
After seven years, exactly one person gets off the government no-fly list - RougeFemme
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/after-seven-years-exactly-one-person-gets-off-the-govt-no-fly-list/
======
suprgeek
This is tyranny sneaking up on us one "No-XYZ list" at a time.

They can put you on it for any reason (lets say you oppose one of the Govt.
policies - Drone Bombings for example), you will be unable to find out why you
are on said list or even if you are.

Since you cannot confirm that you are on said list you will not be able to get
off it. Your life becomes that much more difficult.

Next you will be put on another "No ABC List" \- rinse and repeat until you
life is truly miserable with NO recourse (unless you can afford $4 Million) .

If this is not a textbook case for violation of the due process clause then we
may as well throw out that whole deal.

~~~
Fuxy
American freedoms only apply to rich people.

Seriously if you are expected to have millions of dollars every time you have
dispute with the government your freedoms are already gone.

Just the fact that patent trolls can easily kill business is proof enough that
the entire legal system is completely broken extremely expensive to fix.

Why do Americans seem to think it's ok to pay ridiculous prices for medicine
and law or that it's ok for a court case to take over 5 years to settle.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_American freedoms only apply to rich people._

This sole example of getting off the list was a case of someone who was very
NOT rich, getting pro bono legal help. It wasn't riches that led to this
success.

~~~
e40
You realize there was a value to that pro bono legal help, right? It easily
could have been in the millions.

------
revelation
Here is Eric Holder invoking state secrets privilege (DoJ was a defendant in
the case, among many others), basically trying to kill the lawsuit outright
(they invoked all sorts of laws and administrative orders around classified
info, there are multiple overlapping systems):

[http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder...](http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/02/holder1.pdf)

Note in the same document, on page 8:

 _[DoJ] will not defend an invocation of the [state secrets] privilege in
order to:

(i) conceal violations of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(ii) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of the United
States Government;

[..]

or (iv) prevent or delay the release of information the release of which would
not reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security._

Change you can believe in!

Bonus:

 _Based on my personal consideration of the matter, I have determined that the
requirements for an assertion and defense of the state secrets privilege have
been met in this case in accord with the September 2009 State Secrets Policy.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct._

------
ghoul2
""" Ben Wizner <snip> remarked at SXSW that problems with the no-fly list
aren't going away; _the world_ we're facing will look more like Kafka than
Orwell. <snip>

Wizner said:

And I worry about a _world_ —not a world that looks like Orwell. """

I have noticed a tendency for US-media to use "world" for things which are
essentially US-only phenomena. (I have never heard of the equivalent of a no-
fly list outside the US and UK). The same statement, but referring to "USA"
instead of world, would carry more impact to US citizens reading it, might
make (some of) them work on the cause. But saying "World" depersonalizes the
problem, and distances all readers from it.

I have not seen this "USA is the World" tendency from media in other
countries. Seems unique to US media.

~~~
pyre
For many US citizens, the country _is_ their 'world.' They may never leave the
country in their lifetime. On the other hand, it's much more difficult to call
your own country 'the world' when you border three other countries in such a
way that you can live in one, go our clubbing all night in the other, and then
have breakfast the next morning in the third...

~~~
typicalrunt
Exactly. Looking at it from both worlds, I don't think a European adequately
understands how large a country like the US (or Canada for that matter) is.
Likewise an American would never understand the smallness of being, say, a
Luxembourg citizen and travelling to France within a day. Totally different
worlds.

I always tell people to travel outside their comfort zones purely for this
insight. One you experience how another culture lives it is hard to be close
minded again.

~~~
aylons
I live in Brazil, a continent-sized country just like the US and I don't see
this phenomenon here.

I don't think this is the problem.

~~~
seestheday
I live in Canada. A significantly bigger country than the US.

I don't think of Canada as being the world, nor does anyone I know.

I think it actually has to do with the American media. It used to be worse. I
remember seeing US news programs (we get them here in Canada) reporting on the
weather, and they only showed the US. It was kind of funny, it was like
weather patterns were dropping in from a void "up north".

------
theatraine
"As explained in Alsup's opinion, the whole dispute stemmed from an errant
check placed on a form filled out by FBI agent Kevin Kelly" This sounds very
similar to what happened in the movie Brazil, where an errant fly resulted in
the incarceration and death during interrogation of Mr. Archibald Buttle
instead of the suspected "terrorist", Archibald Tuttle. Albeit the movie was
an highly exaggerated and over-the-top evil bureaucracy, it's a disturbing
parallel.

~~~
lisper
Brazil is my favorite movie of all time because it was so prescient. It seemed
exaggerated and over the top in its day, but nowadays it seems to me that
everything in the film has actually come to pass. Alas.

~~~
tripzilch
> everything in the film has actually come to pass

everything but what the world so desperately needs: vigilante guerilla airco
repairmen.

------
ElliotH
It amazes me that legal costs aren't going to be definitely paid here. That
alone makes this system almost impossible to appeal, pro-bono lawyers aren't
likely to work on this issue after the first one or two high profile cases if
there isn't a payout.

~~~
downandout
The problem here is that the _conduct_ that led to the lawsuit must be
intentional and exceptional in order for a court to be able to award attorney
fees. While our laws made this an incredibly difficult situation to resolve,
the _conduct_ in this case consisted of a simple mistake made on a form by an
FBI agent. Unfortunately, that was neither intentional nor exceptional, and
thus doesn't meet the standard for a court to award attorney fees.

~~~
jellicle
Surely the conduct should also include the government's egregious behavior
during the case?

