U.S. No Fly list publicly shared on a hacking forum, government investigating
bleepingcomputer.com
bleepingcomputer.com
Even though I'm aware of this phenomenon I constantly catch myself believing what I read until I remind myself to double check. Of course that leaves huge swaths of things I don't deem important enough to double check. I really wish there was a way to bring about, maybe not more accountability in media, but more faith that a news org or journalist is putting forth their best efforts to communicate correct information. It really is a tough nut to crack in terms resources available.
But now we need multiple experts in every single field, and layers of other people to verify that the former are, in fact, experts.
The problem of accurate news is unsolvable.
Commonly known as Gell-Mann amnesia - from a quick search it looks as though Knoll’s law came first.
https://theportal.wiki/wiki/The_Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect says “In a speech in 2002, Crichton coined the term Gell-Mann amnesia effect”.
https://www.everything2.com/title/Knoll%2527s+Law+of+Media+A... says “Jan 25 2001: Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge.”
Although I would be sure the idea is much older.
From my own investigations relating to social media bot behaviour in completely unrelated spheres (new religious movements / cults online), i've sen bots primarily being used to amplify or suppress content by human operated accounts - people operating bot accounts aren't looking to have the bots become 'influencer' nodes.
When I tracked those human-operated accounts that were getting boosted, I assessed many as intentionally receiving bot assistence, and others as being completely ignorant of the bot operation but getting boosted anyway. The latter group is useful to a bot operation as it helps dilute the bot networks intentions, and may at times align ideologically as well.
This is the sort of important distinction that any genuinely interested researcher or journalist would be keen to make. There is nothing of the sort in Taibbi's post. Instead, Taibbi makes assumptions that align with his priors, (aligning we might note, extremely well with the person paying him), then goes to a handful of (likely cherry picked to be sympathetic) human accounts and says "they thought you were a bot har-har!" looking for a soundbite. I found it risible.
[1] https://weaponizedspaces.substack.com/p/the-truth-about-thos...
That's ridiculous.
2. Either you don't know or don't care that Dr. Caroline Orr Bueno is postdoc "at UMD’s Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security (ARLIS)." studying how disinformation works and propagates for a living. You are free to disagree with her analysis and mine if you like (how? where?) but to dismiss her work as "some unrelated amateur OSINT" tells me you're not genuine.
Further discussion with you is clearly pointless.
The current Russian regime is very creative in its methods of disinformation.
This Hamilton 68 scandal reminded me of a ruse that the russians once set up to discredit the lists of their KIA soldiers in Ukraine.
They created a fake "human rights" group which at first republished data from credible open sources, but once they earned trust and publicity, they started throwing in bogus but easily identifiable names like soccer team rosters and such.
Then they publicly busted and humiliated their own fake "human rights" activists along with the other sources, exposing the fraud in the domestic media. The goal was to disredit the idea that the published information about russian losses (or bots in case of Hamilton 68) is trustworthy.
I am not saying that the parent organization of Hamilton 68 is a russian ruse but rather that the sources or some of the staff could be compromised.
1. Airlines are each given a no fly list that only includes tokens, e.g. each person's name hashed with a secret key that is specific to the airline, on a periodic basis.
2. When the airline wants to check if a user is on the list, they hit a government-owned service that returns the user's token (again, the token will be unique for each airline because each airline gets their own secret key).
3. The airline would then check the token against their revoked token list.
The benefit of this is:
1. The full token list by itself is useless
2. Even if the airlines API credentials are stolen, the response from the government-owned service is useless on its own.
3. So a bad guy would need to steal the token list AND the API creds to get any value, and even then it would be easy for the government to detect unusual access patterns to their service.
Remember back in the late 90s when we all used to store passwords in plain text? Yeah, we know how that turned out, and in this case, storing the list not only in plain text but sharing it to tons of different companies willy nilly is a million times worse if you expect it to stay secret.
Seriously, using names for a no-fly-list is falsehood 21.
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-no-fly-list-kids-mee...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/no-fly-list-canada-1....
The people involved in maintaining this system certainly knew that there were better ways to do it.
