
Can you be added to a watchlist for playing a video game? - room271
https://playtopsecret.com/topsecret/2015/10/08/can-you-be-added-to-watchlist.html
======
cryoshon
"People I meet jokingly suggest I must be on a watchlist. Humour tinged with
the tiniest sliver of doubt. Others joke that they won’t play the game because
they’ll be added to one. We like to believe that our behaviour isn’t affected,
the panopticon has no hold over us, but there remains an insidious fear that
our self-censorship is inescapable and manifest.

Should I google that word, or visit that site? Or use that encryption method?
Or play that game?

Maybe not."

And this is exactly why totalitarian surveillance can't be allowed to
metastasize any further. The mere existence of the capability to spy on
people's thoughts causes self-censorship and conformity.

~~~
bediger4000
I personally think twice before googling for some term(s) that aren't related
to pop stars and tween celebrities. I am censoring myself already.

When it's revealed that the FBI has manipulated at least one politician
because of the electronic dossiers they keep, I will be laughing. Bitterly.

~~~
theseatoms
I purposefully do not hold back when googling.

Sure, I sometimes think twice. But I'd rather live freely in the moment than
self-censor due to a vague (though admittedly plausible) future totalitarian
threat.

Or maybe you'd call it poor impulse control. Either way, what a rebel. /s

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I had some fun googles this summer: was working on building a boat using strip
plank construction, informally known as "a stripper". So you end up searching
for stuff like "how to vacuum bag a stripper"...

------
bazillion
No, you cannot be added to a watchlist for playing a video game.

There's a multi-analyst system for reviewing the criteria for adding someone
to a watchlist, and under no circumstances is someone going to be added
without a legitimate nexus to terrorism. Terrorism might be ambiguous to
define in a document, but it's pretty cut-and-dry in actual practice. There
are people who attend terrorist camps, and there are people who visited a
terrorist forum. The first is definitely a terrorist, and the second (by
itself) is not.

Theoretically, if a system rewarded analysts by how many people they
watchlisted, then you might have the possibility for people to try to game the
system in order to up their numbers (get promotions, bonuses, etc.). That's
not even remotely the case, however. The system that is in place is one that
takes putting someone on a watchlist very seriously, as it can have an impact
on that person's life. Not only that, but it adds a lot of noise to the whole,
and could end up taking away from the effort to identify _real_ terrorists.

How do I know all this? I helped build the system. Feel free to ask questions,
but obviously I have to stay within what is allowable (unclassified), which
admittedly isn't much but at least can shed light on the "why" of the matter.

~~~
nefitty
If someone is involved in radical or extremist politics online and is an
extremely skilled war/shooter game player how would that not have a bearing on
whether that person is a potential threat or not? It seems to me that there is
a higher possibility that the gamer will have impetus to act using his
skillset than a counterpart armchair anarchist or fascist who is only
surveying and studying the literature.

~~~
bazillion
Playing a war/shooter simulation is a far cry from gaining skills useful in
real-life combat, urban or otherwise. For one, using a controller or keyboard
to aim makes you better at using a controller or keyboard to aim -- that has
zero bearing on whether or not you can aim a firearm. Not to mention that
using that as criteria for watchlisting someone would be grounds for reprimand
and/or review of every watchlisting decision the analyst has made (which is
looking for reasons to fire that analyst).

~~~
nefitty
Those are fair points, but use of simulated training programs is on the rise.
I sincerely doubt that there is absolutely no link between virtual skill and
real world skill.

------
hyperion2010
Every additional person you add to a watchlist is one more piece of hay for
the haystack. They can't even watch the people that they are directly told
about by mental health professionals. Feel free to be paranoid about
watchlists, but I'm more worried about the fact that such behavior stinks of
complete and utter incompetence of people who think adding all 300 million US
citizens to one is a remotely productive idea.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>They can't even watch the people that they are directly told about by mental
health professionals.

And this is why there is a distrust of mental health professionals. Why would
you seek help if it could result in being watched if not worse. Imagine if
doctors reported drug users to the police; people would rather risk handling
an overdose on their own than getting help and then being punished.

~~~
nefitty
That is already a real problem among hard drug users. Some deaths occur
because the overdose's company flee fearing prosecution for their own drug
use.

------
sliverstorm
Key snippet:

 _Imagine a cylindrical prison where every inmate is within line-of-sight to a
central pillar. You can see out from the pillar but not into it. Prisoners
never know when they are being watched so must constantly act as if they are
under surveillance [...] The key insight being that the mere possibility of
surveillance is enough to change behaviour [...] a panopticon derives its
power from the awareness of its subjects. In fact, belief in the existence of
it is the sole requirement. Neither intent, nor reality are necessary for
control._

Suddenly casts things in a completely different light for me. What if, for
example, the Snowden leaks were on purpose? What if we were _supposed_ to
notice the FBI plane above Baltimore? What if the facility in Utah was really
just an empty building, and the goal was not to record all phone calls but to
make you _think_ they could?

