A few weeks ago I checked to see how much money was left on a gift debit card given to me as a Christmas “bonus,” and it turned out to be $5.08 cents. It was enough for a cup of coffee, so the next time I stopped by a convenience store I tried to use the card to make a purchase. But the PIN number I punched-in didn’t work, and for the life of me I couldn’t remember what it was. I knew it was some numbers from an old phone number, so I decided later to check the Internet for the answer.
The readily available information for non-public figures with a small footprint is actually rather limited, and despite the fact I have written over 2,000 posts on this blog since 2010, I was reminded of the 1976 German film Alone in Berlin: Every Man Dies Alone, in which an anti-Nazi man and his wife compose notes in which they leave scattered about the city; but after they are arrested, a sympathetic police investigator tells the man that it was all pointless, because every note was immediately turned-in to police by the person who found it.
Anyways, I mostly just discovered old addresses and phone numbers, realizing the PIN was actually based on something else. The website I found this information on intimated to the outsider that there was much more information available out there, the kind of stuff you would want to know if you were considering a “relationship” with this person. Of course it was suggested that this could be "bad"; this is generally how this and other “personal” information sites advertise themselves, especially when targeting women, if they want to pay to find out. Of course this would also be helpful to men if the woman they are dating has a history of making allegations (especially the false kind) against men.
Curious about what additional information this website would have about me that I didn't already know without having to pay for it, I let the search engine do its magic act, and then it got to the “Government Watch List Notice”:
Now what it actually says is “if” my name is on the government watch list, then you will have access to the information explaining this (for a price, of course). Of course if someone isn't paying attention to detail, they might assume that I am. Note that cursor is spinning; in fact it continued to spin for about 12 hours until I shut it down. It must have been going through quite a list of names before it decided I was—or wasn’t—on the list.
The actual numbers of people on various “lists” of “terrorist” concern are all over the map. There are over a million people on the Terrorist Screening Database, which consolidates various other lists such as that by the FBI's and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. There are supposedly a relatively small percentage of people on these lists who are U.S. citizens, and it is claimed that the vast majority of people on these lists are not regularly investigated or considered threats to national security, or are subject to screenings for gun purchases or on No-Fly lists because of civil rights concerns. There is only the occasional hiccup where suspicious TSA agents or during credit checks when people learn to their surprise that they are on such lists.
Today the FBI claims that there are no abuses in the system and that the vast majority of people who encounter problems while traveling are not on a terrorist watch list, but have other “issues” of “concern”—like having Spanish or Muslim names. But that wasn’t always the case, before federal courts were finding that post 9-11 laws putting random people on watch lists was growing out of control, and were unconstitutional and made it difficult for people to have their complaints about being on the lists resolved.
But apparently problems still exist today, with people being “flagged” at airports because they have the same name as someone else who might also be improperly on the list. We are told that only people who are, or are possible associates with, “terrorists” are on the lists, and how people get on these lists in the first place supposedly starts with a government agent “nominating” a person to be on it, and then a brief “investigation” occurs when it is determined whether there is sufficient “suspicion” to justify putting a person on the watch list.
The fact that so many people who are put on these lists are regarded as of being of limited interest suggests the evidence against them is rather weak, but the fact that thousands of government and law enforcement agencies are given access to this information suggests that the potential for abuse against innocent people is an ongoing issue.
The government’s failure to provide a meaningful remedy for people on the lists compounds these harms, whether reputational or violating civil rights. The ACLU notes that despite court orders, there has been little done to correct abuses even now. The majority of people who use the redress application program are in fact still kept on the watch lists without explanation, which the FBI explains by claiming that these people may be on other “lists” besides terrorists lists. The ACLU notes that the
DHS’s redress system — inaptly called the Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, or DHS “TRIP” — makes a mockery of due process. When people experiencing harm from placement on the list submit a petition through this system, the government refuses to confirm or deny whether the submitter is even on a watchlist. They receive zero evidence or reasons for their placement on the watchlist, nor are they afforded a hearing before a neutral decision maker. Unsurprisingly, without any notice of the basis for their placement on a watchlist, people can’t correct government mistakes or misplaced suspicion and clear their names.
Most people, it is noted, who are on these watch lists don’t even know they are on them, and it is suggested that the easiest way to find out is to book a plane ticket and see what happens. In 2012, an 18-month old girl was removed from a JetBlue flight for being on “terrorist” list. https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/travel/no-fly-toddler/
No comments:
Post a Comment