It’s an organisational / people problem. The real skill is making anyone listen to you, and pulling airlines away from a legacy system, and dealing with the inevitable claims that the government owes them $100mil a pop for “having to comply with increased compliance requirements”.
It would be amusing to announce "hey the incumbent airlines each seem to think this change is going to cost them $100M to implement, so instead we're offering $80M to newcomer airlines who know damn well they can do the integration for $100k".
(not that I would want the government to do this, necessarily, I just have a mindset that is contemptuous towards the inefficiencies of ancient/giant companies)
The problem is that the online service is needed, and thus ties airline boarding to the service availability. Airlines wanted an offline list, so that even without internet connectivity, they can board.
FWIW I think a bigger reason for lack of card payments would be the chargeback rates.
Anyway, the forum it's hosted on is, I'd guess, used by people for all sorts of less legal things, and they probably do not welcome this visibility and interest.
Yeah...anyone willing to just post a google drive link on an anonymous account or something?
Discussed 10 days ago on HN (1024 points | 642 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446673
The only way around this would be for DHS to host a web endpoint that took a name and answered whether they were on the list. This still has some problems like being able to enumerate over time.
[0]https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-...
1. There are eight billion people. Even if you had everyone's first name, last name and DOB you couldn't ask for more names (or more foreign names) then the size and location of your airline would allow without raising red flags with the wrong type of people. You would never get the complete list this way.
2. If you ask a DHS server if someone is allowed on an airplane, and they say no, there's a good chance that eventually someone at DHS will start to investigate. It's going to look a little bad if you don't have a reason for looking up the name. It's going to look very bad if this happens many times.
3. I wonder if an end user of an airline webportal could try to purchase tickets in someone else's and then see if it's denied to check if someone is on the no fly list.
Sure, it could be suspicious for an airline to make requests that didn't line up with likely prospective passengers, but that isn't at all how you phrased your second point.
You basically cannot buy a house and keep your address private unless you route it through a trust or LLC. Even though the county won't up and tell you "Oh, Mr. ar_lan lives at 1234 Hacker Way", you can certainly just scrape all the data you want and construct a DB that then becomes searchable by name.
Seriously - unless the government steps in and has some sort of tunnel just between the user buying the ticket, and preventing them, without an airline employee somewhere in-between, this will just basically never be secure. I guess there could be some super severe auditing on the employeees w/ access - but that means these employees are now the ticketing agents, as well.
ESTA and visas.
I guess lack of those doesn’t stop them from flying out.
Maybe codeshares are supposed to enforce the US no-fly list even if you’re not flying to/from US. Dunno.
ChatGpt could likely generate the SQL for well under a million.
When our flight landed back in Toronto I said something like "Grab a coffee after customs and then head home?" and he's like "You go ahead. I have one of those names and I'm going to be here for a while."
"Come again?"
"There's someone out there who has the same name as me and because of whatever he did I now have to spend an hour in customs every time I come back to Canada."
Sure enough, he texted me later saying "Alright, I'm through- you still at the airport?". I was at home, getting ready for bed.
Not terrorism, just negligence -- but a train can do a lot of damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
If anyone ever uses a train to ram into the Pentagon, expect the security / security theater for trains to be scaled up as well.
Sure they could kill everyone on the plane, but a train has more passengers than a plane, and a determined terrorist could probably kill everyone on a train.
They don't really need to hijack planes, they just need a few hundred thousand dollars and a NetJets account. Also, if you read some of the BlueLeaks documents you can tell the government is very worried about vehicle ramming attacks. The unfortunate truth is that anyone with a little bit of money and willingness to die for a cause if coordinated can cause massive amounts of damage. We are lucky that most terrorists aren't that smart.
THOSE things made air travel safer. Body scanners and confiscating pocketknives did not.
'Known Crew Member' goes around TSA. Even TSA goes around TSA since they added the shiny metal badge on their shirts in 2008. Airport vendors bring in tons of product every day through side gates.
Strong flight doors which are locked and better procedures stop the hijackers.
I don't know what you want; maybe a less intrusive trip to the airport? If that's the case fine - but what you want is for TSA to be more respectful of civil liberties. The way you're saying it sounds like you just want the country to be more dangerous. There's no audience for that.
It's hard to know what dangers they're actually alleviating.
