Text Message Brands Quebec Man a Terror Suspect 451
An anonymous reader writes "Saad Allami likely never expected that a simple text message of encouragement would have turned his life upside down. But as seen in a similar case of absurd overreaction by authorities, a simple text message is all it takes to have yourself branded as a terrorist. From the article: 'The Quebec man says he was arrested by provincial police while picking up his seven-year-old son at school. A team of police officers stormed into his home, telling his wife she was married to a terrorist. And his work colleagues were detained for hours at the U.S. border because of their connection to him.'"
Re:What was it? (Score:5, Interesting)
The article says that he told his colleagues to "blow away" the competition, so most likely it read as, "Blow them away." And it was misinterpreted.
Indeed -- but misinterpreted by whom? His colleagues, or by someone who was spying on his text messages? And if it was the latter, did they have a search warrant, or is this another case of the government conducting warrantless wiretaps?
I agree it's likely an overreaction (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'd really like to see the exact contents of the original text, as opposed to him giving us a vague description about how it mentioned "blowing away" the competition. That is, was it
"Go to this trade show and do such a good sales job that the competition is blown away!"
or a more hyperbolic comment like
"Blow those guys away. Annihilate them. Don't stop until they're lying in a puddle of their own blood, begging for mercy."
Re:What was it? (Score:5, Interesting)
how sure are you that you're not being spied on as well? and I mean you and everyone else who uses cell phones.
How was this detected... (Score:5, Interesting)
...is Canada intercepting every single text message sent in their country? TFA doesn't say, but frankly I'm pretty curious. The UK people banned for the Twitter comment actually makes a little sense, as Twitter is public, but AFAIK text messages aren't.
Re:Much worse (Score:5, Interesting)
You're all missing the obvious. Forget his religion, origins, looks or name. Look at this, FTA: ...
"His case has surfaced after another story about an unexpected national-security case, triggered by what appeared to be a meaningless comment."
And that bit about the two Britts a few days ago
Doesn't that mean that every bit of data passing through the USA is monitored?
stories like this blow me away (Score:5, Interesting)
i am just smashed thermodynamically to pieces by the kind overreaction here
one wonders if a complete shock wave of annihilation of common sense has occurred
what do we do as a society if we utterly and eruptive eviscerate and detonate our sense of proportion?
a violent cataclysm of frothing hysteria is bursting forth and is explosively convulsively disintegrating mental composure here in a frenzied fulminating volcano of bursting boiling meteoric rage and---
[NO CARRIER]
The text message is the least of my worries (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the part of TFA that gets me:
Allami says he hasn't been able to get a certificate of good conduct, which he would need in order to get a job working in finance.
His allegations have not been proven in court and the application is to be presented at the Montreal courthouse on March 5.
Provincial police spokesman Guy Lapointe says the force is aware of the case but will not comment as it is before the courts. A Justice Department spokesperson also declined to comment.
Police had in Laval, Que., where he applied for the certificate, found terrorism accusations and public mischief on his file, even though his public file shows no signs of the allegations.
"Without the certificate of good conduct, the plaintiff can no longer work in his profession," the document states.
First of all, you need a "certificate of good conduct" from the police to work in the financial industry in Canada? On Wall Street, you almost need a certificate of unscupulous conduct to work in the financial industry.
Second, Canadians have a "public file?" This sounds like something that was dreamed up to make people feel like they could access the government's information about them. But it implies that there's a private file as well that you will never see, which defeats the purpose of having a public file. In the U.S., you can request your FBI file for a fee [fbi.gov], but they can tell you they don't have anything on you when they do. And the best part is that one of the requirements for obtaining the file is that you have local law enforcement fingerprint all ten fingers and send that along with your $18 payment. "Mr. Smith, you didn't have a criminal record before we received your request. However, thanks to your voluntary submission of your fingerprints, we discovered you match some prints found at a crime scene that had us stumped 10 years ago. We're going to have to take you in for questioning."
Here's how it went down before... (Score:2, Interesting)
Defying Hitler [amazon.com], Sebastian Haffner
Excerpt from the memoir...
What saved me was - my nose. I have a fairly well-developed figurative sense of smell, or to put it differently, a sense of the worth (or worthlessness!) of human, moral, political views and attitudes. Most Germans unfortunately lack this sense almost completely. The cleverest of them are capable of discussing themselves stupid with their abstractions and deductions, when just using their noses would tell them that something stinks. ...
As for the Nazis, my nose left me with no doubts. It was just tiresome to talk about which of their alleged goals and intentions were still acceptable, or even "historically justified" when all of it stank. How it stank! That the Nazis were enemies, my enemies, and the enemies of all I held dear, was crystal clear to me from the outset. What was not at all clear to me, was what terrible enemies they would turn out to be. I was inclined not to take them very seriously - a common attitude among their inexperienced opponents, which helped them a lot, and still helps them.
[. . .]
The morning headline was: "Hitler called to President". That produced a certain nervous, impotent irritation. Hitler had been called to the President in August and November. He had been offered the vice-chancellorship and then the chancellorship. Both times he had set impossible conditions, and both times there had been solemn declarations: "never again..." Each time "never again" had lasted exactly three months. Hitler's opponents in Germany at that time suffered from a compulsive urge to offer him everything he wanted, indefatigably and at an ever cheaper price, indeed to press it upon him. It is the same now with his opponents outside Germany. Again and again this "appeasement" was formally renounced, and again and again it gaily reappeared at the crucial moment; just so today. Then as now, one's only hope was Hitler's own unreasonableness. Would it not sooner or later exhaust the patience of his opponents? Then as now, it became apparent that their patience knew no bounds...
At midday the headline said: "Hitler makes impossible demands". We nodded, half reassured. It was only too credible. It would have gone against his nature to ask for less than too much. Perhaps the cup had once more passed from us. Hitler - the last defence against Hitler.
