBI agent Kevin Kelly" This sounds very similar to what happened in the movie Brazil, where an errant fly resulted in the incarceration and death during interrogation of Mr. Archibald Buttle instead of the suspected "terrorist", Archibald Tuttle. Albeit the movie was an highly exaggerated and over-the-top evil bureaucracy, it's a disturbing parallel.
- nitrogen 13y agoI once had something vaguely similar happen while registering a car, though obviously with much less drastic consequences. The registration management software was running on a PC with a touchscreen. As my registration was nearly complete, a fly landed exactly on the close button of the application window. All that happened in my case was the attendant had to repeat the application process.
- PythonicAlpha 13y agoSometimes fiction can only be topped by ... the reality.
- lisper 13y agoBrazil is my favorite movie of all time because it was so prescient. It seemed exaggerated and over the top in its day, but nowadays it seems to me that everything in the film has actually come to pass. Alas.
- tripzilch 13y ago> everything in the film has actually come to pass everything but what the world so desperately needs: vigilante guerilla airco repairmen.
- gwen_bell_dang 13y agoDANG Tech is Fucked - Only $499 until April 17! http:/www.gwenbell.com
- PythonicAlpha 13y agoIt just does not speak for the implementation of a Democracy, when democratic principles are violated or corrupted, just because the system has to stand pressure (terrorism in this case).
- ars 13y agoWhat I don't get is why the government even fought the case. I can understand the idiotic bureaucracy that can make it impossible to challenge the list. But once you finally do challenge it - why would the government fight it?
- nl 13y agoI suspect the reason the case was fought was because of idiotic bureaucracy as well. My suspicious is that there is an internal procedure to challenge any attempt to get off the list in court. The only way to avoid that is to change the procedure (which of course is impossible to do from the outside without court intervention, since the bureaucracy has a policy to deny any information about their own procedures).
- revelation 13y agoHere is Eric Holder invoking state secrets privilege (DoJ was a defendant in the case, among many others), basically trying to kill the lawsuit outright (they invoked all sorts of laws and administrative orders around classified info, there are multiple overlapping systems): http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder1.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder... Note in the same document, on page 8: [DoJ] will not defend an invocation of the [state secrets] privilege in order to: (i) conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (ii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United States Government; [..] or (iv) prevent or delay the release of information the release of which would not reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security. Change you can believe in! Bonus: Based on my personal consideration of the matter, I have determined that the requirements for an assertion and defense of the state secrets privilege have been met in this case in accord with the September 2009 State Secrets Policy. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
- leccine 13y agoI guess this does not matter to the ignorant US society, because they don't understand that this is coming to all of us, these no-fly lists establish great precedence that US government can do whatever. As some might say, ignorance is a bliss, in this case it is more like a disaster.
- puppetmaster3 13y agoDon't tell me about bill or rights or democracy anymore.
- suprgeek 13y agoThis is tyranny sneaking up on us one "No-XYZ list" at a time. They can put you on it for any reason (lets say you oppose one of the Govt. policies - Drone Bombings for example), you will be unable to find out why you are on said list or even if you are. Since you cannot confirm that you are on said list you will not be able to get off it. Your life becomes that much more difficult. Next you will be put on another "No ABC List" - rinse and repeat until you life is truly miserable with NO recourse (unless you can afford $4 Million) . If this is not a textbook case for violation of the due process clause then we may as well throw out that whole deal.
- coldcode 13y agoIt has been thrown out already. "... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" may as well be erased. 4M and 8 years is not a petition it's a marathon.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoIt's death by a thousand cuts. Sure, freedom of expression, freedom to travel, freedom to do business, etc. are all on nominally on the books but today bureaucracies can target everything individually at once. How do you travel except by taking a plane, bus, train, or car, or using the public roads? How do you do business without a bank account? How do you manage your affairs without using the internet or the telephone or what-have-you?
- Fuxy 13y agoAmerican freedoms only apply to rich people. Seriously if you are expected to have millions of dollars every time you have dispute with the government your freedoms are already gone. Just the fact that patent trolls can easily kill business is proof enough that the entire legal system is completely broken extremely expensive to fix. Why do Americans seem to think it's ok to pay ridiculous prices for medicine and law or that it's ok for a court case to take over 5 years to settle.
- geogra4 13y agoThe rich vote with money and always get what they want The middle classes vote at the polls and never get what they want The poor vote with violence and sometimes get what they want A brief summary of history
- tim333 13y agoShame you can't crowdsource it. We could all vote up or down who gets no-fly'd.
- cwp 13y agoThat's a terrible idea. The problem here is lack of due process, not lack of transparency. (Yes, there is lack of transparency, but the reason that's bad is that it interferes with due process.)
- pgeorgi 13y agoshutting down congress one flight at a time?
- tim333 13y agoThe original suggestion was not 100% serious but that could be an entertaining side effect.