And on the flip side, they create other dangers, like having things in your luggage stolen, causing you to miss the occasional flight, normalizing intrusive government begavior, and in general just adding unnecessary friction and indignity to travel (ok maybe that last one is a stretch to call a danger).
Maybe you value these things less than the feeling of comfort that TSA may provide, but I think I'd count myself a part of gp's audience.
Edit: not to mention the opportunity cost of all of that tax money. Though there is something to be said for providing jobs... but you can probably think of plenty of jobs programs with a better ROI.
I want security turned back over to the airports/airlines like before the TSA.
> The way you're saying it sounds like you just want the country to be more dangerous. There's no audience for that.
You have no evidence that TSA has made anything safer while we all have lots of evidence that TSA has made the experience much worse.
Also if you know you are on it you can save the airlines and everyone else a lot of trouble by not trying to fly in the first place.
Does the list even state why you are on it?
To be honest, the whole thing sounds like a farce, just trying to get some understanding from perspective I don't myself hold.
Bad Faith: Fear. You better stay in line or one day you'll be trying to get on a flight and suddenly can't. It's your "permanent record" for adults.
Bad Faith: Accountability. Not having it exposed means the gov't can pretty much put anyone on there for any reason without having to worry about silly "public pressure" and "questions about why so many middle-eastern people are on it." You know the ACLU would be all up on that list researching every single person on it and calling them on their bullshit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34583299
Linking to this file does not seem to violate any documented HN rules, and download links charging money for the file were allowed to stay up.
I suspect there might be something for real estate, but more fragmented. You could end up on a no-rental list and be banned from renting property. I am certain Airbnb has such a list as well.
An over-reaction to be sure… I expect no less from modern US laws enforcement.
People usually confuse the terrorist watch list with the no-fly list. The former being a list of persons known to having some involvement in terror activities in groups designated as terrorist groups by the US State Department.
The No-Fly list is generally full of criminals, unruly passengers, and people who have gotten violent on flights with crew or other passengers. It is also imperfect, with false positives occurring with people who have the same name as another listee.
It should be noted that the US government may not use the No Fly List to prevent U.S. citizens or permanent residents from returning home to U.S. territory, since doing so is a violation of the 14th amendment.
I was added to a watch list long ago that results in me being tossed in a cell and "detained" for up to 24 hours every time I go through customs but they always make it exceedingly clear I'm not under arrest (granted while sitting in immigration holding cell it doesn't feel much different).
It really gets annoying just being told by CBP "you know what's next" while never being able to find out what list you've been put on. I hope more of these lists become public.
The terrorist "watch-list" is a database of people that the US government considers at-risk of committing acts of terrorism. Whether you believe that is another story.
The no-fly list is a subset of the terrorism watch list. Criminals, unruly passengers, and violent offenders are specifically NOT on the no-fly list unless they're also on the terrorism watch list[0].
Unruly passengers are sometimes added to a no-fly list for a specific airline, but there is no national no-fly list that private companies are eligible to add to[1], and despite being charged federally with a crime in the air, you are not eligible to be added to the no-fly list for that reason.
[0] https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/tsc
[1] https://news.delta.com/delta-ceo-ed-bastian-why-we-need-nati...
If this is a subset of the "terrorist watch-list", then that terrorist watch list must have even more names on it? I think you're implying many more? 5 million? 10 million? People that the US government "considers at-risk of committing acts of terrorism," really?
There are, what, a couple dozen acts of terrorism a year? (I don't know whether we're talking about in the US or globally or what). But millions of people the US government "reasonably" considers at risk to commit them? This seems... odd, no?
I don't think we knew how many people were on it before. But if it's a strict superset of the no-fly list, then we now know it's at least 1.5 million people.
I guess the only odd thing is that a lot of people seem to believe the USA government's line that more than 1.5 million people are "reasonably suspected to be involved in terrorism or related activities", when there are maybe a few dozen terrorist attacks a year. ("reasonably"! "related activities" huh?).
Its really not that hard to imagine the US gov. adding every person from the middle east that has ever flown in a plane to that list.
