9 ms·

The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling Someone a Terrorist

329 points by forsaken 12y ago

qeorge 12y ago
Here is one example where sloppy watch list policies like these resulted in the prolonged torture of an innocent person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Enhanced interrogation techniques, you mean. Everybody knows the us gov would never torture anybody. Just enhance them. With interrogation.
stinkfruit 12y ago
They start by labeling the entire potential populous "terrorists", and work backwards, never actually taking them off the list.
- cruise02 12y ago
  When you exaggerate a problem to such a ridiculous extreme, all the other party has to do is say "Oh no, we don't do that at all. Problem solved." This isn't productive. In fact, it's counter productive. Now all they have to say is "See the lies people tell about us? They're not interested in a rational debate at all. We're just going to carry on with business as usual."
lucb1e 12y ago
> It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted. That actually makes great sense as identity spoofs, or at least that's what I read in Kevin Mitnick's Ghost in the Wires, are most easily done under the name of deceased infants near your own year of birth.
- outworlder 12y ago
  Indeed. A deceased person flying should raise red flags everywhere.
  - smnrchrds 12y ago
    I've heard before that people had problems getting on a plane because they had the same name as someone on the no-fly list. It would be really frustrating if they want to question everyone at the airport if they have the same name as a deceased person.
    - jackweirdy 12y ago
      I've heard the same, of first initial and surname - a friend and his dad have the same initial, and neither of them can enter mainland Europe without trouble (though getting elsewhere is fine)
    - lucb1e 12y ago
      Yeah that's a confirmed thing to happen (as the article mentions, in 2004 a senator's name looked like a terrorist's and the senator noticed), but I'm not sure the name is the only thing that makes a deceased person deceased. I mean, they'd probably include the DoB and birthplace and such things, which makes it more unique. At least, I'd hope so.
      - tacticus 12y ago
        Your hope is misplaced. For if they do include the DOB they certainly ignore it. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news-security/t/-year-old-turns-government-no-fly-list/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news-security/t/-ye...
  - stefantalpalaru 12y ago
    The name alone is not a sufficient identifier to raise any kind of flag.
infogulch 12y ago
Rule #1: Anyone reading this rulebook.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  Or posting about it on social media sites.
- dmix 12y ago
  This is the chilling effect in action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)
  - coldcode 12y ago
    Rule #2, anyone reading about someone with the rulebook.
    - infogulch 12y ago
      Rule #3: anyone reading about anyone reading about someone with the rulebo--. Screw it, a few more rules and we can approximate this whole mess by using the 'degrees of separation' theory: EVERYONE'S A TERRORIST.
      - madaxe_again 12y ago
        Anyone suspected of being suspected to having known someone suspected of being suspected of reading the rulebook, you mean. Don't be so restrictive. Once we're all designated terrorists, nobody's a terrorist. Once you take everything from a man, that man is no longer in your power...
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        infogulch 12y ago
        > Once we're all designated terrorists, nobody's a terrorist. Nope, once we're all designated terrorists then prosecution becomes completely arbitrary and can be carried out with impunity and complete disregard for all rights "bcuz terrorist!".
sneak 12y ago
I posted this a few days ago, but I will repost it here: If they are terrorists (criminals) and the government is not prosecuting them, the government is breaking the law. If they are innocent of wrongdoing (not terrorists) and the government is depriving them of rights afforded to others, the government is breaking the law.
- revelation 12y ago
  That's the irony here. If they put you on the terrorist list, it's decisively because you are not actually a terrorist; the various travel restrictions would just instantly alert you to the fact that they found out about you. So the real terrorists don't end up on the list.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Faulty logic.
- mcherm 12y ago
  > If they are terrorists (criminals) and the government is not prosecuting them, the government is breaking the law. Completely untrue. The government has the option, not the obligation, to prosecute criminals. Also "being a terrorist" is NOT a boolean flag that some people possess and others do not. Some people who SAY they are terrorists are not. Most people who commit terrorist acts say that they are not terrorists. The government does not "know" which ones are terrorists and which are not. The definition of terrorism is very, very murky: we have declared that teaching conflict resolution is "terrorism" (under some circumstances) and that bombing innocents is not (under other circumstances).
KhalilK 12y ago
Link to the original pdf http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228/2013-watchlist-guidance.pdf http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228/2013-watchlist...
- dublinben 12y ago
  Thanks for the direct link. It was pretty frustrating that they weren't making it easy to download.
phkahler 12y ago