- ghoul2 13y ago""" Ben Wizner <snip> remarked at SXSW that problems with the no-fly list aren't going away; the world we're facing will look more like Kafka than Orwell. <snip> Wizner said: And I worry about a world—not a world that looks like Orwell. """ I have noticed a tendency for US-media to use "world" for things which are essentially US-only phenomena. (I have never heard of the equivalent of a no-fly list outside the US and UK). The same statement, but referring to "USA" instead of world, would carry more impact to US citizens reading it, might make (some of) them work on the cause. But saying "World" depersonalizes the problem, and distances all readers from it. I have not seen this "USA is the World" tendency from media in other countries. Seems unique to US media.
- PythonicAlpha 13y agoMight be. But I see some other phenomenon: The World is adopting more and more the bad things in the US but never the good things of it. That one worries me.
- bruce511 13y agoFortunately, so far, most countries have not adopted much of the American madness. With the exception of the UK, internal flights are a pleasure - simple metal detector, simple bag scan, and you're on your way. The US approach by the TSA gets more onerous every year and accomplishes nothing. Personally I think this is down to a certain inexperience the US has with terrorism. We still believe the world can be "made safe". We believe that -reacting- to terrorism is warranted. (and of course everything is now a " terrorist act") Most other countries have lived with terrorist behavior for decades or longer. They learned that it is precisely by not reacting that you fight back. They learned that no, the world is not safe, and you can get killed in a car accident today, or struck by lightning tomorrow, or indeed just by riding a bicycle. (more people die on bicycles than by terrorism - and more people in the US every MONTH die in cars than were killed on Sept 11.) The US currently has a teenager response to terrorism, and it will take years before they mature to where the rest of the world is already at. Until then, just like with any teenager, you have to let it work its course. The experience of others is seldom learned -experience doesn't work like that.
- lhgaghl 13y ago> After seven years, exactly one person gets off the gov’t no-fly list Sounds like they know what they're doing.
- ElComradio 13y agoThis story is being discussed based on some misinterpretations. It does not sound like whether she was on a no fly list was relevant to the case per se. She was allowed to fly after the first time she was stopped at the airport. What happened later was that she was denied entry back into the US, a non-citizen. While what happened is certainly wrong in this case, there is oodles of precent for it. Routinely, foreigners are denied entry into the US if e.g. the agent believes there's a high likelihood you plan to overstay your visa and live here illegally. Non-citizens have no right to enter the US, period. It sounds like this was more "take me off your terrorist list so I can get back into the country" than "take me off the no-fly list".
- Cowicide 13y agoBetween a opaque no-fly list and mass spying on activists, etc. our shadow government is getting a lot of tools for suppression. I'm beginning to hear from more and more people that they are afraid to speak out in public, join up with activists or continue activism for fear that their lives will be ruined. And, the scary thing is some of these people I know have been willing in the past to risk physical harm from cops by joining protests at the RNC and DNC. Some physical wounds can heal and pepper spray can fade, but being a target by the shadow government can't be shaked off and can haunt you, your friends and your family for the rest of your life. It's all the more reason I respect activists that are willing to put all that on the line for their country in this day and age. And, all the more reason I'm feeling a building rage for those who spit on our US Constitution for their personal gain (whether it be money, power or both).
- jqueryin 13y agoThe "no fly" list does not mean you can't fly, it just means they're going to make your life difficult in the process. My wife made the no fly list back when she was consulting with IBM a number of years ago. She was no longer allowed seat assignments, had to check in in person, and was always subjected to full swab testing and a pat down. She eventually made it off the list, but there was no telling what got her on it. When her tickets were printed, they would have no seat assignment and be covered with a number of large X's which was an indicator she was going to be subjected to search. We made a few assumptions as to her travel behavior that likely attributed. She had purchased too many one way tickets and wouldn't cancel them if she had to re-schedule (as is the ways of consulting). There were also a few incidents of getting a cheaper ticket and skipping later segments. Either way, it really puts a damper on travel when all you want to do is get in and sit down.
- GVIrish 13y agoI don't think your wife was truly on the no-fly list. It sounds like your wife was flagged for additional screening due to her travel patterns. In the case of Ibrahim she flat out was not allowed to fly to the US.
- jqueryin 13y agoYou're right, she was on the "Secondary Security Screening Selection" according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Selection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Se...
- GVIrish 13y agoYeah I ended up getting a lot of additional screening when I was a contractor for the TSA, mostly because travel plans were often made at the last minute and I had a lot of one way tickets.
- iambateman 13y agoWhen society needs to reduce liberty, we pass a law. When society needs to increase liberty, she often finds she must fight a war.
- chiph 13y agoThis is bureaucratic self-protection at work. Because taking her off might actually be the mistake, and she might turn out to actually be a terrorist after all. So no one wants to risk their job by doing it. Better someone you don't know doesn't get to fly to the US than you lose your pension.
- jksmith 13y agoNo fly list == jobs program
- DrJokepu 13y agoThe judge in question, William Alsup is the same judge who was presiding over Oracle v Google, ruled that APIs are not patentable and learned Java in the process. He's quite a character.