It's likely (though conjecture) the "lists" you are on, really the buckets you are in, are used as an input to some sort of "is a terrorist" qualifier, which sorts certain people into a priority queue to be tasked to other NSA agents to look into your details and pass you off to someone else if you seem sus, basically like companies that sell credit card fraud prevention.
Or you know, some sort of score that represents your social, let's call it "credit". Except you aren't allowed to request this score once a year.
> In fact, the vast majority of people who have disputed travel and appeal to the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program are not on the terrorist watchlist.
> Most people on the terrorist watchlist are still able to fly within the U.S. A very small subset of people on this list are on the “No Fly” list.
Wow, so 1.5 million on the no fly list are a "very small subset" of (also from that page) "people reasonably suspected to be involved in terrorism (or related activities)", who have met "specific intelligence-related criteria", and which "Internal and external auditors regularly review... to ensure all laws and policies are being followed and that the information on the watchlist is accurate."
If 1.5 million people is a "very small subset", the whole list is... 10 million? 50 million? 100 million?
Something definitely ain't right.
I wonder if this clue as to the size of these lists can help organize some opposition, because it seems to indicate things are not what they say.
I think they have to charge you with a crime within 24 hours. All of the corner cases that you read about in the media are things like "but what if they're fighting in Afghanistan and they magically end up in Cuba on a military base, do we still have to arraign them?" That's apparently a tougher question (even though the answer is obviously yes), but if you end up in central booking in some random US city, some judge will have to spend 10 seconds looking at your case and decide whether or not you can get bail.
So you're not going to get disappeared to a shadow realm if you buy a plane ticket and you're on this list. You might still have an extremely shitty day, though. The criminal justice system is not fun.
If you're "John Smith", it's likely you're on multiple lists and will get separately hassled by multiple entities. A guy I grew up with had an FFL and would get flagged for followup when buying guns at retail because of his common name.
If I’m that rich, I’m sure I could rub elbows and get my name removed.
Also as fucked up as it is US citizens end up on the TSC and no-fly as well. No ESTA needed for them.
On the international side, I assume you get stopped somewhere between check-in and boarding (but not sure if it's up to local security or the airline agents). If not that, you'd be stopped at immigration once on US soil.
PRE-SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS!!!!
"Matters of National Security" and all that jazz.
Now, my name is truly so common that I have convinced myself there was something more than just that name triggering the SSSS designation. Otherwise, most major airports would have been patting down someone with my name multiple times a day. I suppose that's possible, but if so it would really damn the value of this sort of list. The extra screening did seem to depend on which airline and which airports I was using, so maybe there was something else going on. Or maybe some dude with my name just crossed some line he shouldn't have and me and everyone else with that name paid the price for a few years.
I still don't understand how societies accepted no-fly list, civil forfeiture, de-banking, de-platforming people and other clearly totalitarian practices in or "democratic" and "free" countries.
Keep the affected individuals at <1% (I don't know the real number) and it's a small enough set of people that they'll silently fall through the cracks. Be careful to not accidentally use it against people who are part of rich and powerful families, because they'll make a stink. Use it only against the poor, immigrants, or otherwise socially disconnected and you can keep doing it in perpetuity.
Look at all the disgusting and "inconsistent with your values" behavior you, or if not yourself then the other people who support your causes, will turn a blind eye to, minimize or at the very least object less to when it benefits your cause(s). Now scale that behavior up to all the diverse groups and causes that exist across a nation of 330+mil. That's how.
But unfortunately that is often where things break down.
[0]: "the accused is/are the asset/s not the person/entity robbed by the police/TLA"
- having a bank account is a right
- civil forfeiture exists but is heavily regulated, nothing even close to the US style abuse
- there is no no fly list
- there is no credit score
Deplatforming is a private business thing, I though freedom advocates loved the right of business to serve whoever they please ?
The French consumer credit system resembles the U.S. no-fly list. Bankers have discretion on making loans and sharing consumer records, which are absolutely maintained. But consumers don’t get to look into the black box.
Nor your landlord, nor the shop in which you'll go buy a new bicycle, &c.
Also, it's much harder to get a credit in France, you don't get on the list randomly. So all in all it's completely different thing since it won't impact your day to day life for simple things such as renting a flat.
