72 DHS Employees on Terrorist Watch List
Dec 7, 2015, 7:25 pm
#16
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 79
So they work for the DHS and are blacklisted?
Okay.....I would usually support the no-fly list if there was actual evidence that these people have terrorist connections and can appeal their status with an open court of law, but alas, the "no-fly" list is a form of "ask questions later, act now" based on paranoia with very little or no evidence of wrong doing in the suspected person.
Surely there are people on that list who deserve to be on it, but others based on news articles about their plight and even being stranded outside their countries without any evidence of wrongdoing....is quite frightening.
Okay.....I would usually support the no-fly list if there was actual evidence that these people have terrorist connections and can appeal their status with an open court of law, but alas, the "no-fly" list is a form of "ask questions later, act now" based on paranoia with very little or no evidence of wrong doing in the suspected person.
Surely there are people on that list who deserve to be on it, but others based on news articles about their plight and even being stranded outside their countries without any evidence of wrongdoing....is quite frightening.
Dec 7, 2015, 10:30 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Ginger is completely on point on this in all respects - this is the product of a lazy reporter and editor(s) regurgitating the inaccurate and facetious comments by a duplicitous congresscritter regarding 15-98.
There are real issues of what/how much information should be provided to TSA for use in the review/adjudication of credentialing suitability decisions.
These issues continue to be most appropriately addressed by the IPC which is quite aware of the vulnerabilities its policies on information sharing incurs.
There are valid, competing viewpoints on all sides and the IG said "damn the torpedoes" on this one - maybe not incorrectly.
There are real issues of what/how much information should be provided to TSA for use in the review/adjudication of credentialing suitability decisions.
These issues continue to be most appropriately addressed by the IPC which is quite aware of the vulnerabilities its policies on information sharing incurs.
There are valid, competing viewpoints on all sides and the IG said "damn the torpedoes" on this one - maybe not incorrectly.
Dec 7, 2015, 11:08 pm
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
So they work for the DHS and are blacklisted?
Okay.....I would usually support the no-fly list if there was actual evidence that these people have terrorist connections and can appeal their status with an open court of law, but alas, the "no-fly" list is a form of "ask questions later, act now" based on paranoia with very little or no evidence of wrong doing in the suspected person.
Surely there are people on that list who deserve to be on it, but others based on news articles about their plight and even being stranded outside their countries without any evidence of wrongdoing....is quite frightening.
Okay.....I would usually support the no-fly list if there was actual evidence that these people have terrorist connections and can appeal their status with an open court of law, but alas, the "no-fly" list is a form of "ask questions later, act now" based on paranoia with very little or no evidence of wrong doing in the suspected person.
Surely there are people on that list who deserve to be on it, but others based on news articles about their plight and even being stranded outside their countries without any evidence of wrongdoing....is quite frightening.
Dec 8, 2015, 3:57 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by FateSucks
So they work for the DHS and are blacklisted?
Okay.....I would usually support the no-fly list if there was actual evidence that these people have terrorist connections and can appeal their status with an open court of law, but alas, the "no-fly" list is a form of "ask questions later, act now" based on paranoia with very little or no evidence of wrong doing in the suspected person.
Surely there are people on that list who deserve to be on it, but others based on news articles about their plight and even being stranded outside their countries without any evidence of wrongdoing....is quite frightening.
There are DHS employees with relatives who have been affiliated with terrorist organizations or terrorist acts. And being blacklisted in some ways -- not always or even commonly known to the blacklisted -- because of blacklisted or criminal relatives is something that the US does do to some extent.
Originally Posted by FateSucks
So they work for the DHS and are blacklisted?
Okay.....I would usually support the no-fly list if there was actual evidence that these people have terrorist connections and can appeal their status with an open court of law, but alas, the "no-fly" list is a form of "ask questions later, act now" based on paranoia with very little or no evidence of wrong doing in the suspected person.
Surely there are people on that list who deserve to be on it, but others based on news articles about their plight and even being stranded outside their countries without any evidence of wrongdoing....is quite frightening.
There are DHS employees with relatives who have been affiliated with terrorist organizations or terrorist acts. And being blacklisted in some ways -- not always or even commonly known to the blacklisted -- because of blacklisted or criminal relatives is something that the US does do to some extent.
Dec 8, 2015, 4:32 am
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Foreign-born and living abroad close family members (including a spouse) can be a reason to deny a security clearance. The big difference is that an individual knows they have been denied and have appeal rights. Of course, none of this due process stuff exists with the no-fly list.
And at least with jobs requiring security clearance, we are volunteering to seek a role requiring it. In the case of the aviation blacklists, people are added to blacklists without voluntary consent and subject to surveillance without consent.
Dec 8, 2015, 12:29 pm
#21
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
In most cases we keep it secret even after charges are brought.....
Dec 8, 2015, 10:20 pm
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
If I were talking about the following, then that would be a different story:
operations where a utilized asset is eliciting consent from a target to make monitoring easier; and
operations where allied foreign intelligence have been involved in doing things in the allied host countries which wouldn't be legally permissible (at least not without generating risk of compromising some objectives) if done by the host country's own personnel/assets.
Both of these have also been done.
Dec 9, 2015, 8:29 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Not at all. I was saying that what can be done to those who consent to some participation in certain activies is not all the same as what can be done to those who don't consent to some participation in certain activities. And recreating investigative trails has been done in both kinds of situations, with the latter more exciting relative to the former.
