Maryland Police Put Activists' Names On Terror List 426
aaandre writes with word of a Washington Post story which begins:
"The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday. The police also entered the activists' names into the federal Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area database, which tracks suspected terrorists. One well-known antiwar activist from Baltimore, Max Obuszewski, was singled out in the intelligence logs released by the ACLU, which described a 'primary crime' of 'terrorism-anti-government' and a 'secondary crime' of 'terrorism-anti-war protesters.'"
According to the article, "Both [former state police superintendent Thomas] Hutchins and [Maryland Police Superintendent Terrence] Sheridan said the activists' names were entered into the state police database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries." Reader kcurtis adds "The State Police say they are purging the data, but this is one more example (on top of yesterday's news that datamining for terrorists is not feasible due to false positives) of just how badly the use of these lists can be abused."
In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Insightful)
...those jokes are getting less and less funny.
That's all I have to say about that.
It's NOT the DATA MINING (Score:2, Insightful)
Having personally used Multiple Data Mining techniques for several years now - It's not that Data Mining doesn't work, rather it's how its used. Data Mining is great at trend forecasting and if you're really good at what you're doing in it you can factor in probabilities of certain future events. The one key factor in data mining is a "Training Set" of Data to teach the machine(s) how to recognize the patterns. Since I suspect Terrorist come from every walk of life, every know nationality, and are using 1 off events this is throwing them a few headaches. The real key is to of course define what is normal, but if the rest of the world is as normal as are we here in the US they don't have a chance to pin point the Target Data (in this case people).
I would also suspect that the Terrorist Motives might be a key factor, but it's like pulling teeth to get any US Administration to admit that their foreign policy is screw up beyond belief, let alone something like a cruddy foreign policy might just result in cruddy foreign relations or popular uprisings around the world. If they did, then we wouldn't need data mining in the first place.
"May You - Live Long and Prosper in Interesting Times" -- by deweycheetham
All these lists are insane (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've done something illegal, then arrest and prosecute them. If they haven't, then they should be free to go about their lives.
All innocent people should be equal in the eyes of the law.
New edition will also offer . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . the "Thoughtcrime" classification.
Who made this software? Someone who watches their "24" DVD set over and over?
terrorism-whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
They sure don't seem to be terrorists from what anyone has presented. Everyone has the right to be a left-wing, right-wing, religious, gay, slashdot, anti-slashdot, or whatever other type of wingnut they want. So long as they are peaceful about it, that is.
Perhaps the "limited options" were there for a reason - those were the only valid reasons for entry in the first place. Anyone who didn't match probably shouldn't have been entered in the first place.
Being politically active is not terrorism. Terrorism is violence with the aim of influencing public behavior in such a way as to subvert either the popular will or to force a government to give concessions to the group in question.
These lists could be a really useful tool for stopping stupid asshats who are planning attacks, but that utility is lost if they are full of garbage data. From many descriptions, they are becoming about as good as randomly flipping through a phone book.
Purging the garbage is an excellent idea, both to protect innocent people's rights and to make the lists themselves a useful resource.
Re:It's NOT the DATA MINING (Score:2, Insightful)
On the topic of TFA, is it just me or did they basically say the equivalent of "We didn't have an option for 'we hate this guy because he disagrees with us, he should be harassed' so instead they picked 'terrorist'"?
Re:terrorism-whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the "terrorism-anti-war protesters" category even exists should be a gigantic red flag that something is seriously wrong with whoever set up the system in the first place.
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a sickening amount of "cowboy" and "U.S. is #1" mentality out here. These same people think we still wear the "white hat" in all of this and that everyone else is just wrong.
There are a variety of reasons Republicans should lose by a wide margin... but those same reasons also apply to Democrats.
We need something better... more closely resembling the original plan of government for the U.S.
Needs a refresher 'civics' course. (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government," [Hutchins] said.
I'm boggled.
That means, you get to watch them and make sure they're not storming the prison. That doesn't mean you get to disrupt their activities by putting them on terrorist watch lists because you're part of the grievances they're protesting about.
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:4, Insightful)
... and as a non-american, I wonder how come (esp after 8 years of Bush/Cheney) McCaine is still in the race. And I am not saying this as endorsement to the Democrats, but by default, any other major opposition to McCaine should have won the election by now. Just 8% lead? This probably will explain why such lists exist and abused.