Ah, and you can still fly, you just can't get into more debt.
I’ve bought bicycles in America. Nobody checks credit.
> much harder to get a credit in France
If you aren’t rich, yes. If you have a personal banker, credit flows.
> you don't get on the list randomly
You do if you’re my friend and a SocGen clown mis-reports your mortgage as in default to the BdF.
Both systems, the U.S. no-fly and French consumer credit, share common impetuses. They’re necessary, particularly for the elites. But they’re ideologically distasteful. So a system is maintained, shrouded in secrecy and, ideally, kept clear of the hoi polloi.
This isn't good.
The alternative to credit scores is that some banker, most of whom grew up upper middle class or upper class, meets you in person, nods at your firm, masculine handshake, and decides they like the cut of your jib, complexion of your skin, and accent of your voice well enough to give you a loan and/or a reasonable rate. The inherent discrimination of this process is a huge part of the reason we shifted to credit scores in the 80s.
Credit scores are objective, algorithmic measures of credit worthiness that anyone can game upwards by following the rules. The alternative is subjective measures that are applied erratically by different human minds that will always be riddled with bias.
Citation needed. It’s in the bank’s interest to offer loans based on credit-worthiness and not on the superficial things you described.
From the outside looking in it seemed to be a bit more hoop jumping, but overall more palatable than 3 private firms, who don't give damn about you, aggregating your financial history with financial institutions' best interests in mind.
No, you get a credit because you prove you have regular, stable, safe incomes or a solid business plan.
Regarding flight: nobody is assumed to have a right to fly, so the privilege of access to flight is easily revoked.
A "no crossing state lines" list, in contrast, is heavily mediated by the judicial system and the burden generally only placed upon those intimately and immediately entangled in a legal action.
9/11 caused an existential panic in the US public that made them willing to accept several new things in the name of safety against a threat model they did not understand. Once those things were in place, (a) burden of proof that removing them doesn't jeopardize our safety rests on those calling for their removal and (b) the average citizen can see the list doesn't impact them so they have little opinion on keeping or removing it.
In short, it was a sticky-bit that once stuck, is hard to un-stick because people don't, generally, feel less free (day-to-day) with it in existence.
I'm old enough to have watched the change happen. There was no existential panic, but a straight up propaganda campaign waged by a collaborative media and government to ensure that this would be accepted, and that dissenters would be seen as "the other" to be feared and reviled, and potentially targeted for law enforcement action.
Seems very familiar, but history rhymes.
ETA: Regarding effects on the American psyche, https://www.webmd.com/balance/features/american-psyche-post-... summarizes some of the post-9/11 research. Probably most of interest is that 21% of Americans studied by a researcher at Carnegie Mellon believed they would be the victim of a terrorist attack within a year. That number proved to be a way-outsized overestimate, but I think it's easy to see how people accept new curtailments to freedoms (especially someone else's freedoms) if 1-in-5 of them believe they'll be personally attacked.
Once again, because of the media amplifying the terrorism over and over, repeatedly playing it on every screen and telling everyone that they were under attack. Just as you're arguing that popular opinion shouldn't be ignored, neither should the centralized actors driving that opinion. They feed into each other, and downplaying the involvement of one category of actors only serves to hide their share of the blame.
It's worth noting that since the American news model is fundamentally capitalist, one can assume, once a panic starts, that cognitively-dissonant news will be downsampled. I don't know how to disambiguate "the media caused / fed a panic" from "people weren't interested in hearing 'everything's okay and nothing has fundamentally changed' when there was a crater where two skyscrapers used to be." Did the media feed a panic, or did the public tune out cool heads?
Also if I'm reading your comment correctly, characterizing potential leadership as "cognitively-dissonant news" is a bit weird, especially with "cognitive dissonance" commonly referring to the rejection of criticism in the larger run up to the war on Iraq. With both points it feels like you're nominally agreeing, but still trying to push this framework that the news media and other leadership is inherently blameless.