>> Obama hoped that his response to the “underwear bomber” would be a turning point. In 2010, he gave increased powers and responsibilities to the agencies that nominate individuals to the lists, placing pressure on them to add names. That part bothers me the most. By telling agencies to add names to the list, you don't automatically get more bad guys, you're just going to get more people on the list. A fair question would be "how much do we need to expand our scope to where we would have listed a certain person known to be a bad guy that slipped through?" And of course one data point isn't really terribly relevant, but the answer to the question may be enlightening - or not.
- bjlorenzen 12y ago
  It's even more confusing that Obama would push for more names to be added when the article clearly states that the underwear bomber was already on the list: >...after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
DINKDINK 12y ago
Some ludicrous statistics: "In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013" The government is saying that there are ~1,500 known or suspected terrorists per million population. Or in other words, the city of San Francisco is home to ~1,250 known or suspected terrorists. or to put it another way. That there are 1 known or suspected terrorists every 3 city blocks in San Francisco 468749/313.9e6837442/(46.87/(636.5581/52802))
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- cryoshon 12y ago
  We've known that they are delusionally paranoid for quite a while. This is just another piece of evidence to prove that claim.
- HillRat 12y ago
  Technically, it's more like 167 terrorists per million. The TSDB is a global database that is a subset of TIDE plus domestic names. TIDE is probably about 1/3 again larger than TSDB, with news reports pegging TIDE's size at about 875,000 names. If we assume that terrorists (or, as the source document likes to term them, "TERRORISTS") are confined to persons over the age of 15 (only true in the general case, I'm sad to say), then the database contains .017% of the targeted world population. An interesting question is whether TSDB and TIDE can even actually track the majority of militants worldwide -- for example, your average ISIS fighter or Donetsk militiaman, as opposed to terrorists seeking to carry out attacks in non-combat areas. The idea that there are 875K al-Qa'ida-style terrorists working worldwide wouldn't pass the laugh test with most analysts. Consider that ISIS, which is either a very large terrorist group or a very small conventional army, has a personnel list somewhere between 10K and 20K, and the Pakistani Taliban is thought to have between 5K-10K fighters. The size of the TSDB, even if it were a strict superset of all actively anti-American terrorists and militants in the world, is likely an order of magnitude too large.
  - DINKDINK 12y ago
    Good counter point. I assumed all KSTs were US citizens. As far as I'm aware, that probability isn't divulged.
AwesomeTogether 12y ago
Funny timing How to get on the government watchlist? How to get followed on Twitter by @the_intercept? there was a story about the latter posted on Hacker news earlier today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8075384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8075384 )
ChuckFrank 12y ago
What is really interesting about this document is that they are trying to create the rule book for determining suspected and actual terrorists. This is not an easy task. This is why they create a 'nomination', 'verification' and 'implementation' process with their “originators,” “nominators,” “aggregators,” “screeners,” and “encountering agencies.” But the problem comes down to the actual facts. This document does a terrible job of separating a process design - First a candidate gets originated by an originator, who passes that said candidate on to a nominator, etc - from the basic factual requirements needed to become listed as a suspected (or actual) terrorist. (Though the latter would seem easier to determine.) What is really needed is a clear set of factually determined checks to show that someone is indeed a suspected terrorist. Not a process design that creates a structure towards watch list inclusion. In design this is often a problem. It's a very common mistake. Teams, Companies, Professionals design a process, but not the necessary, required steps - and everything just gets lost in that process, especially when everything takes place according to the plan. Here's what the watch list needs. A list that triggers inclusion. If a appears to have done x, y or z, a get's "originated." If x, y, and z are verified, a gets nominated. At this point counter rationales for x, y and z must be presented to excuse the suggestion of terrorism when there is none. Etc. What is important are the verifiable X, Y and Z actions. That's what a document of this type should present. Now I know that the response is that if people are told how they get onto a watchlist, they will try to avoid those tasks while maintaining their terrorist agenda, thereby avoiding being categorized as a suspect. But isn't that the point, don't we want people to not engage in pre-terrorist activity, like going to a training camp in Afghanistan, or sending money to organizations who have actively taken responsibility for civilian bombings. Isn't that the point? Getting people to be classified as suspected terrorists is not what a watchlist should be about. A watchlist should be about commonly agreed upon actions that as a society we do not support, and we can change our minds about what we do and do not support over time. Then the watchlist can be public, those on the watchlist can be public, their reason for being on the watchlist can be public and we can decide - together- who should and should not be on a watchlist. We already do it with criminals. Why is this process any different? Criminals can be just as deadly and corrupting to our society, but yet we've figured out a way (to some degree) to deal with them. We should be able to do the same with Terrorists. A new process is possible, one that will in fact make us, and everyone safer. This method is not that process. Or at least that is my opinion.
