updated:US watch list at all time high again! 900,000

[Michael Hardner]

So the fact that there are 'false positives' in the list means that the system should be scrapped ?

The story about the 57 year old grandmother and 8 year old boy are irrelevant to me. I'm sorry they're inconvenienced but it's a small price to pay for having more security.

Unless you're part of the 'drivers don't signal their turns so we might as well get rid of turning signals altogether' crowd...

[daniel]

....I'm sorry they're inconvenienced but it's a small price to pay for having more security.

Unless you're part of the 'drivers don't signal their turns so we might as well get rid of turning signals altogether' crowd...

Good argument to keep the gun registry in Canada.

[guyser]

So the fact that there are 'false positives' in the list means that the system should be scrapped ?

Scrapped? .No.

But the idea that a 6 yr old is on it is ludicrous. If there is a name that matches , why not an age or some other identifying mark put in the computer?

A 20 yr old man named Sandy Williams of Poughkeepsie with blonde hair and tattoos is not the same Sandy Williams of Palos Verde , female and aged 68 with blue hair and no tattoos. That goes beyond inconvenience.

True story. Coming home from the Exhibition after closing the Casino (had the rights for the booze), drove through Rosedale at 4AM with over $30,000 cash in a Loblaws bag between myself and my friend.

His car....

His money....

We saw the cop and we both said he will pull us over because we were short cutting through Rosedale.

Friends said if we do get pulled over , they will likely handcuff him unless the cop wants to see the lack of a tattoo between thumb and forefinger.

Sure enough, pulled over. Warrant issued for someone with the same name as my friend. Friend says to Cop, look on computer for id marks and you will not see a tattoo on me where the "crook" guy has one.

We were let go.

So how hard would it be to have at least some info on the computers? Pretty damn easy I say.

Thank god I am not Mike Smith or some common name like that.

[Michael Hardner]

Scrapped? .No.

But the idea that a 6 yr old is on it is ludicrous. If there is a name that matches , why not an age or some other identifying mark put in the computer?

A 20 yr old man named Sandy Williams of Poughkeepsie with blonde hair and tattoos is not the same Sandy Williams of Palos Verde , female and aged 68 with blue hair and no tattoos. That goes beyond inconvenience.

True story. Coming home from the Exhibition after closing the Casino (had the rights for the booze), drove through Rosedale at 4AM with over $30,000 cash in a Loblaws bag between myself and my friend.

His car....

His money....

We saw the cop and we both said he will pull us over because we were short cutting through Rosedale.

Friends said if we do get pulled over , they will likely handcuff him unless the cop wants to see the lack of a tattoo between thumb and forefinger.

Sure enough, pulled over. Warrant issued for someone with the same name as my friend. Friend says to Cop, look on computer for id marks and you will not see a tattoo on me where the "crook" guy has one.

We were let go.

So how hard would it be to have at least some info on the computers? Pretty damn easy I say.

I guess you're smarter than the CIA.

[Wilber]

The story about the 57 year old grandmother and 8 year old boy are irrelevant to me. I'm sorry they're inconvenienced but it's a small price to pay for having more security.

As long as you are not the one being inconvenienced. Heading down to Miami to pick up a cruise? Sorry no cruise and maybe no refund. Small price to pay.

This kind of stuff doesn't enhance security, it makes it look like an ass which does exactly the opposite.

[guyser]

I guess you're smarter than the CIA.

Thank you..............I hope.

[kuzadd]

So the fact that there are 'false positives' in the list means that the system should be scrapped ?

The story about the 57 year old grandmother and 8 year old boy are irrelevant to me. I'm sorry they're inconvenienced but it's a small price to pay for having more security.

Unless you're part of the 'drivers don't signal their turns so we might as well get rid of turning signals altogether' crowd...

But obviously it's false security, full of grandma's and toddlers and 15,000 people asking for there names to be removed.

That is security?

[Michael Hardner]

But obviously it's false security, full of grandma's and toddlers and 15,000 people asking for there names to be removed.

That is security?

I trust it.

Do you really think that 2 examples, and 2% of people on the list challenging it are criteria for failure ?

[kuzadd]

I trust it.

Do you really think that 2 examples, and 2% of people on the list challenging it are criteria for failure ?

s.

