
DHS stalls no-fly list trial by putting witness on no-fly list - dredmorbius
http://boingboing.net/2013/12/04/dhs-stalls-no-fly-list-trial-b.html
======
fiatmoney
The most charitable explanation for the no-fly-listing in the first place is
that the DHS confused "Jamaah Islah Malaysia", a professional/meetup group,
with "Jamaah Islamiyah Malaysia", a supposed terrorist organization, and is
now furiously trying to conceal their incompetence in this case and how often
they screw the pooch in general.

Rather like conflating the Tamil Tigers and the Lions Club.

~~~
pyduan
This is probably what happened, and not some not very subtle (not to mention
completely useless) scheme by the DHS as the title of the article seems to
suggest.

I cannot speak for what process the DHS or the TSA use, but what is done in
the industry to ensure the person they're transacting with is not on some
blacklist (which is mandatory, as per OFAC regulations) is using fuzzy string
matching algorithms. Usually it's some variant of measures like the Jaro-
Winkler distance [1], which is commonly used to compare names, or phonetic
algorithms like Soundex [2], which we know is used by the US government for
the census.

Unfortunately, these algorithms tend to work reasonably well for western names
but not so much for picking up the subtleties of other languages and cultures,
like "islah" (which apparently means "reform") vs. "islam". It wouldn't
surprise me if the the DHS simply relies on automatic discovery algorithms and
does not have a team of sufficiently trained people with both the language
skills on call to do manual checks.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaro%E2%80%93Winkler_distance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaro%E2%80%93Winkler_distance)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundex](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundex)

~~~
teraflop
There are two separate incidents involved here. What you've described is a
plausible explanation for the original incident, in which Dr. Ibrahim was
accused of supporting terrorists and then had her visa revoked.

It doesn't explain the subsequent incident where the government (apparently)
placed her daughter on the no-fly list as well, and then went on to
(apparently) lie about it in court.

~~~
pyduan
I don't know the case well enough to comment on it, but my money would be the
same explanation: badly coded automatic discovery systems. The DHS has been
caring notoriously little about false positives and I wouldn't be surprised if
some obscure rule got triggered because of her mother being on a blacklist for
who-knows-what reason either related to her original ban to the lawsuit. The
DHS must change because its mixture of incompetence, lack of transparency, and
absence of supervision is a recipe disaster, but saying this particular case
was made on purpose seems like sensationalist FUD to me. I could be wrong and
it might be true, but I think everyone is jumping on conclusions way too fast.

There is no excuse to the government allegedly lying in court, but I have a
hard time imagining anyone would do such a stupid move in their right mind.
What could one hope to achieve by putting the daughter on the no-fly-list in
the first place? That the key witness missing her flight would cause her
testimony to be ignored? That stalling the process by a few days would tip the
balance in their favor? That the consequences of the plot being discovered
(which depended on the Malaysian airline keeping its mouth shut) do not
considerably outweigh its benefits? Also noteworthy is that this particular
case is an appeal to a first decision back in in February 2012 that the DHS
_won_ , for reasons completely unrelated to Dr. Ibrahim being or not being
able to board the flight: [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-
circuit/1438741.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1438741.html)

------
koenigdavidmj
The judge is William Alsup, who also handled the Google-Oracle case. This
should be fun.

EDIT: Judge Alsup wasn’t willing to take any action today on unproven
allegations or unverified documents. But he made clear that, “I am disturbed
by this…. We’ll hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it
turns out that the DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the
government’s case. I want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to
what has happened. You find a witness and get them here.”

[http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/04/no-fly-trial-
day-2-dr-...](http://papersplease.org/wp/2013/12/04/no-fly-trial-day-2-dr-
ibrahim-gets-her-virtual-day-in-court/)

~~~
Crito
IIRC he also smacked San Fransisco for their absurd cellphones/cancer
ordinance thing. Hearing that he is involved is reassuring.

~~~
smtddr
[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-usa-
sanfrancisc...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-usa-sanfrancisco-
cellphones-idUSBRE9470I720130508)

I don't see anything absurd here. It's still not clear that cellphones are
"safe".

 _> >Mobile phones are tested to ensure their emissions fall within FCC limits
considered safe. The limits, however, fail to reflect the latest research or
actual conditions under which mobile phones are used, liked being held in a
pocket directly against the body while talking through an earpiece, according
to a Government Accountability Office report. The FCC last month agreed to
consider revising its 17-year-old guidelines._

I'm glad the FCC at least were open to thinking about it. I treat my cellphone
as a possible biohazard and keep it away from my body. It's almost always in
my backpack; about a foot away from my body and I almost never make voice-
calls; I'm all SMS. I put in less than 45mins/month on voice-calls.