socrates1998 12y ago
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemöller
- mpnordland 12y ago
  Godwin's law comes true alarmingly quickly on HN.
  - stefantalpalaru 12y ago
    You know what's more alarming? Sweeping nazism under the rug because Godwin's law.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    You know, I'm increasingly becoming very disenchanted with Godwin's law. I think that Nazis are a great study and we should compare as many things as possible to them, as a cautionary tale. I understand that "Nazi!" gets thrown around heedlessly, but I'm suspicious of any retorical device whose job is to tell you when to stop thinking.
    - krapp 12y ago
      But to be fair, most attempts to analogize Nazism and Hitler are intended to stop you from thinking and stifle debate. Once someone claims that, for example, the US government is the modern analogue to the Nazis and they'll come for you soon, dear hacker, the way they came for the Jews then they're saying that, as far as they're concerned, anyone who would suffer further debate about the issue is defending an absolute and irredeemable evil. Or they're just engaging in paranoid, thoughtless hyperbole. Either way, it isn't helpful.
  - socrates1998 12y ago
    Once you are put on a list, it becomes very easy to take away your rights. And when the government doesn't publish how people get on the list, then anyone can be put on it with no legal justification.
adityab 12y ago
Two things are very noteworthy in this: Page 9 (concerning the definition of "terrorism"): >1.14.1 involve Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure Property? Tell me this is not a deliberately broad definition intended to be used against inconvenient persons. Page 22: >1.51 In determining whether an individual is a KNOWN or SUSPECTED TERRORIST, NCTC will rely on the designation of "KNOWN TERRORIST" provided by the NOMINATOR as presumptively valid. Presumptively valid. Let that sink in for a moment. It could not be put in clearer terms that a targeted person will be assumed guilty until proven innocent. This is a basic perversion, no, inversion, of due process and the justice system. EDIT: The OCR'd version of the document and the original have significant textual differences. Updated.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Pulling individual sentences out of their context tends to be misleading. Editing the cherry-picked parts is virtually guaranteed to be misleading. Here, you omitted the phrase 'known terrorist' from the middle of the sentence you quote on page 22. This totally changes the meaning of the quoted sentence. Also, you chose not to include the following sentence which described how such a presumption could be overcome if the investigative body in question had credible information to the contrary. Finally, you overlooked the fact that 'nominators' in this context refers to other government agencies, relying on existing procedures for designation of someone as a 'known terrorist', and that said procedures form the due process in question. The point of this is to avoid bureaucratic duplication and waste. If the FBI sends the NCTC someone's bio and states them to be a known terrorist (based on facts in said bio), then it's entirely reasonable for the NCTC to take the FBI's information at face value unless it receives information to the contrary. Such designation is presumptively valid in that situation because the FBI itself is subject to law. If different agencies of the executive branch are required to reject each others' conclusions by default and investigate every assertion de novo the outcome would be ontological paralysis. At such time as someone is detained and charged with terrorist the matter is handed over to the judicial branch, where a court serves the role of finder of fact. Essentially, you're demanding that trial precede investigation.
  - 12y ago
simonsarris 12y ago
I suspect many onlookers are going to misunderstand the intent of the rules that fill rulebooks like these. I suspect this because of ChuckFrank's comment which identifies problems and proposes solutions, as all we hackertypes instinctively do. The thing is, when they say: > create a 'nomination', 'verification' and 'implementation' process with their “originators,” “nominators,” “aggregators,” “screeners,” and “encountering agencies.” And we all reel in horror at how bad this is procedurally, we must remember that they are not doing this to determine terrorists. They are doing this because if they do put people on lists and need to watch them (for whatever reason), and end up being very wrong, they need to diffuse the damage to organization level (which cannot be held accountable) instead of individuals. In other words, its not about codifying who is a suspected and actual terrorist. It's about internal damage control so that no individual can be blamed when something goes wrong. I'm not sure the US Gov is entirely at fault here, at least not in a actually-tring-to-be-sinister sense. I think that most large businesses end up with these same processes for the exact same reasons. The only difference here is the topic, which is creepy as hell. But I think its working as intended. (Business example: General Motors deadly ignition switch recall[1]. Their processes are set up to shift blame, not to locate discrete problems that trace back to discrete decisions.) This is why Khalid El-Masri (See qeorge's comment) can never face his accuser. He was accused by aggregate. It's processes determination by firing squad. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall
- rosser 12y ago
  Oh, well that totally makes it okay, then. EDIT, since bare sarcasm is beneath the level of discourse I try to contribute here: To the contrary, having a codified set of rules that are designed to deflect blame away from bad or negligent actors is exactly the wrong solution to this problem. Consider the case of Rahinah Ibrahim; an FBI desk-pusher checked the wrong box on a form and it took her 12 years and millions of dollars worth of lawyer time to get that mistake, something a system like this is designed to entrench, to get that fixed.
- ChuckFrank 12y ago
  Your point is excellent. It's not that this process is created in error. The process is created to 'diffuse the damage to an organizational level - which cannot be held accountable.' Still I think that aside from gross incompetence or negligence, as a society we understand that people make mistakes such as prosecutorial error, and we have systems in place to deal with them (more or less). And yes, the problem is that here, as with problems in the criminal justice system, it's not only creepy as hell, but it also undermines the optimal functioning of a system. Resources get mis-allocated, contributing members of society get impeded, justice is denied, power differentials are exacerbated, etc. Transparency, equitability, justice those are all essential components to a great society, both in terms of functioning and in terms of ethics - and we should be doing the work to make it happen. Here's another opportunity to do so. Great point though.
davidcollantes 12y ago
Misspelled information (informaiton) twice?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
madaxe_again 12y ago
So, if influencing government policy is terrorism... what does that make the government, and corporations, who by far and above "influence policy" more than any other group?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Except that influencing government policy isn't terrorism, unless it involves intimidation or coercion, or assassination/ kidnapping/ bombing....
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    Soooooo drones and illegal wars?
ilaksh 12y ago
Please take a look at the actual history and contemporary use of government watchlists. This is not about terrorism. Its about suppressing dissent and consolidating power. People don't want to believe it, they want to think their government is only motivated to help them. But the reality is that we absolutely must compare this situation to the one in East Germany with the Stasi.
suprgeek 12y ago
From section 3.9: "...some activities conducted by U.S Persons or activities taking place inside the United States, maybe an exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment" So you will be put on a punitive list even after the govt. itself clearly recognizes that you are only exercising your first amendment rights. There is clearly something very wrong here...
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  The very next sentence says 'Watchlisting an individual for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities is prohibited.' The paragraph goes on to talk about the critical importance of considering information in its proper context, something you might want to work on yourself.
daveslash 12y ago
This is not the Terrorist Watch-list, but I found it interesting nonetheless. I found this while taking a training course for my large-corporate employer. It's a list of persons & organizations with whom my (or any) American employer is forbidden from doing business. http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt While reading,... [FTO] = Foreign Terrorist Organizations Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 597 --- [SDT] = Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 595 --- [SDGT] = Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 594 (full list of tags here http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/program_tags.aspx http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/P...)
rdtsc 12y ago
> They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation. By that logic our founding fathers are one of the most dangerous and evil terrorists. Acts that are dangerous to property? [check]. Trying to influence government policy [check]. They would be sent to Gitmo and watertortured 3 times per day.
- morgante 12y ago
  > By that logic our founding fathers are one of the most dangerous and evil terrorists. In fairness, to England they kind of were. They were literally revolutionaries. Thankfully, victors get to write history.
- joshfraser 12y ago
  Of course, the US government themselves would never hurt anyones property or try and influence government policy.
tunesmith 12y ago
It's interesting reading the first few paragraphs and mentally swapping out the "terrorist" concept for something like "bad risk for auto insurance". You could describe insurance systems with so many of the same adjectives - one damning factor wouldn't be enough to label you a bad risk even if several small factors might. Why do we insist on a clear definition for who should or shouldn't be on a watch list when it might actually be a complicated question of probability with many different factors?
- morgante 12y ago
  > Why do we insist on a clear definition for who should or shouldn't be on a watch list when it might actually be a complicated question of probability with many different factors? Because insurance companies can't detain you.
jacquesm 12y ago
Maybe they should start using a whitelist? That would seem to be more productive.