Actually there are many , many more then 2 examples, and the assumption that the list has a 2 percent error rate is also false.

15,000 people are challenging the gov, for removal from the list, because they KNOW or are aware they are on it, how many other's have yet to find out???

The list, gives a false sense of security to you apparently, and labels people as terrorists, for no apparent reason, other then that there name is on some arbitrary no fly list. That grows bigger exponentially, at that rate, you will soon know someone on it, personally. Maybe it will be you.

[Michael Hardner]

s.

Actually there are many , many more then 2 examples, and the assumption that the list has a 2 percent error rate is also false.

15,000 people are challenging the gov, for removal from the list, because they KNOW or are aware they are on it, how many other's have yet to find out???

The list, gives a false sense of security to you apparently, and labels people as terrorists, for no apparent reason, other then that there name is on some arbitrary no fly list. That grows bigger exponentially, at that rate, you will soon know someone on it, personally. Maybe it will be you.

Maybe the lists are good, maybe they're bad. But there's no evidence in this thread that I can see.

You said:

'But obviously it's false security, full of grandma's and toddlers and 15,000 people asking for there names to be removed.'

Why do you think that it's obviously false security ?

You posted articles about an 8 year old and a grandmother on the list. Is that proof that the list is bad ? If not, then why'd you post that ?

[kuzadd]

It's false security, because, YOU believe it keeps you safer, yet there is ZERO indication it does, or is actually capable of doing so.

Unless your afraid of small children, grandmas , Ted Kennedy, Lawyers , such as Francis Boyle.

I guess if those are the people you are afraid of then the list is doing a smashing job?

[margrace]

Like so many things in this country, people assume that something a persons is complaining about or telling what happened to them, Happened because this person deserved it and it won't happen to me.

You are on the list because you did something wrong or are a danger and I will not be on it because I am a good Canadian.

There are many examples of this false premis. When something happens such as not being allowed to fly everyone says, as is being said by some posters, that's just a coincidence and of course it won't happen again. Wake up people, it can happen to you.

[Michael Hardner]

It's false security, because, YOU believe it keeps you safer, yet there is ZERO indication it does, or is actually capable of doing so.

Unless your afraid of small children, grandmas , Ted Kennedy, Lawyers , such as Francis Boyle.

I guess if those are the people you are afraid of then the list is doing a smashing job?

How can you say that there is zero indication is keeps you safer ? You don't think a list of potential security risks is a good idea ?

Again, the fact that there is a child on the list doesn't mean anything.

[kuzadd]

How can you say that there is zero indication is keeps you safer ? You don't think a list of potential security risks is a good idea ?

Again, the fact that there is a child on the list doesn't mean anything.

A list of "POTENTIAL " security risks is nonsense.

Potentially nothing could come of it.

Do you think American Lawyers, small kids and grandmas are POTENTIAL security risks?

To what? To who?

A list of "potential" security risks, should be accurate, since the security risks are merely POTENTIONAL, not definite.

Hence false security.

Edited November 14, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

MH:

About 53,000 people on the list were questioned since 2004, according to the GAO, which says the Homeland Security Department doesn't keep records on how many were denied entry or allowed into the country after questioning. Most were apparently released and allowed to enter, the GAO says.

so 53,000 people on the list (of 755,000) were "questioned" that is , JUST 1/15th of the names on the list, and most were released and allowed to enter the US.

Now if 15,000 people who know they were on the list are requesting removal, but it seems quite likely the vast majority do not know they are even on the list.

It is quite probable to postulate that the vast majority of the people on the list should not even be on there!

again, false security. No matter how you slice or dice it. False sense of security.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you think American Lawyers, small kids and grandmas are POTENTIAL security risks?

I have explained to you why a small kid or grandma or two on the list is acceptable error. You haven't come back with anything to indicate that the problems are worse than that, so why do you keep bringing this up ?

To what? To who?

A list of "potential" security risks, should be accurate, since the security risks are merely POTENTIONAL, not definite.

Hence false security.

After they become definite threats, it's too late.

[Michael Hardner]

K,

so 53,000 people on the list (of 755,000) were "questioned" that is , JUST 1/15th of the names on the list, and most were released and allowed to enter the US.

Now if 15,000 people who know they were on the list are requesting removal, but it seems quite likely the vast majority do not know they are even on the list.