~~~
AsymetricCom
But our economy is already dependent on mobile data. So cancer or not, there's
no stopping it. The economy decides what's safe.

~~~
makmanalp
Huh? No. First of all, most of "the economy" doesn't know anything about
anything unless they're informed. So they're implementing a new testing
process to better inform them.

Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common
knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming
evidence showed that it _was_ harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns
telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same
degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense?

Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed
significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does
now, but is less harmful?

~~~
jotm
I believe the comparison you're looking for is radium - people used it for
quite a long time, not knowing the long term effects. Heroin works, too -
smoking doesn't because people have been smoking stuff for thousands of
years...

~~~
mburns
Lead-based paint is another example.

------
scrabble
The best part of this isn't even that she was placed on a no-fly list.

It's that the DHS lawyer specifically told the judge that she wasn't and the
daughter was lying before the documentation was produced.

The only way I see out of that accusation is by claiming that the airline was
lying to the daughter.

~~~
strathmeyer
The DHS lawyers obviously thought they had threatened the airlines enough that
they wouldn't turn the documentation over to her. Sounds like witness
intimidation and tampering with evidence. At least that's what it would be if
I did it.

~~~
joezydeco
Not to mention outright lying to a judge. Isn't that a contempt of court
issue?

~~~
pasbesoin
IANAL and also my memory on this point is rather fuzzy, but I believe it may
also be the case that under such circumstances, the lawyer who has made such a
false and defamatory statement is subject to civil lawsuit for libel/slander.

~~~
wavefunction
Lying to a judge is an incredibly serious offense for an "officer of the
court" like a prosecutor or defense attorney in the course of a trial.

That's potential disbarment territory afaik.

Prenda Law is another example of lawyers getting a little too clever and
running up against a judge who is as sharp as a razor and not keen on legal
fraud.

~~~
x0x0
no it isn't. Lying to the court is nothing; it has to rise to the incredible
level of prenda for anything to actually happen to the lawyers involved.

~~~
zymhan
The Prenda case has made legal experts of us all :)

------
TrevorJ
I hope this story continues to be covered, I am very curious to see what the
truth of this matter is. If the witness was truly put on the no-fly list it is
hard to imagine how her testimony could have been _more_ damaging than the
action of putting her on the list to prevent it. That move would be insane,
even for DHS.

~~~
spinlock
Our government has a long history of abusing its power to prevent evidence
from being admitted in court. In fact, the "State's Secrets" privilege granted
to the executive branch was based on exactly that. The case that established
the precedent is Reynolds vs. US Navy (definitely Reynolds not sure about
Navy). I was finally declassified a couple of years ago and it came out that
there were no secrets to be kept from the court other than government was at
fault.

~~~
nitrogen
_I was finally declassified..._

Should that be " _It_ was finally declassified"?

~~~
wil421
Relax

~~~
nitrogen
I'm not sure what's going on with my previous post. There is ambiguity in what
was declassified. It's not clear if the commenter's own history was
declassified, or if the aforementioned court case was declassified. My comment
was a request for clarification.

~~~
nkurz
The reaction you are getting is because you appeared to be making a trivial
grammar correction in a heavy-handed way. Others presumed that the word was
definitely intended as 'it' and that the correction did not merit mention.

~~~
nitrogen
Supposing I was making a grammatical comment, what would be a less heavy-
handed way of phrasing it?

I italicized the word "it" for the purpose of identifying that word as the
part that changed. Is the italicization being interpreted as derogatory vocal
stress?

~~~
nkurz
I thought about it before my first response, and I'm not sure there is a good
way. Anything that comes off as correcting grammar is difficult to do
politely, especially in a mixed group of native and non-native speakers.

I think most people (including me) didn't consider the 'I was declassified'
interpretation because there was little else in the parent to suggest it, and
because the phrasing was odd. Usually it is information that is declassified
rather than individuals.

But if one was to ask for clarification, I think your second comment would be
a good pattern: "I'm genuinely confused: did you mean X or Y?" Putting the
burden on yourself as reader often comes off better than implying that the
writer made a mistake, even if the real problem is that writer made a mistake.

(This isn't to mean that you shouldn't ever bluntly correct writers when they
are wrong, just that in the absence of a pre-existing relationship it often
doesn't go over well with the writer)

~~~
nitrogen
I think I've heard people refer to _themselves_ as being declassified as a
shorthand for their career and projects being declassified, thus I wasn't sure
how to interpret the original statement.

Thanks for the feedback on my other points.

------
chadwickthebold
'Other airlines receiving similar instructions have acquiesced to DHS orders
to keep the instructions from the DHS, and the reasons for the airlines’
actions, secret from the would-be travelers whose rights are affected. '

It's pretty scary that this is such a common occurrence with government
orders.

~~~
infinotize
Isn't this what stops a lot of suits against broad surveillence-type actity -
that since court proceedings are public the suit is rejected because it would
reveal classified information?