329 points by forsaken 12y ago

Here is one example where sloppy watch list policies like these resulted in the prolonged torture of an innocent person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri

madaxe_again 12y ago
Enhanced interrogation techniques, you mean. Everybody knows the us gov would never torture anybody. Just enhance them. With interrogation.

stinkfruit 12y ago

They start by labeling the entire potential populous "terrorists", and work backwards, never actually taking them off the list.

cruise02 12y ago
When you exaggerate a problem to such a ridiculous extreme, all the other party has to do is say "Oh no, we don't do that at all. Problem solved." This isn't productive. In fact, it's counter productive. Now all they have to say is "See the lies people tell about us? They're not interested in a rational debate at all. We're just going to carry on with business as usual."

lucb1e 12y ago

> It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted. That actually makes great sense as identity spoofs, or at least that's what I read in Kevin Mitnick's Ghost in the Wires, are most easily done under the name of deceased infants near your own year of birth.

outworlder 12y ago
Indeed. A deceased person flying should raise red flags everywhere.
- smnrchrds 12y ago
  I've heard before that people had problems getting on a plane because they had the same name as someone on the no-fly list. It would be really frustrating if they want to question everyone at the airport if they have the same name as a deceased person.
  - jackweirdy 12y ago
    I've heard the same, of first initial and surname - a friend and his dad have the same initial, and neither of them can enter mainland Europe without trouble (though getting elsewhere is fine)
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    Yeah that's a confirmed thing to happen (as the article mentions, in 2004 a senator's name looked like a terrorist's and the senator noticed), but I'm not sure the name is the only thing that makes a deceased person deceased. I mean, they'd probably include the DoB and birthplace and such things, which makes it more unique. At least, I'd hope so.
    - tacticus 12y ago
      Your hope is misplaced. For if they do include the DOB they certainly ignore it. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news-security/t/-year-old-turns-government-no-fly-list/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news-security/t/-ye...
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  The name alone is not a sufficient identifier to raise any kind of flag.

infogulch 12y ago

Rule #1: Anyone reading this rulebook.

dreamweapon 12y ago
Or posting about it on social media sites.
dmix 12y ago
This is the chilling effect in action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)
- coldcode 12y ago
  Rule #2, anyone reading about someone with the rulebook.
  - infogulch 12y ago
    Rule #3: anyone reading about anyone reading about someone with the rulebo--. Screw it, a few more rules and we can approximate this whole mess by using the 'degrees of separation' theory: EVERYONE'S A TERRORIST.
    - madaxe_again 12y ago
      Anyone suspected of being suspected to having known someone suspected of being suspected of reading the rulebook, you mean. Don't be so restrictive. Once we're all designated terrorists, nobody's a terrorist. Once you take everything from a man, that man is no longer in your power...
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - infogulch 12y ago
        > Once we're all designated terrorists, nobody's a terrorist. Nope, once we're all designated terrorists then prosecution becomes completely arbitrary and can be carried out with impunity and complete disregard for all rights "bcuz terrorist!".

sneak 12y ago

I posted this a few days ago, but I will repost it here: If they are terrorists (criminals) and the government is not prosecuting them, the government is breaking the law. If they are innocent of wrongdoing (not terrorists) and the government is depriving them of rights afforded to others, the government is breaking the law.

revelation 12y ago
That's the irony here. If they put you on the terrorist list, it's decisively because you are not actually a terrorist; the various travel restrictions would just instantly alert you to the fact that they found out about you. So the real terrorists don't end up on the list.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Faulty logic.
mcherm 12y ago
> If they are terrorists (criminals) and the government is not prosecuting them, the government is breaking the law. Completely untrue. The government has the option, not the obligation, to prosecute criminals. Also "being a terrorist" is NOT a boolean flag that some people possess and others do not. Some people who SAY they are terrorists are not. Most people who commit terrorist acts say that they are not terrorists. The government does not "know" which ones are terrorists and which are not. The definition of terrorism is very, very murky: we have declared that teaching conflict resolution is "terrorism" (under some circumstances) and that bombing innocents is not (under other circumstances).