It is quite probable to postulate that the vast majority of the people on the list should not even be on there!

again, false security. No matter how you slice or dice it. False sense of security

I'll grand you that the 53,000 people who were questioned and released makes one wonder what the hell happened, and - yes - I would question the list based on that.

I don't know if the list should be dropped entirely, though. The approach seems like a good one.

[Wilber]

How many different names are there in the world? At the present rate of increase it shouldn't be too many years before they have them all covered. Then what?

[Guest American Woman]

This is truly bizarre:

...some of the some of most dangerous terrorists never even end up on the No Fly List, because the intelligence agencies that supply the names don’t want them circulated to airport employees in foreign countries for fear that they could end up in the hands of the terrorists.

Unlikely Terrorists On No Fly List--Steve Kroft Reports List Includes President Of Bolivia, Dead 9/11 Hijackers

[Wilber]

This is truly bizarre:

...some of the some of most dangerous terrorists never even end up on the No Fly List, because the intelligence agencies that supply the names don’t want them circulated to airport employees in foreign countries for fear that they could end up in the hands of the terrorists.

Unlikely Terrorists On No Fly List--Steve Kroft Reports List Includes President Of Bolivia, Dead 9/11 Hijackers

No wonder your government wants the names of passengers on flights which overfly the US. They don't care if terrorists get on other country's aircraft as long as they don't fly over the US.

[Guest American Woman]

No wonder your government wants the names of passengers on flights which overfly the US. They don't care if terrorists get on other country's aircraft as long as they don't fly over the US.

Never thought to look at it that way, but that would appear to be true.

[Michael Hardner]

Really ? How so ?

I could see there being an advantage for the government if certain types of terrorists didn't know they were being watched, or that they were 'outed' as terrorists.

[GostHacked]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/se...n_terror_watch/

US Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) was prohibited from flying because his name sparked a terror alert, the Associated Press reports. Apparently, the Senator's name came up on a terrorist watch list, or no-fly list, while attempting to board a US Airways shuttle out of Washington.

If a "Ted Kennedy is on the list, then everyone who goes by the name "Ted Kennedy" is flagged as a potential no-fly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6274221.stm

Senator Ted Stevens said his wife Catherine was being identified as Cat Stevens - the folk singer now known as Yusuf Islam who was prevented from entering the US in 2004.

--

Mr Hawley said his department did send updated information to airlines but added: "Unfortunately, it depends airline by airline how their individual systems work."

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/271329

LONDON – Britain's first Muslim government minister was disappointed after being pulled aside for questioning at a U.S. airport for the second time in a year, he said today.

International Development Minister Shahid Malik said he was detained for about 40 minutes at Dulles Airport in Washington on Sunday morning and his hand luggage was tested for traces of explosives. Malik was returning to London after talks on tackling terrorism with U.S. officials.

Last November, Malik was detained for an hour at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport as he flew in to deliver a speech on tackling extremism and defeating terrorism at an event co-organized by the U.S. Homeland Security Department.

So, even when you invite him to give speaches on Terrorism, he is detained by the same department that invited him in the first place. TWICE !!!!!!

[Wilber]

Really ? How so ?

I could see there being an advantage for the government if certain types of terrorists didn't know they were being watched, or that they were 'outed' as terrorists.

A terrorist who is known to the US gets on a Canadian aircraft in Frankfurt and flies to Toronto. The airline doesn't know because he isn't on their no fly list because the US is keeping it a big secret. Yet they want the names of all passengers on that airline who are overflying the US. If they are not overflying the US, they could care less. Just lookin after your safety, right?

[Michael Hardner]

A terrorist who is known to the US gets on a Canadian aircraft in Frankfurt and flies to Toronto. The airline doesn't know because he isn't on their no fly list because the US is keeping it a big secret. Yet they want the names of all passengers on that airline who are overflying the US. If they are not overflying the US, they could care less. Just lookin after your safety, right?

What I don't get, though, is that there's nothing stopping somebody who is not on the no-fly list from getting on any plane, right ? Including between US locations.

It seems to me that they just want some suspected terrorists off the list, possibly because they're not an immediate threat to civilians, but fill a role higher in their organizations.

I can't see any other reason for it. Anyone else ?