First, you can't judge anything by the statistics put out so far. Looking at the trend graphs exactly who is in the lead at any given time depends on when you ask, and which source of data you use. Mostly it comes down to how the pick the people to poll.
Second, McCaine is still in the running for a variety of reasons. To start with, he claims to represent a government reform and responsibility platform. Whether he'll follow through on it, or if it really is as he presents it (instead of say a way to make life difficult for politicians and organizations he doesn't like) is yet to be seen. He also, like it or not, has a better foreign relations policy (at least as of right now) at least from an economic standpoint, something many Americans are particularly worried about right now. There's also the (unfortunately) strong right wing Christian contingent that will vote for him because they perceive him (and his young earth creationist running mate) as strongly supporting the Christian church (whichever one that happens to be). Lastly there are a depressingly large number of people that are just plain racist and will vote for him for no other reason than the opposition is a black man.
If Google Were Doing It (Score:2, Insightful)
I work for a state agency that works with data quite a bit. If the people working there can enter data correctly 60% of the time I would be amazed. This is generally do to poor validation and apathetic workers. Then, the data is "mined" in either inappropriate or unintended ways. This information is handed up the food chain for decisions by people who have no clue about the nuances of the data, or even main concepts regarding it. All of a sudden, data mining doesn't work.
My main point here is to caution that just because an implementation of something is horribly flawed doesn't mean it is also flawed in theory. Data mining can be extremely helpful if done correctly. However, when a system doesn't allow a user to differentiate between a terrorist and a protester I would have some serious concerns about the abilities of the people running that operation.
if $citizen law breaker then $crime == terror (Score:5, Insightful)
So what kind of terrorist did they hope to classify them as?
A slippery slope... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if I decide to vote against the incumbents in political office I forfeit my first amendment rights? Or is it only if I discuss doing so? Maybe I have to put a sign in my yard first? Or is participation in or organization of a rally against those rascally incumbents a necessary precondition? How about a sit-in? Civil disobedience?
This sounds like the kind of thing where the bar will become lower and lower over time.
Best not to begin...
wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess there really is no limits to the complete incompetence which permeates law enforcement. We all had an impression of law enforcement as not very intelligent, and this just sears it in. Labeling someone as a terrorist because they exercise their Constitutional right to protest. The first amendment is very clear. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Crystal clear. Congress can make no laws prohibiting people to peaceably assemble.
And if congress can make no laws prohibiting it, law enforcement cannot enforce laws that do not exist. Therefore, law enforcement is violating the Constitutional rights of those citizens.
end of story.
Re:Check yourself, (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a sneaky way to criminalize somebody without actually going through the legal motions.
It's just a fact that getting into trouble with the police can screw you over without charge or conviction. If your family, neighbours and job see the police search your home and workplace or the media blast your name all over without ever reaching a conviction, that would probably do a lot of damage to you even if you're innocent. I've not heard of it being kept on record and used against you permanently like that, but it's not the first job anyone's lost...
Palin/Regan quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Stories like this underscore my feeling about Palin's quote from the VP debate:
"we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free."
I'm sure that the Republican's view of this is one of war/conquest and that America will lose to some foreign non-democratic state, but today the more urgent issue seems to be loss of civil liberties. Loss of freedom from expanding government power. It's the ultimate irony that the party that espouses this quote is most likely THE party that will remove all our civil liberties and turn freedom into just a memory.
These people should definitely charged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting people who aren't terrorists and who aren't likely to become terrorists on a terrorism watch list should either be a firing offense or a criminal offense.
I'm also in favor of criminalizing certain actions routinely carried out by law enforcement (police, prosecutors, etc.). Usually when excessive force is used by a police officer, the worst thing that happens is the officer is suspended or fired, even if the victim dies. Occasionally a police officer is fired. Even more rarely the police officer in question is charged with a crime. Also, if a prosecutor knowingly withholds exculpatory evidence, the most that happens is that the convicted person gets a new trial or is granted an appeal.
I'll give an example of how I think things should work, though I don't know that something like this has ever happened in the United States. Let's say a prosecutor withholds possibly exculpatory evidence in order to win a case where one of the possible penalties is death. Let's also say that the person charged is found guilty, and after exhausting all appeals is put to death. The original prosecutor should be charged with murder, first degree or second degree depending on the strength of the withheld evidence. If this happens in a death penalty state and the charge is first degree murder, then the death penalty should be on the table. If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt* that the original prosecutor knowingly withheld the exculpatory evidence then the original prosecutor should be convicted by a jury and given an appropriate sentence.