> Also if I'm reading your comment correctly, characterizing potential leadership as "cognitively-dissonant news" is a bit weird
Because Americans elect their leadership, they have the advantage that many (ideally, most) voted for them and so are inclined to follow them. But they also have the disadvantage that Presidents are not thought of as infallible rulers with any kind of mandate from heaven, so when things get tough their position is a lot more fragile than many would assume. You can easily see this play out in how an untrusted executive failed to handle a pandemic recently; it didn't matter whether they were right or wrong, much of America had that President and his administration pegged as "nominally and legally in charge, but too stupid to follow" and discarded federal guidance the minute it inconvenienced them unless force of law (often and mostly: state law) prevented them from doing so.
In the run-up to the Iraq War, the cognitively-dissonant news was media suggesting Saddam Hussein's administration was not involved in global terror. True or false, it didn't fly because Americans wanted someone to blame that they were confident they could kill (as opposed to the guy who'd successfully evaded capture in Afghanistan) and Hussein was a very easy-to-believe target because he was already one generation's default bad-guy.
(But to be clear: the executive in charge during 9/11 did orchestrate a hell of a lie to get the US into another war in Iraq; that scenario is well-documented and involved multiple overt fabrications of information. I may assert that a more skeptical public that wasn't having a panic may not have bought those lies, but that's not intended to downplay the responsibility of the liars).
I think the takeaway from this sub-thread is "Scared Americans and power-hungry leadership make for a bad combination." But the larger point I wanted to emphasize is that the consequences of those changes to American law aren't as reversible as just declaring "Well those guys were monsters;" bits like the no-fly list are sticky even if the people who implemented them were bad-faith actors.
I'm also old enough to have seen the change happen, and maybe it's just that you and I lived in separate bubbles, but I really don't agree with this. I absolutely did see an existential panic in the general population, we were in an insane frenzy, and I don't get the sense that the media or government needed a propaganda campaign to get this sort of shit passed. Aside from a very small number of dissenters (including myself), we were all out for blood and there was no such thing as too far. Hate crimes against People Who Look Vaguely Like They Might Be Muslims shot through the roof, in spite of the government trying to quell that sort of thing. Giant flags the size of New York City were being flown on peoples' cars left and right. Normal Americans were absolutely NOT acting normal and didn't need any push towards supporting insane policy ideas.
Remember: the alternative of (non-government required) deplatforming is that anyone can do anything they want on any platform. Want to flood knitting forums with porn? Well they cannot refuse you! And that just makes it impossible for anyone to actually organise anything without constant trolling...
Some of these are perpetrated by private companies and it's a much more gray area whether or not it's ok. "De-platforming" gets a lot of press but Twitter, Facebook, et al are under no obligation to let any particular person or group use their platform, nor should they be.
1) Power comes from the people. It is centered in churches, families, and limited local city governments.
2) Power comes from the government. The federal government has the most power and the power decreases all the way down to the local level, which has the least power.
The second group, obviously, has become richer and more powerful. It has also done a good job of capturing the minds of the richest and smartest people in the country, who have been convinced that problems require government solutions.
There are a lot of people who don't accept these sorts of things, but they're called racists, white nationalists, nazis, and all other sorts of horrible (and usually illogical) things. To people who aren't politically active or don't have a good understanding of political philosophy, these accusations are very effective.
"What you oppose a national list of people who are standing in the way of our great society? What are you a nazi?" etc.
There was as far as I can tell one instance of somebody doing this, and they were immediately denounced and told to stop. I agree, btw. Trudeau is an authoritarian, but he isn't a Nazi.
Government, for better or worse, is secular. I don’t have to be concerned that I am subject to the rules of someone else’s faith when I need help from an organization larger than myself.
Participation in church is voluntary. Participation in state government is not. That's the difference.
I know from experience, I’m just getting back on my feet after my own run of bad luck.
I’m not in love with the government by any means. It is inefficient and incentivizes corruption. If all the money that moved through faith-based organizations instead moved through secular organizations, I would be interested in “small government” reforms.
Are you sure? How much US Senators are openly atheists? I was shocked about 5 years ago, when I learned, that (about 5 years ago) answer was two. Yes. Two.
Look at anti-abortion laws in USA: they are all religious-based!
And it is not only USA. Poland. Russia. Greece. Some places in Germany. Not to mention Iran, Afghanistan, UAE, Qatar, Yemen...