KhalilK 12y ago

Link to the original pdf http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228/2013-watchlist-guidance.pdf http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228/2013-watchlist...

dublinben 12y ago
Thanks for the direct link. It was pretty frustrating that they weren't making it easy to download.

phkahler 12y ago

>> Obama hoped that his response to the “underwear bomber” would be a turning point. In 2010, he gave increased powers and responsibilities to the agencies that nominate individuals to the lists, placing pressure on them to add names. That part bothers me the most. By telling agencies to add names to the list, you don't automatically get more bad guys, you're just going to get more people on the list. A fair question would be "how much do we need to expand our scope to where we would have listed a certain person known to be a bad guy that slipped through?" And of course one data point isn't really terribly relevant, but the answer to the question may be enlightening - or not.

bjlorenzen 12y ago
It's even more confusing that Obama would push for more names to be added when the article clearly states that the underwear bomber was already on the list: >...after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

DINKDINK 12y ago

Some ludicrous statistics: "In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013" The government is saying that there are ~1,500 known or suspected terrorists per million population. Or in other words, the city of San Francisco is home to ~1,250 known or suspected terrorists. or to put it another way. That there are 1 known or suspected terrorists every 3 city blocks in San Francisco 468749/313.9e6837442/(46.87/(636.5581/52802))

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cryoshon 12y ago
We've known that they are delusionally paranoid for quite a while. This is just another piece of evidence to prove that claim.
HillRat 12y ago
Technically, it's more like 167 terrorists per million. The TSDB is a global database that is a subset of TIDE plus domestic names. TIDE is probably about 1/3 again larger than TSDB, with news reports pegging TIDE's size at about 875,000 names. If we assume that terrorists (or, as the source document likes to term them, "TERRORISTS") are confined to persons over the age of 15 (only true in the general case, I'm sad to say), then the database contains .017% of the targeted world population. An interesting question is whether TSDB and TIDE can even actually track the majority of militants worldwide -- for example, your average ISIS fighter or Donetsk militiaman, as opposed to terrorists seeking to carry out attacks in non-combat areas. The idea that there are 875K al-Qa'ida-style terrorists working worldwide wouldn't pass the laugh test with most analysts. Consider that ISIS, which is either a very large terrorist group or a very small conventional army, has a personnel list somewhere between 10K and 20K, and the Pakistani Taliban is thought to have between 5K-10K fighters. The size of the TSDB, even if it were a strict superset of all actively anti-American terrorists and militants in the world, is likely an order of magnitude too large.
- DINKDINK 12y ago
  Good counter point. I assumed all KSTs were US citizens. As far as I'm aware, that probability isn't divulged.

AwesomeTogether 12y ago

Funny timing How to get on the government watchlist? How to get followed on Twitter by @the_intercept? there was a story about the latter posted on Hacker news earlier today https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8075384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8075384 )

ChuckFrank 12y ago

What is really interesting about this document is that they are trying to create the rule book for determining suspected and actual terrorists. This is not an easy task. This is why they create a 'nomination', 'verification' and 'implementation' process with their “originators,” “nominators,” “aggregators,” “screeners,” and “encountering agencies.” But the problem comes down to the actual facts. This document does a terrible job of separating a process design - First a candidate gets originated by an originator, who passes that said candidate on to a nominator, etc - from the basic factual requirements needed to become listed as a suspected (or actual) terrorist. (Though the latter would seem easier to determine.) What is really needed is a clear set of factually determined checks to show that someone is indeed a suspected terrorist. Not a process design that creates a structure towards watch list inclusion. In design this is often a problem. It's a very common mistake. Teams, Companies, Professionals design a process, but not the necessary, required steps - and everything just gets lost in that process, especially when everything takes place according to the plan. Here's what the watch list needs. A list that triggers inclusion. If a appears to have done x, y or z, a get's "originated." If x, y, and z are verified, a gets nominated. At this point counter rationales for x, y and z must be presented to excuse the suggestion of terrorism when there is none. Etc. What is important are the verifiable X, Y and Z actions. That's what a document of this type should present. Now I know that the response is that if people are told how they get onto a watchlist, they will try to avoid those tasks while maintaining their terrorist agenda, thereby avoiding being categorized as a suspect. But isn't that the point, don't we want people to not engage in pre-terrorist activity, like going to a training camp in Afghanistan, or sending money to organizations who have actively taken responsibility for civilian bombings. Isn't that the point? Getting people to be classified as suspected terrorists is not what a watchlist should be about. A watchlist should be about commonly agreed upon actions that as a society we do not support, and we can change our minds about what we do and do not support over time. Then the watchlist can be public, those on the watchlist can be public, their reason for being on the watchlist can be public and we can decide - together- who should and should not be on a watchlist. We already do it with criminals. Why is this process any different? Criminals can be just as deadly and corrupting to our society, but yet we've figured out a way (to some degree) to deal with them. We should be able to do the same with Terrorists. A new process is possible, one that will in fact make us, and everyone safer. This method is not that process. Or at least that is my opinion.

