3 ms·

torthrowaway123: > A decade ago I knew Jeremy, a very little. Not enough to be particularly interesting even then, yet alone now, and I haven't spoken to him s

torthrowaway123: > A decade ago I knew Jeremy, a very little. Not enough to be particularly interesting even then, yet alone now, and I haven't spoken to him since he went to jail for the first time (I think around 2005). > (And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this. Can't imagine anyone would really care about my saying I knew him, hell I'm 99% sure he wouldn't even remember my name, but I'd rather not make that tie if it hasn't already been made.) I think this illustrates the real concern a lot of people may have over this story than the hair-splitting semantics about defining the word "terrorist". How do we know who's labeled a terrorist and who isn't? What if we're associated with someone on a terror watch list without knowing this? What if you're on a watch list and don't know it? What recourse do any of us have?

thissideup 12y ago
These are all good questions. I'm sure some agent of the government will respond very conclusively shortly.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  I think they'd rather get their JTRIG shills to downvote me than to risk the public gaining a sense of clarity in how they operate.
tptacek 12y ago
You don't, and can't. The purpose of having watchlists is so counterterrorist investigators can quietly monitor the movements of people they think will organize terrorist attacks. Notifying the people on the list defeats that purpose: it ensures that none of the people it's watching will incriminate themselves, or lead counterterrorist investigations to the other members of the plot. That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  > You don't, and can't. The purpose of having watchlists is so counterterrorist investigators can quietly monitor the movements of people they think will organize terrorist attacks. Notifying the people on the list defeats that purpose: it ensures that none of the people it's watching will incriminate themselves, or lead counterterrorist investigations to the other members of the plot. Fair enough. > That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint. At this point, I want to say, "What can be done about this abuse?!" but I don't really have any answers. The best we can hope for is some form of independent oversight from someone who can remain some degree of objectively neutral (which is to say, not buddy-buddy with law enforcement), but who also can be trusted not to leak stuff to the press. I dunno, does anyone have better ideas? This is way outside of my comfort zone.

thissideup 12y ago

These are all good questions. I'm sure some agent of the government will respond very conclusively shortly.

sarciszewski 12y ago
I think they'd rather get their JTRIG shills to downvote me than to risk the public gaining a sense of clarity in how they operate.

tptacek 12y ago

You don't, and can't. The purpose of having watchlists is so counterterrorist investigators can quietly monitor the movements of people they think will organize terrorist attacks. Notifying the people on the list defeats that purpose: it ensures that none of the people it's watching will incriminate themselves, or lead counterterrorist investigations to the other members of the plot. That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint.

sarciszewski 12y ago
> You don't, and can't. The purpose of having watchlists is so counterterrorist investigators can quietly monitor the movements of people they think will organize terrorist attacks. Notifying the people on the list defeats that purpose: it ensures that none of the people it's watching will incriminate themselves, or lead counterterrorist investigations to the other members of the plot. Fair enough. > That doesn't mean the lists aren't fraught or regularly abused. For instance, you surely cross a line from "legitimate investigative tool" to "tool of oppression" when the watchlist ensures you get an extra hour of screening at the TSA checkpoint. At this point, I want to say, "What can be done about this abuse?!" but I don't really have any answers. The best we can hope for is some form of independent oversight from someone who can remain some degree of objectively neutral (which is to say, not buddy-buddy with law enforcement), but who also can be trusted not to leak stuff to the press. I dunno, does anyone have better ideas? This is way outside of my comfort zone.