People in law enforcement should be held to higher standards than the general public, not lower.**
*If such a case were to occur, an independent prosecutor should be appointed, since in most jurisdictions prosecutors all know each other and aren't likely to vigorously prosecute such a case.
**I know this isn't likely to ever happen. I simply think it would be more just than the current system.
Libel (Score:2, Insightful)
When there is no penalty for abusing the system... (Score:3, Insightful)
There will always be a number of people who will abuse it unless there is a penalty and a good chance of getting caught. The same with any rule, law, or system. There are many rules, laws, and systems that don't even define penalties for abuse. And the chances of getting caught abusing some of them are minuscule.
Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
If you disagree with the government you are an enemy of the state and it's the police that will deal with you. There's a name for this ideology: fascism.
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:1, Insightful)
Vote Libertarian
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:3, Insightful)
McCain will lose. It was over the instant he picked Palin.
But to suggest democrats will be nicer and ensure your freedoms or anything of that nature is ridiculous.
I registered to vote recently - my political party is officially "Teh LOL Cats". Invisible Candidate '08!
Re:If Google Were Doing It (Score:3, Insightful)
Data mining is great for providing statistical answers to questions. But the statistics can only be used for "inductive reasoning". The conclusion is not a fact, it's only a probability. "Joe learned how to make bombs in the army", "Joe is in an anti-war group", "Mary does not know how to make bombs", does not yield "Joe is an anti-war terrorist." It might yield "Joe has more potential to be an anti-war terrorist than Mary does."
Now, if there are more facts and premises, such as "People who plant bombs are terrorists" and "Joe was convicted for planting a bomb in an Army Recruiting Center", then you can deduce that Joe is a terrorist. But you still cannot deduce that "the anti-war group is a terrorist organization" unless you include a the premise that "an organization that has a terrorist as a member is a terrorist organization." And that premise may or may not be valid.
In every country ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately most people fail to see the connection between lists and any danger. The lists are being made to influence people who speaking out against the ones in power. But most people fail to see the danger of giving the power seekers ever more data to mine on everyone. Knowledge is power and the ones in power seek the use that knowledge to prevent people standing against their point of view.
With ever more detailed lists on peoples views, soon we end up with people fearful of what they say on the phone and in emails, for fear of their views could even just risk being taken out of context and in any way critical of the people in power. At that point, the ones in power are influencing people directly.
At that point, we live in a police state, where freedom is gone and replaced by fear of the ones in power. Problem is, we are getting there now, and from here on out, its simply a matter of consolidation of ever more detailed data mining.
The central reason why centuries ago votes were made in secret, was to prevent the ones in power, from seeking to influence the voters. Yet the power seekers are forever seeking to game the system to gain ever more information on peoples opinions. Now the ones in power are building automated systems to influence people.
Throughout history its been shown time and time again that the ones in power become ever more corrupt over time without any feedback on how they are behaving. Its been show so many times through history.
Most people don't realise the the game people in power are playing. People in power are not so interested in individuals. The ones in power are interested in adding everyone to different lists so they can then control and profiling groups of people, so they can then use divide and conquer tactics, to break groups of people up. The goal is that the fragmented groups cannot then stand and oppose the point of view of the ones in power. That is why they data mine.
The lessons of history have not been learned by enough people. Looks like the world is seeking to repeat the mistakes of the past. Freedom and democracy are constantly undermined by a minority of people in power for their own gain. Its just a matter of time and how far we are going to let them all game the system to push the excesses ever more unfairly in their favour. After all, its not as if they are robbing hundreds of billions of tax payers money to keep their rich lifestyles while millions risk loosing everything.
Anyway, if the millions of people can't buy bread, then let them eat cake. ... My point is, the names in history change and the names of their ideologies change. But what remains is basic human psychology and that doesn't change. The lack of empathy of the ones in power over their powerless minions never changes. For all their words, its only their actions which count and millions now face loosing their jobs and millions are treated unfairly by the ones in power.
In such a world, its no surprise that the ones in power would want to watch their minions very closely. After all, people could start to complain its getting all to unfair. But we cannot have that. We need ever more laws to protect the ones in power and ever more laws to keep the minions down and away from power.