socrates1998 12y ago

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemöller

mpnordland 12y ago
Godwin's law comes true alarmingly quickly on HN.
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  You know what's more alarming? Sweeping nazism under the rug because Godwin's law.
- sroerick 12y ago
  You know, I'm increasingly becoming very disenchanted with Godwin's law. I think that Nazis are a great study and we should compare as many things as possible to them, as a cautionary tale. I understand that "Nazi!" gets thrown around heedlessly, but I'm suspicious of any retorical device whose job is to tell you when to stop thinking.
  - krapp 12y ago
    But to be fair, most attempts to analogize Nazism and Hitler are intended to stop you from thinking and stifle debate. Once someone claims that, for example, the US government is the modern analogue to the Nazis and they'll come for you soon, dear hacker, the way they came for the Jews then they're saying that, as far as they're concerned, anyone who would suffer further debate about the issue is defending an absolute and irredeemable evil. Or they're just engaging in paranoid, thoughtless hyperbole. Either way, it isn't helpful.
- socrates1998 12y ago
  Once you are put on a list, it becomes very easy to take away your rights. And when the government doesn't publish how people get on the list, then anyone can be put on it with no legal justification.

adityab 12y ago

Two things are very noteworthy in this: Page 9 (concerning the definition of "terrorism"): >1.14.1 involve Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure Property? Tell me this is not a deliberately broad definition intended to be used against inconvenient persons. Page 22: >1.51 In determining whether an individual is a KNOWN or SUSPECTED TERRORIST, NCTC will rely on the designation of "KNOWN TERRORIST" provided by the NOMINATOR as presumptively valid. Presumptively valid. Let that sink in for a moment. It could not be put in clearer terms that a targeted person will be assumed guilty until proven innocent. This is a basic perversion, no, inversion, of due process and the justice system. EDIT: The OCR'd version of the document and the original have significant textual differences. Updated.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Pulling individual sentences out of their context tends to be misleading. Editing the cherry-picked parts is virtually guaranteed to be misleading. Here, you omitted the phrase 'known terrorist' from the middle of the sentence you quote on page 22. This totally changes the meaning of the quoted sentence. Also, you chose not to include the following sentence which described how such a presumption could be overcome if the investigative body in question had credible information to the contrary. Finally, you overlooked the fact that 'nominators' in this context refers to other government agencies, relying on existing procedures for designation of someone as a 'known terrorist', and that said procedures form the due process in question. The point of this is to avoid bureaucratic duplication and waste. If the FBI sends the NCTC someone's bio and states them to be a known terrorist (based on facts in said bio), then it's entirely reasonable for the NCTC to take the FBI's information at face value unless it receives information to the contrary. Such designation is presumptively valid in that situation because the FBI itself is subject to law. If different agencies of the executive branch are required to reject each others' conclusions by default and investigate every assertion de novo the outcome would be ontological paralysis. At such time as someone is detained and charged with terrorist the matter is handed over to the judicial branch, where a court serves the role of finder of fact. Essentially, you're demanding that trial precede investigation.
- 12y ago

simonsarris 12y ago

I suspect many onlookers are going to misunderstand the intent of the rules that fill rulebooks like these. I suspect this because of ChuckFrank's comment which identifies problems and proposes solutions, as all we hackertypes instinctively do. The thing is, when they say: > create a 'nomination', 'verification' and 'implementation' process with their “originators,” “nominators,” “aggregators,” “screeners,” and “encountering agencies.” And we all reel in horror at how bad this is procedurally, we must remember that they are not doing this to determine terrorists. They are doing this because if they do put people on lists and need to watch them (for whatever reason), and end up being very wrong, they need to diffuse the damage to organization level (which cannot be held accountable) instead of individuals. In other words, its not about codifying who is a suspected and actual terrorist. It's about internal damage control so that no individual can be blamed when something goes wrong. I'm not sure the US Gov is entirely at fault here, at least not in a actually-tring-to-be-sinister sense. I think that most large businesses end up with these same processes for the exact same reasons. The only difference here is the topic, which is creepy as hell. But I think its working as intended. (Business example: General Motors deadly ignition switch recall[1]. Their processes are set up to shift blame, not to locate discrete problems that trace back to discrete decisions.) This is why Khalid El-Masri (See qeorge's comment) can never face his accuser. He was accused by aggregate. It's processes determination by firing squad. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall

