Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « Monster.com Data Breach | Main | Man Arrested by Amtrak Police for Taking Photographs for Amtrak Photography Contest » February 9, 2009U.S. is One Small Step Closer to Making No-Fly List Less HarassingThe House approved a bill creating a whitelist of people who are on the blacklist, but shouldn't be. No word yet about what they're going to do about people who are on the whitelist, but shouldn't be. Perhaps they'll create a second blacklist for them. Then we'll all be safe from terrorists, for sure. Posted on February 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM • 46 Comments To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. Perhaps [they'll] create another blacklist [for people who are on the whitelist, but shouldn't be.] It would be so awesome to be the first guy erroneously blacklisted from the whitelist of erroneously blacklisted white people. I'm calling Cat Stevens. Posted by: Tangerine Blue at February 9, 2009 12:16 PM I'm rolling on the floor laughing. Posted by: Nicola at February 9, 2009 12:41 PM After the collapse of the former Soviet Union, I saw one or two cable TV shows about the horrendous amount of paperwork that was held by government agencies on people (citizens, suspected or not). After 9/11, along comes TIA (now defunct Total Information Awareness, now re-incarnated as some off-shore organization doing the same thing). They don't get it. The data is out of date after it is captured. And the lists (of lists of lists of lists ad nauseum) are worthless when the rules change. This could be funny if it weren't so sad. Posted by: Kashmarek at February 9, 2009 1:03 PM So, would the way to exploit this be to get oneself on the blacklist, then on the whitelist to avoid avoid extra-attention in the security line? the mind boggles at the irony that it requires an act of congress to force a bureaucracy to admit an error. Posted by: should be working at February 9, 2009 1:10 PM Congress creates the bureaucracies, and has the power to override their rulings with law. The fact that they choose to do nothing puts errors back on them. Posted by: CGomez at February 9, 2009 1:11 PM Soon we will need a list of lists to keep the lists straight. Posted by: Pat Cahalan at February 9, 2009 1:17 PM This is kind of like having a meeting to prepare for another meeting. Posted by: AppSec at February 9, 2009 1:21 PM I'm trying to make sense of this... would Kurt Gödel be on the black list, or the white list? Posted by: RH at February 9, 2009 1:33 PM Lists of lists...the simplest thing would be to run a query on all the lists and divide the number you're on by 2. If it's even you're white-listed. Odd you're black-listed.... Posted by: KingTim at February 9, 2009 1:44 PM You'd think it'd be simpler to just remove the incorrect entries from the blacklist. If they don't know which are the incorrect entries on the blacklist, how the heck are they going to compile the whitelist? Posted by: Unix Ronin at February 9, 2009 2:11 PM Oh. I was expecting a mandatory enforced namechange for people on the black->whitelist. That would be the easy solution. After all, the actual terrorists, assuming they exist, presumably don't use their real names, either. For this reason, it's almost inconceivable that anyone would seriously make use of the blacklist to begin with. You'd think after some TSA genius added "Edward Kennedy" that there might have been an intelligent response, but no.... Do they really imagine that these brilliant terrorists, with their dual-liquid bombs, their sophisticated Google-Maps targeting strategy, and their various other beautiful cinematic plans will just use their real names when buying plane tickets? Like it's that hard for these organized armies of foes we're at war with to get a passport in another name? For heaven's sake! Posted by: Miramon at February 9, 2009 2:56 PM > I'm trying to make sense of this... would Kurt Gödel be on the black list, or the white list? RH, dunno about Gödel, but I'm pretty sure Cantor would be on the list of lists that doesn't contain him. Posted by: Miramon at February 9, 2009 2:58 PM How difficult will it be to get on the whitelist? Is it enough to not be a terrorist, or will the bar be set so high that people the government doesn't like won't be able to get on that list? Posted by: Adrian Lopez at February 9, 2009 3:01 PM Wouldn't a red-black list be more efficient for the amount of inserting they're going to have to do? Posted by: Grant Gould at February 9, 2009 3:16 PM We can all enjoy a good laugh at the idiocy of it all. But spare a thought for the huge disruption caused to the lives of the people on the blacklist (at least 90% of whom are not terrorists). It's not funny to them. Posted by: Nostromo at February 9, 2009 3:19 PM I just checked the link. How do you get on the whitelist, if you are currently one of the approximately 1,000,000 people on the blacklist? "victims of the terrorist watchlist must prove to the Department of Homeland Security, through an undetermined appeals process, that they are not terrorists." Yeah, right. Just like that. The whitelist will exist, so the politicians will have Solved The Problem. There just won't be any names on the whitelist. Posted by: Nostromo at February 9, 2009 3:25 PM I think Congress should call the white list the "Presumed Innocent" list. Then I can wave a copy of the Bill of Rights at them and force them to put me on this new list. Posted by: Nick Danger at February 9, 2009 3:25 PM @Nick Danger Posted by: anon at February 9, 2009 3:30 PM @Miramon: "I'm pretty sure Cantor would be on the list of lists that doesn't contain him." I think you're thinking of the Russell List, which is a list of all lists that do not list themselves. If there's a Master List of all lists, maybe the Cantor list is a list where the Nth person on it is NOT the Nth person on the Nth list (from the Master List). I think my favorite would be the Hofstadter list, of people who believe that Douglas Hofstader isn't on it. Now for some that would be funny if they weren't coming true: a list of names that can follow "suspected terrorist" on the evening news without arousing skepticism, and the Link List of people who are real terrorists or know someone on the Link List. Posted by: Beta at February 9, 2009 3:40 PM While we're sorta on the subject, I'd like to give a plug for Nova's "The Spy Factory" about the NSA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/... It's astounding to watch the lack of communication between three agencies who's job is, in large part, communication. Posted by: Rich Wilson at February 9, 2009 3:52 PM I think the whitelist should be renamed the Jedi list. sfx: Alec Guiness theatrical voice: -
Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2009 4:47 PM With that many lists, shouldn't there be a list of inaccurate lists? Let's call that the black-and-white list-blacklist. Posted by: Jurjen at February 9, 2009 4:54 PM The bureaucracy is expanding, to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Posted by: Anonymous at February 9, 2009 5:09 PM @anon at February 9, 2009 3:30 PM Sarcasm is a subtle thing. Posted by: Nick Danger at February 9, 2009 8:30 PM RH> I'm trying to make sense of this... would Kurt Gödel be on the black list, or the white list? I don't think it can be decided Posted by: Kermit The Bog at February 9, 2009 8:47 PM Ooh, I'm not on the blacklist, but I'll see if I can get on the whitelist, just in case someone with my name gets on the blacklist. Posted by: Aviatrix at February 9, 2009 9:03 PM It's a cunning plan. Anyone wanting to be on the whitelist is obviously a terrorist trying to bypass the blacklist Posted by: Marc at February 9, 2009 10:32 PM This is the biggest development since the TSA learned alphabetization! Posted by: Fred X. Quimby at February 10, 2009 2:03 AM "Lists of lists...the simplest thing would be to run a query on all the lists and divide the number you're on by 2. If it's even you're white-listed. Odd you're black-listed...." Posted by: SS at February 10, 2009 4:03 AM The threat will transfer to areas where people congregate - schools, shops, hospitals, airport-security-queues etc. Because nobody walks, everybody drives, then we simply need a 'No Parking list' and a 'Yes Parking list'. Traffic wardens will need to carry firearms of course. Posted by: Bill at February 10, 2009 6:18 AM funny how many references to phyis...fissi...fiizzizzizsts (screw it). I flash on Einstein's cosmological constant. Created to balance his equations rather than accept the quantum reality. @anon ... A paper cut is a scary thing and it hurts. Posted by: Anonymous at February 10, 2009 6:33 AM @SS: "I'm pretty certain that there are people out there - quite a lot of them in fact, that I would not like having in the seat next to me on my next flight. Or in the plane at all, in fact." If they're innocent of any crime, why are you worried? If they're guilty, why aren't you campaigining to have them put in prison, rather than on some amorphous blacklist? I'm sorry, but "making SS feel profoundly uncomfortable," or even "making Janet Napolitano or Michael Chertoff feel profoundly uncomfortable" is not a reason to keep someone from traveling in a country that prides itself on freedom. Posted by: Another Kevin at February 10, 2009 6:50 AM @BL Well since TSA won't open the box that contains the cat until it gets through the xray machine, we can assume that the cat is both living and dead at the time of list creation. This means the poor cat might actually be on the list twice, since we know being dead is no reason for removal from the list. :) Posted by: xd0s at February 10, 2009 10:01 AM It would probably be better to implement greylisting: just deny everyone entry to the restricted zone on first attempt and then allow everyone who makes a second attempt to pass through. Posted by: Tom Davis at February 10, 2009 9:01 PM @Another Kevin; "making SS feel profoundly uncomfortable," // "is not a reason to keep someone from traveling in a country that prides itself on freedom." That made me laugh. You know what, you're absolutely right. Making SS feel profoundly uncomfortable is not a crime at all, and if it was, a lot of people would have landed in jail over the years. Posted by: SS at February 11, 2009 8:39 AM @Grant Gould: That was a most excellent comment. =) Posted by: moo at February 11, 2009 12:28 PM @SS You persist in saying that "some individuals" should not be allowed to fly, with no criterion other than your not wanting to fly with them or their being "affiliated with criminality", whatever that means. I'm really curious: if your name (or one like it) appears on the list, will you protest? Or will you quietly accept that you're not fit to rub elbows with decent people? Posted by: Beta at February 12, 2009 2:24 PM Oh, and we need a list of Liszts, so somebody doesn't get onboard and begin impaling people with a baton. Posted by: McCoy Pauley at February 12, 2009 2:41 PM I didn't see mention of a blacklist for non-blacklisted people who should be blacklisted. Don't forget those people. Honestly, we can't be secure unless we created an unlisted blacklist, too, which contains people who are not on any blacklist that need to be blacklisted and prevented from gaining whitelisted listing on the blacklist whitelist. Won't somebody think of the children? Posted by: Randy at February 13, 2009 11:41 AM You all are seeing a massive missed opertunity. Why just 2 lists... why not 5. Thats right. 5 Severe - RED - People that are Terrorists High - Orange - People we think are terrorists Elevated - Yellow - People that probably arent terrorists, but we feel safer by putting them on a list Gaurded - Blue - People we dont like that we want to annoy Low - Green - People that appear to be normal Americans... and since they appear normal, we'd better watch them. After all the terrorists could have finally figured out how to emulate normal people. Posted by: JT at February 15, 2009 11:14 AM What is the set of all sets that doesn't include itself? Posted by: MCD at February 16, 2009 7:33 AM Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Steve Woit.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments