six year old girl on "no-fly" list

[theprestige]

Quick! Make a list!

• Everybody in the world must be either on the list or off it.
• Nobody who should be on the list may be left off it.
• Nobody who should be on the list may be put on it.
• Everybody who needs to know about the details of the listing process should be fully informed.
• Anybody who should not know the details of the listing process must be kept fully uninformed.
• The process for changing the list must be extremely well controlled.
• The process for changing the list must be extremely easy.
• Anybody who matches a certain profile should be on the list.
• The listing process should not involve any kind of profiling.
• Anybody whose judgment can be trusted should be allowed to grant exceptions to people on the list.
• Nobody whose judgement can't be trusted should be allowed to grant exceptions to people on the list.
• Nobody on the Internet should be able to find fault with the list.

How did you do?

 

[GreyArea]

Other reasons are some of the people on the list are ...

...numerous possibilities. And I guess we still don't really know the criteria.

But do we have any information about why birthdates were not associated with the names? I could understand a 30-year-old terrorist in 2010 lying about their age to obscure they identity. But they couldn't pass themselves off as a child born in 2003!

 

[rwguinn]

...numerous possibilities. And I guess we still don't really know the criteria.

But do we have any information about why birthdates were not associated with the names? I could understand a 30-year-old terrorist in 2010 lying about their age to obscure they identity. But they couldn't pass themselves off as a child born in 2003!

Maybe TSA is practicing Prior Restraint.
The CIA paranormal research has obviously paid off-they're punishing her now for what she will do in 2025.

 

[ravdin]

I don't know what was worse, the poor writing of the article or the poor speaking of the child's father. Never mind the trouble the kid is having.

Is this girl on the list because she happens to have the same name as someone with terrorist links? Why isn't the primary target simply arrested and tried?

Yes. Unfortunately, she has the same name as the notorious terrorist Al-Yssat Hamas.

 

[Wildy]

Maybe sh'e ok as a passenger, but if she approaches the cockpit, you're doomed!

Even if she was a stewardess?

 

[JihadJane]

What a threadful of terrorist apologists!

 

[Soapy Sam]

I hope those responsible for the list that may not be revealed or explained are at least asking how a six year old kid came to be on it in the first place.
But perhaps I'm being unrealistic.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

I hope those responsible for the list that may not be revealed or explained are at least asking how a six year old kid came to be on it in the first place.
But perhaps I'm being unrealistic.

Yeah, huh? My money's on unrealistic.

 

[elgarak]

I hope those responsible for the list that may not be revealed or explained are at least asking how a six year old kid came to be on it in the first place.
But perhaps I'm being unrealistic.

I don't think it's a kid that's on the list.

It's just a name. Nothing else. It's a list of names that terrorists might travel under. Nothing more. No associated data like birth dates or such.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Soon they will put the airplanes on the no flight list because they are linked to terrorist activities.

 

[theprestige]

I hope those responsible for the list that may not be revealed or explained are at least asking how a six year old kid came to be on it in the first place.
But perhaps I'm being unrealistic.

As someone whose job it is to work every day with a product that essentially consists of making the best possible list for a given price point*, I'm here to tell you that yes, you're being unrealistic.

When untoward entries appear on our list, we spend very little effort asking how it happened. Because we already understand how it happened, and we already understand the trade-offs that make such happenings inevitable, and we already understand that you are utterly uninterested in paying anything more than the current price point, which is why the list isn't as good as it could be, and why we end up making the trade-offs we do.

Many of our customers are government agencies. I talk to them every day. Half the time, they can't even use our list, or at least not well, because they simply don't have the budget to buy the infrastructure necessary to make our list work.

You want a better list? Provide more funding. Either that, or lobby harder. Either that, or lobby harder to abolish the list entirely. Money isn't the only price you can pay, to get what you want.

But show me a dude who wants stuff without paying the price to get it, and I'll show you a dude who's being unrealistic.








*Coincidentally, our list cannot be revealed either.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

I don't think it's a kid that's on the list.

It's just a name. Nothing else. It's a list of names that terrorists might travel under. Nothing more. No associated data like birth dates or such.

I'm not so sure. In my experience, there was a lot of focus on secondarily identifying information: date of birth, current and past addresses, employers, as well as travel for the past couple of years. Nobody talked to me about my political or religious ideology.

I was ultimately allowed to board the plane because they decided something in what I'd said didn't match up with whatever information was available to them, but everything I provided would be considered identifying information.

 

[elgarak]

I'm not so sure. In my experience, there was a lot of focus on secondarily identifying information: date of birth, current and past addresses, employers, as well as travel for the past couple of years. Nobody talked to me about my political or religious ideology.

I was ultimately allowed to board the plane because they decided something in what I'd said didn't match up with whatever information was available to them, but everything I provided would be considered identifying information.

Why do you think they double-check with something they know? I don't think they have a full set of data on all the names, from what I see of unlikely people ending up on it. I believe that at least some of the names are just names. They may have some information. What if they only know that the name is of a woman in her 30s? In this case it makes a lot of sense to cross-check with all women with this name in her 30s. Background-checking. Looking if your personal history is consistent. Holding you while this background checking is going on. Stressing out the people. A poorly trained operative traveling under a false identity may trip over details in the identity, the 'real' person not (the list may simply be there to stop suicide bombers. Doesn't make much sense to train them very well).