rosser 12y ago
Oh, well that totally makes it okay, then. EDIT, since bare sarcasm is beneath the level of discourse I try to contribute here: To the contrary, having a codified set of rules that are designed to deflect blame away from bad or negligent actors is exactly the wrong solution to this problem. Consider the case of Rahinah Ibrahim; an FBI desk-pusher checked the wrong box on a form and it took her 12 years and millions of dollars worth of lawyer time to get that mistake, something a system like this is designed to entrench, to get that fixed.
ChuckFrank 12y ago
Your point is excellent. It's not that this process is created in error. The process is created to 'diffuse the damage to an organizational level - which cannot be held accountable.' Still I think that aside from gross incompetence or negligence, as a society we understand that people make mistakes such as prosecutorial error, and we have systems in place to deal with them (more or less). And yes, the problem is that here, as with problems in the criminal justice system, it's not only creepy as hell, but it also undermines the optimal functioning of a system. Resources get mis-allocated, contributing members of society get impeded, justice is denied, power differentials are exacerbated, etc. Transparency, equitability, justice those are all essential components to a great society, both in terms of functioning and in terms of ethics - and we should be doing the work to make it happen. Here's another opportunity to do so. Great point though.

davidcollantes 12y ago

Misspelled information (informaiton) twice?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

madaxe_again 12y ago

So, if influencing government policy is terrorism... what does that make the government, and corporations, who by far and above "influence policy" more than any other group?

anigbrowl 12y ago
Except that influencing government policy isn't terrorism, unless it involves intimidation or coercion, or assassination/ kidnapping/ bombing....
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Soooooo drones and illegal wars?

ilaksh 12y ago

Please take a look at the actual history and contemporary use of government watchlists. This is not about terrorism. Its about suppressing dissent and consolidating power. People don't want to believe it, they want to think their government is only motivated to help them. But the reality is that we absolutely must compare this situation to the one in East Germany with the Stasi.

suprgeek 12y ago

From section 3.9: "...some activities conducted by U.S Persons or activities taking place inside the United States, maybe an exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment" So you will be put on a punitive list even after the govt. itself clearly recognizes that you are only exercising your first amendment rights. There is clearly something very wrong here...

anigbrowl 12y ago
The very next sentence says 'Watchlisting an individual for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities is prohibited.' The paragraph goes on to talk about the critical importance of considering information in its proper context, something you might want to work on yourself.

daveslash 12y ago

This is not the Terrorist Watch-list, but I found it interesting nonetheless. I found this while taking a training course for my large-corporate employer. It's a list of persons & organizations with whom my (or any) American employer is forbidden from doing business. http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt While reading,... [FTO] = Foreign Terrorist Organizations Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 597 --- [SDT] = Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 595 --- [SDGT] = Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 594 (full list of tags here http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/program_tags.aspx http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/P...)

rdtsc 12y ago

> They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation. By that logic our founding fathers are one of the most dangerous and evil terrorists. Acts that are dangerous to property? [check]. Trying to influence government policy [check]. They would be sent to Gitmo and watertortured 3 times per day.

morgante 12y ago
> By that logic our founding fathers are one of the most dangerous and evil terrorists. In fairness, to England they kind of were. They were literally revolutionaries. Thankfully, victors get to write history.
joshfraser 12y ago
Of course, the US government themselves would never hurt anyones property or try and influence government policy.

tunesmith 12y ago

It's interesting reading the first few paragraphs and mentally swapping out the "terrorist" concept for something like "bad risk for auto insurance". You could describe insurance systems with so many of the same adjectives - one damning factor wouldn't be enough to label you a bad risk even if several small factors might. Why do we insist on a clear definition for who should or shouldn't be on a watch list when it might actually be a complicated question of probability with many different factors?

morgante 12y ago
> Why do we insist on a clear definition for who should or shouldn't be on a watch list when it might actually be a complicated question of probability with many different factors? Because insurance companies can't detain you.

jacquesm 12y ago

Maybe they should start using a whitelist? That would seem to be more productive.