At about five o'clock the evening papers arrived: "Cabinet of National Unity formed - Hitler Reichschancellor".
I do not know what the general reaction was. For about a minute, mine was completely correct: icy horror. Certainly, this had been a possibility for a long time. You had to reckon with it. Nevertheless it was so bizarre, so incredible, to read it now in black and white. Hitler Reichschancellor ... for a moment I physically sensed the man's odour of blood and filth, the nauseating approach of a man-eating animal - its foul, sharp claws in my face.
Then I shook the sensation off, tried to smile, started to consider and found many reasons for reassurance. That evening I discussed the prospects of the new Government with my father. We agreed that it had a good chance of doing a lot of damage, but not much chance of surviving very long; a deeply reactionary government, with Hitler as its mouthpiece. Apart from this, it did not really differ much from the two governments that had succeeded Bruning's. Even with the Nazis it would not have a majority in the Reichstag. Of course that could always be dissolved, but the Government had a clear majority of the population against it, in particular the working class, which would probably go Communist...
In the meantime the Government would be likely to
Re:Ask The Right Questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Authorities don't know about man.
2) Someone with a grudge against man sees tweet, and reports it to authorities.
3) Authorities learn about tweet, Arab name, bomb action word, and decide to arrest the man.
Re:What was it? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's precisely part of the problem. Security isn't about CYA it's about catching bad guys and not arresting innocent people (the latter seems to be forgotten a lot). And this CYA behavior is being reinforced by "management" rather than discouraged. So if somebody find a battery on the ground near a building and suggests "it looks suspicious" then all the way up the line people are thinking "IT'S A BOMB DESTROY IT" without any justification or disagreement.
Re:What was it? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the moral of the story is?
Dont travel to the US.
The #1 reason why the US was quickly ruled out as my holiday destination this year is because of the horror stories like this.
Im not a criminal hell bent on the cold blooded murder of thousands of people, im a tourist.
I want to take photos of my trip, not take photos with the intent of bombing the place.
I dont want to be fondled, radiated or seen naked on every plane trip, have guns pointed at me, screamed at followed or harassed.
bah, fuck that, im going somewhere else.
A real shame too, as genuinely I wanted to go there and see the sights.
Re:What was it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't be. Making the sort of metal required for that sort of thing is harder than it looks. The kind of "shit" you're worried about doesn't "just turn up gone" because our former Cold War adversaries were professionals too.
The depressing part is that after reading a story like this, and responding to a post like yours, I realize I have to choose my words carefully. Because I'm more afraid of the thousands of dumb good guys (who are just in it for the paycheck) than I am of the handful of smart bad guys (who are few in number and hampered by the laws of physics). The Lawful Stupids [tvtropes.org] vastly outnumber the Chaotic Evil Geniuses. The Chaotic Evil (geniuses and morons alike) don't even have radar, so I can't protect myself from them. But I'm damn sure I want to stay off the radar of the Lawful Stupids.
(Hi guys. If you're a human who's actually reading this and smirking, you're probably one of the Lawful Good, not one of the Lawful Stupid. Thanks for your efforts, buy a beer for the programmer who wrote an algorithm clever enough to flag this post, and keep on hunting the bad guys!)
Re:What was it? (Score:5, Interesting)
He said "exploser" which is French for "explode", which he interprets as "succeed" or "blow them away". I am originally from France and I can't say I'm familiar with that specific wording, but that's how I would interpret it myself if I ever received such a message from a co-worker (unless of course I was a terrorist, in which case context means everything).
Indeed -- but misinterpreted by whom? His colleagues, or by someone who was spying on his text messages?
This was a private text message directed _at_ his co-workers who were at a trade-show abroad. If that message had really been about a real bomb, it would imply that anyone it was directed at would have been an accomplice. Also, I doubt the authorities would have waited until the co-workers came back through border control to interrogate them if the complaints had really come from the co-workers themselves.
And if it was the latter, did they have a search warrant, or is this another case of the government conducting warrantless wiretaps?
My bet would be that they were using Blackberry's private BBMs network. In Europe (except for the UK), government officials and high ranking businessmen are told not to use Blackberries, because all the traffic is said to be shared de-encrypted with the US/UK/Canadian/New Zealand/Australian intelligence's echelon program as part of their anglo-security intelligence sharing pact. It is said that even if you're sending a text or an email to an office worker just standing in an office down the hall from you, it doesn't matter where you are in Europe, and even if you're not in the UK, the text or email will first go through the UK so that it can first be indexed and analyzed by the echelon program before it can make its way back to your country and be delivered to your co-worker.
Re:What was it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing happened with the Russian material because the Russian military officers were consummate professionals interested in maintaining the integrity of their nuclear supplies EVEN when they weren't being paid. The US helped a bit by offering support in the form of money, tracking technology and basically secretarial assistance in tracking and verifying the integrity of the supplies but every goes back to the Russians and their professionalism.
The few times a couple ounces of material disappeared it happened from commercial sources not weapons and even then it was quickly intercepted when they tried to sell it. This was all confirmed recently with recent books from people that have retired that were involved in the process, the Russians were always very professional. Hell its the reason we never ended up in a war with them, that same professionalism got Kruchef sacked and Stalin murdered by a Coumadin overdose. We might have some idealogical differences with the Russians on occasion but they've always been sane responsible people with integrity and honor.
Re:What was it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe its common in the french language in France. In Quebec, where most french speaking Canadians are, I don't think I've ever heard the word "exploser" in that context. If I did, it was only on very rare occasions.
If I had been the analyst on the case, I would have raised a red flag too. What's missing is the whole context. You can't raise flags on single words without their context. Without the full text message, it's hard to get an opinion on the matter.