 

[elgarak]

Another thought: Let's say the girl would not have been hold and cross-checked, together with her mom (I think they were traveling together). Let's further assume that every group traveling with little kids does NOT get hold up, and checked, or with less scrutiny. If I were a terrorist planner, I would get my suicide bombers to travel with little kids.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

Why do you think they double-check with something they know? I don't think they have a full set of data on all the names, from what I see of unlikely people ending up on it. I believe that at least some of the names are just names. They may have some information. What if they only know that the name is of a woman in her 30s? In this case it makes a lot of sense to cross-check with all women with this name in her 30s. Background-checking. Looking if your personal history is consistent. Holding you while this background checking is going on. Stressing out the people. A poorly trained operative traveling under a false identity may trip over details in the identity, the 'real' person not (the list may simply be there to stop suicide bombers. Doesn't make much sense to train them very well).

Okay, I'm confused, and I'm going to crack under the strain. Okay, probably not.

First you say: "It's just a name. Nothing else. It's a list of names that terrorists might travel under. Nothing more. No associated data like birth dates or such." But then you say that they're going to grill the person and see if they hold up their story consistently while background checking is going on.

In my personal case, I assure you I was not grilled long enough for a background check to come in. I was not taken to a private room and asked questions in an attempt to confuse me. (I'm not saying this doesn't happen, because I know it does, and I know the purpose of doing so.)

I was asked questions, and the airline personnel conveyed my answers into a phone and read data off my ID. She confirmed my address at least twice, my city of residence at least twice, my date of birth, gender, height, weight, and eye color at least twice. The person on the other end of the phone was clearly looking at something with information that was sufficient to confirm or deny my access onto that airplane.

But I am familiar with the Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN), and you're right: it is a list of names, although it does list address -- or city (or country) of residence, and some "also known as" information, dates of birth and alternate dates of birth, nationality, and some affiliations.

My name is not on that list. So there's some other list. (Or maybe it's been removed in the years since my event happened.)

 

[bit_pattern]

Better than being a 7 year old on a military interrogation list

 

[funk de fino]

Okay, I'm confused, and I'm going to crack under the strain. Okay, probably not.

First you say: "It's just a name. Nothing else. It's a list of names that terrorists might travel under. Nothing more. No associated data like birth dates or such." But then you say that they're going to grill the person and see if they hold up their story consistently while background checking is going on.

In my personal case, I assure you I was not grilled long enough for a background check to come in. I was not taken to a private room and asked questions in an attempt to confuse me. (I'm not saying this doesn't happen, because I know it does, and I know the purpose of doing so.)

I was asked questions, and the airline personnel conveyed my answers into a phone and read data off my ID. She confirmed my address at least twice, my city of residence at least twice, my date of birth, gender, height, weight, and eye color at least twice. The person on the other end of the phone was clearly looking at something with information that was sufficient to confirm or deny my access onto that airplane.

But I am familiar with the Specially Designated Nationals List (SDN), and you're right: it is a list of names, although it does list address -- or city (or country) of residence, and some "also known as" information, dates of birth and alternate dates of birth, nationality, and some affiliations.

My name is not on that list. So there's some other list. (Or maybe it's been removed in the years since my event happened.)

I can concur with this for myself. I travel regularly into the US and have to fill the ESTA online approval as well as the entry cards and customs stuff. I have had in the past many viasa for China, Saudi, Algeria, Libya China and Russia in my passport. This did not cause me any hassle but after I renewed my passport and travelled into the US the next time with no hassle, but when I came to check in for my flight to go home I was unable to use the online check in or the quick auto check in machines at the airport. I had to ask the girl at the counter to do it and she could not and had to ask her suprvisor to come and help. As the girl was new they were discussing what the problem was and how they could fix it. This entailed the asking the extra information as above. Not in a room but at the counter. She then explained to the girl that this was a list I was on that meant extra security. Then she realised that I was listening and apologised saying that I was not supposed to hear that. They would not tell me why I was on the list or even what list it was.

It has not happened again since. I suspect it was because of the change of passport on my ESTA and entry in the space of a few weeks.

 

[EvilSmurf]

I remember having to wait at a check-in counter a good half-hour or so because the family in front of us had a child (who couldn't have been older than the one in this article) with the same name as someone apparently on the no-fly list. It took a frantic series of phone calls and such before they were allowed to get their tickets.

 

[joobie]

...but when I came to check in for my flight to go home I was unable to use the online check in or the quick auto check in machines at the airport. I had to ask the girl at the counter to do it and she could not and had to ask her suprvisor to come and help. As the girl was new they were discussing what the problem was and how they could fix it. This entailed the asking the extra information as above. Not in a room but at the counter. She then explained to the girl that this was a list I was on that meant extra security. Then she realised that I was listening and apologised saying that I was not supposed to hear that. They would not tell me why I was on the list or even what list it was.

the last time i flew the same thing happened to me, with the exception of one of the counter agents straight out asking me if i was on "the list", because "that's the only time such a thing happened". they furthermore sumrised that my problems were due to me having an exceedingly common name.

 

[Cuddles]

Another thought: Let's say the girl would not have been hold and cross-checked, together with her mom (I think they were traveling together). Let's further assume that every group traveling with little kids does NOT get hold up, and checked, or with less scrutiny. If I were a terrorist planner, I would get my suicide bombers to travel with little kids.

What does this have to do with anything? The issue is not stopping people who are travelling with children, it is stopping people who are children. If the mother or father had been stopped, I doubt many people would complain about that just because they had their child with them. But the point in this case is that the child was stopped for being a possible terrorist. Unless terrorists are now planning on using no-one other than 6 year olds, I don't see how deciding that a little kid probably isn't the droid terrorist you're looking for could cause any problems.