The world will never change until everyone worldwide realises that people who constantly seek power over others have a recognisable cluster B personality disorder. All cluster B personality disorders are ultimately driven by fear. And the ones with the disorder constantly seek to control that fear and control everyone around them based on their fear. (There are multiple fears, two examples are lack of attention and the other is fear of lack of power. The attention seekers want more attention (they were deprived of parental attention as children. The ones who want power seek to prevent anyone ever having power over them again, the way they were treated unfairly as children).
These are not the kinds of people who should have power over anyone. They need
Re:no surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:3, Insightful)
The real joke nowadays, is freedom.
Shhh...We don't don't discuss that during election season.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure *we* learn about it quicker, but what we need is the average American to hear about it.. and understand what is going on.
Until then, *we* will just be pushed aside, and added to the lists.
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:3, Insightful)
resembling the original plan of government for the U.S.
Ahhh, you would be referring to the right of the people to overthrow the chains of tyranny and control their own destiny, as stated in the constitution.
That, my friend, is sedition & terrorism, especially because they used warfare methods that violated the accepted "rules of war"
In today's terms, the founding fathers are nothing more than terrorist-loving war criminals.
Nice how things change, hmm?
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I would rather beat Bush for pushing us farther down the iceberg. But he wasn't the only one, rebpulican democrat it doesn't matter, each president has taken more and m ore freedom away from the. individual
Re:In every country ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad, but true.
Re:no surprise (Score:1, Insightful)
and yet the Americans still seem to think that the rest of the world still wants to get into their country
Re:Fascism (Score:1, Insightful)
"Tip of the iceberg" isn't a good metaphor, though. I tend to think it's exactly the *wrong* metaphor to use.
"No, no," says the government. "It's just this bit here; we needed this power to stop the terrorists and keep you safe!"
And sure, the conspiracy theorists freak out and call it fascism, but when you look under the water, YES some scattered abuse exists, and NO the new power claimed by the executive branch has not succeeded in actually catching any *real* terrorists... but by and large, most citizens aren't affected (just a handful of activist types, you know, ha ha).
There's no iceberg under the water.
So it goes largely unchecked, and gradually people stop listening to the conspiracy theorists. Hey, we're not really under threat here... You wouldn't worry if you had nothing to hide... Damn, isn't stopping gay marriage more important?
And so the threat grows, and it's subtle and slow (and politicians rail against it now and again, if people seem worried). And it's nothing like an iceberg, where you can just look under the water and see it sitting there.
Re:Needs a refresher 'civics' course. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's right, it's the second amendment that guarantees that right to disrupt the government :-)
USA vs China (Score:5, Insightful)
OT: Sig (Score:5, Insightful)
its not meant to disparage anything or anyone. it is to demonstrate how relative things are depending on who gets to write the history books, and to make people think.
donttasemebro (Score:5, Insightful)
Can somebody please explain to me why a man trying to form some sort of human connection with a man who's torturing and about to kill him is funny?
I'm not saying it's *wrong* to make a joke of something like that or out of anything at all, I suppose. I guess I just don't see the irony in it. But go ahead, punish me for being Offtopic.
Re:Fascism (Score:2, Insightful)
So it's a glacier then. It's so big you think it's part of the ground you're standing on. It's easy to not notice when you're distracted by other things, but obvious if you're paying attention to your surroundings. It's still ice, and it's still huge, and it'll still crush you if you're dumb enough to stand in one place too long.
Where do you think icebergs come from?
Peace Activists should join the police force (Score:4, Insightful)
Police I doubt have the training or experience to classify people as terrorists and therefore shouldn't be putting anybody on any lists, much less law abiding people interested in peace. The police should instead be focusing on arresting violent criminals and spammers. If the police would put as much effort into prosecuting spammers as they do towards persecuting people who want to live in a peaceful world then society would be a much better place to live. The sad thing is that peace activists are the type of people who would never be allowed to join a police force.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know what scares me actually? It's that we really have lost the middle ground. ... there is still, thank God, a strong centrist element to actual American thinking
You lost the middle ground a long time ago, and you lost it because there is no left in your country - only right, and far right.
What's amusing to the rest of the world is that you call Democrats "left".