Who are those people dangerous enough to never be allowed on a plane (despite being searched, xrayed, water bottles and corkscrews taken away from them), yet not dangerous enough to roam free everywhere else?
1) At some point, if you are on the list, they will have to tell you. If you were on the Selectee list, they could try to pretend that the additional screening was random/risk-based, but if they don't let you fly at all, they have to tell you that.
2) Aren't most of the people on the KST (know/suspected terrorist) list non-US citizens? If so, they have no chance of legally entering the US, so if they are flying here, they must be using a false identity. I'm not sure what the point of even having them on the list.
I'm not following here. Why would being a non-US citizen give you no chance to enter the US?
The only exceptions I could see would be some of those people might be allowed in as representatives of a foreign government, and there might be a few people who already have green cards and the US doesn't have enough evidence to remove them.
I read them and you're making this up.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1613932028784742400
>7.Twitter policy at the time didn’t ban QAnon, but “deamplified” such accounts. About the batch of tweets that included those above, Twitter execs wrote: “We can internally confirm that a number of the accounts flagged are already included in this deamplification.”
The rest of your comment reads like beginning of The Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
The original comment put civil asset forfeiture and no-fly lists on the same moral plane as deplatforming. The difference between deplatforming on twitter and the others is the threat of state violence. My frustration with the outrage around "The Twitter Files" is that y'all equate lobbying with state violence. I do not think that congressmen directly lobbying with twitter execs is necessarily good, but i also don't think its on par with the state disappearing people. I think it is just a distraction from real state overreach domestic and abroad and makes people like you view it as a liberal brainworm thing, when both parties are responsible for the real threat of state violence.
Twitters choice to comply or ignore the lobbying requests is within their rights as a private institution and there is no credible evidence of state coercion other than a congressman complaining.
https://www.thefire.org/news/yes-you-should-be-worried-about...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-responds-twitter-files-...
This is backwards: there should be a justice process _for getting onto_ said list in the first place. The US Government has 0 authority to remove a right from a US citizen without a trial.
The US Constitution is silent on whether or not this applies to non-citizens unfortunately, but my recommendation is handcuff the government's power whenever possible.
Blocking someone from riding in a common carrier ordinarily open to the public falls under the "negative right" which is the variety of rights usually ascribed.
And, even if you don't have a license to drive it's illegal for them to even check unless there is RAS you've committed a crime to initiate a stop. Meanwhile TSA searches you on no RAS.
The no fly list still shouldn't be used for gun control. If we want gun control, we should look to do it in a way that doesn't further entrench the horse shit the USA implemented after 9/11
Devil's advocate, but the point of the no fly list is to stop someone carrying a flagged ID->person mapping from getting onboard an airplane. (Because fake IDs exist, IDs are not 1:1 to people!)
If the no fly list was public, then people who wanted to get on an airplane and cause devastation would see if their current ID is blacklisted, and if so, go get a new ID under a different name. Hard but not impossible, especially with RealID constantly being delayed.
If America had verified identifying documents that couldn't be easily forged, this wouldn't be a problem, but that isn't the infrastructure we have right now, and it really wasn't the infrastructure we had when the no fly list was implemented.
Without biometric IDs, the no fly list is essentially a blacklist of IDs.
How the list is used in practice is a separate discussion from the threat modeling exercise of should the list be public.
And there are some guys from 1911 and 1912 there.
If there were, using production PII in the test infrastructure would be grounds for license revocation.
https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/No_Fly_List
If she really didn't do any pre-disclosure then it seems inevitable other people managed to grab it directly. I doubt she had much desire to share it after the long uncomfortable phone call she must have had with the FBI right after the post went live.
Maia is Swiss. She doesn't have to answer when the FBI calls.
According to her Wikipage “her parents' home were raided by the Swiss police at the request of United States authorities” a while ago.
And the data hygiene and itegrity are horrible,there are dead people on it.
> Shouldn't we advocate for there to be a fair, just procedure for adding and removing people from the no-fly list before making it public?
Absolutely there should be this advocacy, but I don't see how that's connected to whether it is public or not.
At least he supposedly gave the information to legitimate journalists.
- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Sele...
The OFAC list is public. The "nofly" list should be too.