If I were talking about the following, then that would be a different story:
operations where a utilized asset is eliciting consent from a target to make monitoring easier;
If I were talking about the following, then that would be a different story:
operations where a utilized asset is eliciting consent from a target to make monitoring easier;
Because I have never heard in schooling, training or operationally (or even in fiction), of any target of such surveillance being asked to knowingly consent to that surveillance. We have certainly told a target we were on to him and that he was now under surveillance but that is quite different than what you suggested.
Dec 9, 2015, 8:45 am
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Perhaps you can share an example in which a target of criminal or security surveillance has been asked for consent to such surveillance?
Because I have never heard in schooling, training or operationally (or even in fiction), of any target of such surveillance being asked to knowingly consent to that surveillance. We have certainly told a target we were on to him and that he was now under surveillance but that is quite different than what you suggested.
Because I have never heard in schooling, training or operationally (or even in fiction), of any target of such surveillance being asked to knowingly consent to that surveillance. We have certainly told a target we were on to him and that he was now under surveillance but that is quite different than what you suggested.
Do you really think I'm going to bite on questions like this?
Tricking investigation targets to enable easier monitoring of themselves (or their associates) by their turned/captive associates is news to you? Well, now there is an idea that may be news but isn't new.
"change vendor/instrument/device/access authorization" suggestions.
Dec 9, 2015, 9:50 am
#25
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Do you really think I'm going to bite on questions like this?
Tricking investigation targets to enable easier monitoring of themselves (or their associates) by their turned/captive associates is news to you? Well, now there is an idea that may be news but isn't new.
"change vendor/instrument/device/access authorization" suggestions.
Tricking investigation targets to enable easier monitoring of themselves (or their associates) by their turned/captive associates is news to you? Well, now there is an idea that may be news but isn't new.
"change vendor/instrument/device/access authorization" suggestions.
No, tricking someone into accepting a piece of technology (or engaging in some behavior) that enables surveillance or worse is a time honored tactic that goes back at least as far as that peccadillo between Agamemnon and Paris.
But that is still not what you talked about: getting consent from the target of the surveillance for the surveillance itself.
Eh, enough.
Dec 9, 2015, 10:00 am
#26
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
No, tricking someone into accepting a piece of technology (or engaging in some behavior) that enables surveillance or worse is a time honored tactic that goes back at least as far as that peccadillo between Agamemnon and Paris.
But that is still not what you talked about: getting consent from the target of the surveillance for the surveillance itself.
Eh, enough.
But that is still not what you talked about: getting consent from the target of the surveillance for the surveillance itself.
Eh, enough.
Dec 9, 2015, 2:56 pm
#27
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: WAS
Programs: enjoyed being warm spit for a few years on CO/UA but now nothing :(
Posts: 2,507
Such a thing requires a willing and knowing participant (even if the willingness is, um, greatly influenced by impending legal action and a truly fully-knowing understanding of what s/he is consenting to is suspect at best) at which point the participant is no longer the actual target, even if he will be later subject to adverse/legal action.
Dec 9, 2015, 7:50 pm
#28
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Such a thing requires a willing and knowing participant (even if the willingness is, um, greatly influenced by impending legal action and a truly fully-knowing understanding of what s/he is consenting to is suspect at best) at which point the participant is no longer the actual target, even if he will be later subject to adverse/legal action.
Dec 10, 2015, 8:06 am
#29
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
Perhaps you can share an example in which a target of criminal or security surveillance has been asked for consent to such surveillance?
Because I have never heard in schooling, training or operationally (or even in fiction), of any target of such surveillance being asked to knowingly consent to that surveillance. We have certainly told a target we were on to him and that he was now under surveillance but that is quite different than what you suggested.
Because I have never heard in schooling, training or operationally (or even in fiction), of any target of such surveillance being asked to knowingly consent to that surveillance. We have certainly told a target we were on to him and that he was now under surveillance but that is quite different than what you suggested.
"These premises under video surveillance."
"By signing this application, you agree to allow [potential employer] to conduct a background check..."
"By signing this application, you agree to allow [bank] to conduct a credit history search..."
"By accepting this position, you agree to allow [employer] to monitor your whereabouts and activities through video surveillance and computer monitoring..."
"Step out of the car, please, sir. Do you mind if I have a look in your trunk?"
"May we come in and speak to you, sir? We have some questions regarding [crime]..."
Plenty.
Of course, you may be thinking only of Jack Bauer surveilling Conrad Seigfried or Doctor Klaw by sitting across the street in a black SUV, taking pictures with a 15-pound, $20,000 professional DSLR camera, but that's not the only kind of surveillance there is.
Dec 10, 2015, 9:11 am
#30
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: MSP
Programs: Delta SkyMiles, AmEx, NorthWest WorldPerks, Jelly of the Month. S&H Green Stamps, Subway sub club
Posts: 1,754
"By accepting this position, you agree to allow [employer] to monitor your whereabouts and activities through video surveillance and computer monitoring..."
What job would this be for?
"Step out of the car, please, sir. Do you mind if I have a look in your trunk?"
Never consent to any search. Nothing good can come from it. At best, it is a neutral thing.
"May we come in and speak to you, sir? We have some questions regarding [crime]..."
Again, the answer is NO.
What job would this be for?
"Step out of the car, please, sir. Do you mind if I have a look in your trunk?"
Never consent to any search. Nothing good can come from it. At best, it is a neutral thing.
"May we come in and speak to you, sir? We have some questions regarding [crime]..."
Again, the answer is NO.