Re:About Lincoln (Score:5, Insightful)
You must not know very much about Lincoln if that's why you think so many people think he was a tyrant. I'd recommend picking up a history book on the Lincoln presidency to see what he did. Here's a hint: Not even Bush has jailed journalists critical of him.
Of course, people always make excuses for the great "Dear Leaders".
Oh yeah, and our "great" FDR also put a whole bunch of Japanese in concentration... er, I mean "internment", that sounds less worse, right, right... he put many Japanese in internment camps, ruining many lives. Such a swell, progressive man!
Re:Needs a refresher 'civics' course. (Score:4, Insightful)
For the love of god, it's RIGHT THERE. Doesn't anyone read this thing? The document is beutiful to read, and powerful. For the good of yourself as a person sit the hell down and read this document that grants you your freedoms.
You know, I feel like a damn hippy bitching 'they're taking our rights', but you f-king know what? THEY ARE. We were warned since our very first president exactly how this would play out, and dispite the warnings of those greatest men this country has ever seen, we've let every one of their predictions come true without batting an eyelash. And I'm mad as hell not only at the government for thinking they can do that, but for the failed people of this nation who turn in their libertys like pokemon cards every time the words "Terrorist", "9/11", and "Family Values" appear in a speech.
(/rant)
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
-Ovid
Re:All these lists are insane (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Full text available here [wikisource.org].
I wish the current G.W. would have read this excerpt:
30 As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's see. There was Andrew Johnson, who blocked reconstruction by supporting "black codes", vetoing the Civil Rights bill, and opposing the 14th Amendment. Ultimately, he was impeached for removing the Secretary of War from office without Senate approval.
There was Calvin Coolidge, who accomplished little and is most responsible for encouraging the economic irresponsibility that led to the Great Depression.
There was Herbert Hoover, who raised the top tax bracket to a confiscatory 63% during the Depression.
There was also FDR, who seized privately held gold and started numerous entitlement programs that treated symptoms instead of actually helping the economy. The depression that lasted nine years after he came into office, ending only after firing up the war machine.
Finally, there is LBJ, who is truly responsible for dragging the USA into the Vietnam War.
If you are able to objectively compare some of our dubious chief executives of the past, instead of focusing on the present with the attention span of a puppy, you might find yourself retracting your assertion. The fact that you acknowledge Lincoln made a grave error indicates that you may qualify as an amateur historian, but you know far less than you think you do.
Re:About Lincoln (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that makes Bush the worst president ever is because he's done bad things but is to mind boggling stupid to understand what he's done.
I can live with evil, it's stupidity I have a hard time with.
Re:In Soviet-America... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most vicious abuser in America? Given the history of genocide against the Native nations, slavery of Africans, and segregation against their descendants, I doubt McCarthy makes the top five.
Here's some real contenders:
Of course, this is just a list of the U.S. government abusing people here at home - add in American foreign policy, which has been reliably brutal and stupid for generations, and the list grows quite long.
Who's equating them? The poster to whom you're replying didn't mention McCarthy at all.
A kid who tortures kittens is not a mass murderer, and shouldn't be equated with one. But he's still a scumbag, and if left unchecked may well develop into a serial killer [wikipedia.org].
McCarthy wasn't a Stalin or a Hitler - partly, perhaps, because our system of checks and balances worked and prevented him from becoming one. He was still a scumbag. Same with Bush, same with Erlich.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About Lincoln (Score:3, Insightful)
Lincoln's greatest crime was against the Constitution itself. The Union's changes to the way our Federal system works have persisted to this day, and laid the ground work for the police state we are now approaching.
Remember, the Confederacy believed in the Constitutional tenant that 'anything not explicitly provided to the Federal government was the purview of the States'. THAT is why they seceded, more than any other reason.
While they were gone, all the Federal mandates that had been failing to be passed into law suddenly had no opposition...
Likewise, the remnants of those chosen few who remained behind in Washington founded/reformed the 'two' parties we have today.
All that being said, yes slavery was certainly wrong, and yes an amendment could have been passed to explicitly grant this power to the Federal government. All of this is perfectly acceptable, Constitution-wise. However, the Union lacked the votes to do it, and were it not for the war it would have taken far longer for it to pass. THIS IS WHY the system was changed. The Federal system holds all the power now, and the states are largely just participants in the greater engine. Especially if they want to keep the masters of their parties happy.
Lincoln's greatest crime: Federalism.