------
Theodores
The NSA and GCHQ sent spies into online games to seek out terrorist or
criminal chat and even to recruit foreign informants, according to leaked
documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/video-
game...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/video-game-
news/10506017/NSA-and-GCHQ-spies-operated-in-games-including-World-of-
Warcraft-and-Second-Life.html)

They also have at least one programme to harvest in-game messaging, so,
basically, you can either be 'groomed' by snitches or 'hoovered up' by the
same machines that eavesdrop on everything else. It would be naive to think
otherwise. So long as you have nothing to hide then there is nothing to fear.

------
Zikes
At this point I honestly would not be surprised if playing Keep Talking and
Nobody Explodes[1] would land a person on a watch list of some sort.

[1] [http://www.keeptalkinggame.com/](http://www.keeptalkinggame.com/)

~~~
Laaw
But there's no real value in adding someone who plays this game to a
watchlist.

If analysts are discounting the value of membership to a watchlist because of
the amount of noise such as what you're suggesting, then the watchlist isn't
going to help the organization that's keeping it.

From a strictly practical standpoint, there is an incentive to keep watchlists
small, focused, and accurate, otherwise they lose meaning.

~~~
Zikes
But there's already overwhelming evidence that those watchlists are not small,
focused, or accurate.

I think they serve a different purpose: to be able to manufacture an excuse
when it is convenient. We're far enough past "innocent until proven guilty"
that we've manufactured a plethora of new tools and processes to support
nearly any unconstitutional actions against citizens.

~~~
Laaw
And I think your comments are the defensive result of an emotional reaction to
your helplessness in the face of an overpowering perceived adversary.

When you create an us/them narrative, you might not be the only one who plays
into it, just remember that.

~~~
Zikes
I admit to a fair amount of emotionality in the face of a persistent and
overwhelming attack on my privacy by my own government, and I have zero shame
in that admission.

Perhaps if more people played into that, we would not be in this situation.

~~~
Laaw
Experiencing emotions is a completely unavoidable part of existing, but
reacting to your emotions is the behavior of a child.

~~~
Zikes
I may be childish, but I'll be damned if I'm going to be lectured by a Vulcan
LARPer.

------
mfoy_
> ‘Terrorism’ itself is described as involving ‘violent acts or acts dangerous
> to human life, property, or infrastructure’ which ‘appear to be intended to
> intimidate or coerce a civilian population’ or ‘to influence the policy of a
> government by intimidation or coercion’

An act that is dangerous to property or infrastructure and appears intended to
influence the policy of a government is an act of terrorism.

So all protesters could be classified as terrorists under this definition? Am
I misreading this?

~~~
danharaj
Protesters are frequently classified as terrorists. Protesters frequently
escalate their tactics when non-violent methods fail.

~~~
logfromblammo
And to be fair, police frequently escalate their tactics when faced with non-
violent protesters. Those videos are all over YouTube. Less frequent are
videos of the peaceful protesters identifying violent or disruptive elements
within the protest as police employees.

It takes a lot of willpower to keep to the moral high road when you can see
the folks walking on it ahead of you getting their asses kicked.

The rights to free speech and petition for redress in the U.S. are not
universally respected by those targeted by the criticism.

In that context, placing a protester on a watchlist has all the appearance of
malicious retaliation for exercise of a protected right.

~~~
danharaj
Oh I totally came off the wrong way. I fully understand and find it morally
permissible for the aggrieved to escalate their tactics when less disruptive
activities fail. The riot is the language of the unheard and all that. People
commit violent acts because they feel like they are morally obligated to be
violent, not because they are evil or malicious.

~~~
logfromblammo
One of the reasons why such rights as speech and petition for redress are
supposedly protected is that retaliation in response to peaceful protest
discourages that particular expression of discontent, and yet the discontent
itself remains.

Discontent will generate some form of expression, whether you like it or not.

So if you will arrest angry people for blocking vehicular traffic and
disturbing the peace, there is less incentive for them to march in the
streets, and a greater incentive to do things less subject to identification
and retaliation. For instance, someone might instead violate health codes when
the state's agents are ordering food from their restaurant.

The more you close off and punish the relatively less harmful means of venting
discontent, the more likely you are to see more harmful means, such as riots.
And likewise, if those less harmful means are seen as relatively ineffective,
people will do other things.

So putting protesters on a terrorist watchlist is, in a way, a form of self-
fulfilling prophecy.

------
FordPrefectAO
Has the database of people on the watchlist been leaked? I wonder if anyone I
know has been added for playing these games