If in a regular civil suit, one of the parties spent several years lying and
making shit up and had absolutely zero case when all was said and done, surely
the judge would take whatever opportunity was available to penalize that party
and make whole the other party?

~~~
downandout
Unfortunately, mounting an aggressive defense to a lawsuit isn't considered
egregious in the eyes of the law.

~~~
betterunix
Does that include witness tampering? One of the witnesses in the case was
unable to appear in court because she was also mysteriously added to the no
fly list.

------
ars
What I don't get is why the government even fought the case.

I can understand the idiotic bureaucracy that can make it impossible to
challenge the list. But once you finally do challenge it - why would the
government fight it?

~~~
nl
I suspect the reason the case was fought was because of idiotic bureaucracy as
well.

My suspicious is that there is an internal procedure to challenge any attempt
to get off the list in court.

The only way to avoid that is to change the procedure (which of course is
impossible to do from the outside without court intervention, since the
bureaucracy has a policy to deny any information about their own procedures).

------
jqueryin
The "no fly" list does not mean you can't fly, it just means they're going to
make your life difficult in the process.

My wife made the no fly list back when she was consulting with IBM a number of
years ago. She was no longer allowed seat assignments, had to check in in
person, and was always subjected to full swab testing and a pat down. She
eventually made it off the list, but there was no telling what got her on it.
When her tickets were printed, they would have no seat assignment and be
covered with a number of large X's which was an indicator she was going to be
subjected to search. We made a few assumptions as to her travel behavior that
likely attributed.

She had purchased too many one way tickets and wouldn't cancel them if she had
to re-schedule (as is the ways of consulting). There were also a few incidents
of getting a cheaper ticket and skipping later segments.

Either way, it really puts a damper on travel when all you want to do is get
in and sit down.

~~~
GVIrish
I don't think your wife was truly on the no-fly list. It sounds like your wife
was flagged for additional screening due to her travel patterns. In the case
of Ibrahim she flat out was not allowed to fly to the US.

~~~
jqueryin
You're right, she was on the "Secondary Security Screening Selection"
according to Wikipedia:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Se...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_Security_Screening_Selection)

~~~
GVIrish
Yeah I ended up getting a lot of additional screening when I was a contractor
for the TSA, mostly because travel plans were often made at the last minute
and I had a lot of one way tickets.

------
ggchappell
It is possible that the headline is incorrect.

According to the article,

> Last month, US District Judge William Alsup ruled that Ibrahim must be
> removed from the government's various watchlists. At Tuesday's hearing, a
> Department of Justice lawyer said that the government did not intend to
> appeal the ruling.

So we have an unchallenged order to remove the name. However, the article
presents no evidence that Ibrahim's name has actually been removed from any
lists.

~~~
nl
_So we have an unchallenged order to remove the name. However, the article
presents no evidence that Ibrahim 's name has actually been removed from any
lists._

Are you proposing that the US government is planning - as a matter of policy -
to ignore that ruling? That's a pretty serious allegation, and one that isn't
supported by the evidence in this case.

~~~
delinka
Planning? No. But have they implemented a system to guarantee compliance with
such an order? Doubtful. It's almost assured, through the inefficiency of
bureaucracy, with the help from the fallibility of humans, that this name will
not be completely expunged for quite some time.

------
iambateman
When society needs to reduce liberty, we pass a law. When society needs to
increase liberty, she often finds she must fight a war.

------
chiph
This is bureaucratic self-protection at work. Because taking her off might
actually be the mistake, and she might turn out to actually be a terrorist
after all. So no one wants to risk their job by doing it.

Better someone you don't know doesn't get to fly to the US than you lose your
pension.

------
DrJokepu
The judge in question, William Alsup is the same judge who was presiding over
Oracle v Google, ruled that APIs are not patentable and learned Java in the
process. He's quite a character.

------
PythonicAlpha
It just does not speak for the implementation of a Democracy, when democratic
principles are violated or corrupted, just because the system has to stand
pressure (terrorism in this case).

------
puppetmaster3
Don't tell me about bill or rights or democracy anymore.

------
leccine
I guess this does not matter to the ignorant US society, because they don't
understand that this is coming to all of us, these no-fly lists establish
great precedence that US government can do whatever. As some might say,
ignorance is a bliss, in this case it is more like a disaster.

------
lhgaghl
> After seven years, exactly one person gets off the gov’t no-fly list

Sounds like they know what they're doing.

------
ARothfusz
I firmly believe more [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX] or else we're all
[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]!

~~~
ARothfusz
Wow, that's recursive -- downvoting (and thereby censoring) a comment
satirizing censorship and redaction. I'm ok with that, since my comment could
have been more explicit: did anyone else think it was weird that the thing the
judge ordered the government to tell Dr. Ibrahim has been redacted?
[http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/Screen...](http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/Screenshot-2014-03-17-12.40.46.png)

------
jksmith
No fly list == jobs program

------
tim333
Shame you can't crowdsource it. We could all vote up or down who gets no-
fly'd.

~~~
pgeorgi
shutting down congress one flight at a time?

~~~
tim333
The original suggestion was not 100% serious but that could be an entertaining
side effect.

------
ElComradio
This story is being discussed based on some misinterpretations.

It does not sound like whether she was on a no fly list was relevant to the
case per se. She was allowed to fly after the first time she was stopped at
the airport. What happened later was that she was denied entry back into the
US, a non-citizen.

While what happened is certainly wrong in this case, there is oodles of
precent for it. Routinely, foreigners are denied entry into the US if e.g. the
agent believes there's a high likelihood you plan to overstay your visa and
live here illegally. Non-citizens have no right to enter the US, period.

It sounds like this was more "take me off your terrorist list so I can get
back into the country" than "take me off the no-fly list".