------
middleclick
You are being held liable for a crime you did not commit and you don't even
know what it is. Doesn't this perfectly fit the description of a Kafkaesque
crime?

~~~
Crito
Not only did they not commit the crime; the crime hasn't even happened yet!
Held liable for being the sort of person that might commit some sort of crime,
maybe.

~~~
dredmorbius
It's precrime.

~~~
Crito
I mean christ, at least Tom Cruise wasn't going after people for _having the
same name_ as somebody who might commit crimes, maybe...

Is there even an example of dystopian science fiction this crazy?

~~~
dredmorbius
_Brazil_ , Mr. Buttle.

[http://fixyt.com/watch?v=nWbIxFKtTmE](http://fixyt.com/watch?v=nWbIxFKtTmE)

~~~
Crito
Good call. I should really watch that again...

~~~
moocowduckquack
We're all in this together.

------
beedogs
At this point, the DHS appears to be merely an antagonistic bully, and the
only "security" it offers is in the form of high-paying jobs to mid-level
government hacks. It should be done away with along with the TSA and the NSA.

~~~
rbanffy
I'd like to point out they all were created to serve some useful purpose. The
fact they are doing a lot more of the wrong things and too little of the right
ones points to lack of proper oversight and management, not to an inherent
design flaw.

~~~
Crito
> _" I'd like to point out they all were created to serve some useful
> purpose."_

I don't think we can take that as a given. Saying that they are at least
intended to _appear_ to exist for a reason seems like a safer starting point.

------
ck2
I wonder how many times people at DHS have put their ex-s on the no-fly and
gotten away with it because of zero oversight.

~~~
Pinckney
Someone did that in the UK. He was only ever caught because a background check
for a promotion revealed he was married to someone on the no fly list.

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/02/uk_immigratio...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/02/uk_immigration.html)

~~~
yaddayadda
That's ironic, karmic payback.

------
ChuckMcM
Oh that is just stellar. I don't think the DHS did it on purpose though as it
is too damaging to their case. But it exemplifies the challenges of such a
list perfectly.

~~~
revelation
The judge won't care if someone did it on purpose. Results matter.

~~~
scott_s
I imagine the judge would care; intent matters in the law.

~~~
darkarmani
Not anymore. Deposit a few checks into your bank account that are just under
$10k, and you've committed a felony for structuring your deposits. It should
be "intent," but that's too hard to prove.

~~~
lmm
There are indeed some (bad) laws for which that's true, but it's still fair to
say that in law intent generally matters.

~~~
bediger4000
I don't think that's fair. It's accurate to say that the US Law is moving away
from considering intent at all.

------
grecy
While it's a great case to bring attention to this kind of abuse, it seems
very likely the DHS will just say "Due to a classified terrorist threat..."
blah, blah, it's all kosher.

------
chris_mahan
Does anybody know whether the price of the airline ticket is refunded in case
the passenger is denied boarding?

~~~
jacalata
Apparently it is, yes: [http://www.quora.com/Do-you-get-a-refund-if-informed-
at-the-...](http://www.quora.com/Do-you-get-a-refund-if-informed-at-the-
airport-that-you-are-on-the-No-Fly-List)

------
alextingle
Contempt of Court, perhaps?

~~~
brador
Abuse of power.

~~~
MBlume
Oh come on, if we punished people for that sort of thing we wouldn't have a
government anymore.

~~~
winslow
Why should those in power continue to not be punished, yet law abiding
citizens get the full force of the law if they do something wrong?

~~~
MBlume
I was aiming for sarcasm, they should totally be punished.

------
gnu8
Can the DHS be held in contempt of court for directly interfering with a
witness?

~~~
coldcode
Well we already hold them in contempt, the judge may as well join us.

~~~
girvo
I've got nothing _but_ contempt for them, so I think that's a great idea.

------
eli
allegedly

~~~
rosser
No, the "allegedly" is that they did it _deliberately_. They _definitely_ put
this woman on the No-Fly list; she's demonstrably _on it_. The question and
concern is over whether they did it in order to hinder her testifying in this
case.

~~~
scott_s
No, whether or not she is actually on the no-fly list is not considered fact
yet. It is possible she could have lied and faked a document. I do not _think_
she did that, and it appears nor does the judge, but the judge wants more
evidence to support the claim. From the article:

 _But Judge Alsup noted that the document with the DHS instructions to the
airline was not supported by any sworn testimony or evidence of its
authenticity. “You have to have a sworn record before I can do something
dramatic.” Judge Alsup said he would consider the document if and when Ms.
Mustafa Kamal arrives in San Francisco and can testify as to its authenticity.

...

Judge Alsup wasn’t willing to take any action today on unproven allegations or
unverified documents. But he made clear that, “I am disturbed by this…. We’ll
hear from her [Ms. Mustafa Kamal] when she gets here. If it turns out that the
DHS has sabotaged a witness, that will go against the government’s case. I
want a witness from Homeland Security who can testify to what has happened.
You find a witness and get them here.”_

