Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases Security Businesses Cloud Communications Crime Government Network Networking Privacy The Almighty Buck The Internet News Technology

2 Million-Person Terror Database Leaked Online (thestack.com) 165

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Stack: A 2014 version of the World-Check database containing more than 2.2 million records of people with suspected terrorist, organized crime, and corruption links has been leaked online. The World-Check database is administered by Thomson-Reuters and is used by 4,500 institutions, 49 of the world's 50 largest banks and by over 300 government and intelligence agencies. The unregulated database is intended for use as "an early warning system for hidden risk" and combines records from hundreds of terror and crime suspects and watch-lists into a searchable resource. Most of the individuals in the database are unlikely to know that they are included, even though it may have a negative impact on their ability to use banking services and operate a business. A Reddit user named Chris Vickery says he obtained a copy of the database, saying he won't reveal how until "a later time." To access the database, customers must pay an annual subscription charge, that can reach up to $1 million, according to Vice, with potential subscribers then vetted before approval. Vickery says he understands that the "original location of the leak is still exposed to the public internet" and that "Thomas Reuters is working feverishly to get it secured." He told The Register that he alerted the company to the leak, but is still considering whether to publish the information contained in it.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2 Million-Person Terror Database Leaked Online

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30, 2016 @02:06AM (#52417859)

    ... is still considering whether to publish the information contained in it ...

    How can a databse is said to be leaked online when the person who says he has it is still considering whether to publish the info?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly, he should put it on a torrent server or shut up.

    • by WarJolt ( 990309 )

      Other users may have a copy. It's leaked to anyone who payed the subscription fee.

      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        It's not really a leak though if you've paid a subscription for the commercial service. It's only leaked if you reshare that information unauthorized, or someone figures out how to share the information without a subscription and authorization to do so.

      • Only if water going through a pipe is a leak.

    • by popo ( 107611 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @02:48AM (#52417923) Homepage

      The real question is this:

      How many American citizens are on the list?

      And do they have a right to know that they're on said list? What are the due process protections for these people?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30, 2016 @03:22AM (#52418003)
        I have a list of people who ask stupid questions. Do you have a right to know whether you are on the list?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30, 2016 @03:36AM (#52418027)

        That's more than one question but hey, Americans aren't so good at math. Or politics. Anything else for that matter, apart from racism and accumulating body fat.

        So let me answer those questions for you in short order, armchair politico:

        1) I can gurantee you that if there are Americans on the list, it will be poor to middle-class Muslims or other "undesirables," rather than people like Donald Trump, people like George W. Bush, anyone who uses fear and hatred to control a subservient population.

        2) Of course you have a right to know you're on the list. If you pay a fee anywhere up to and including $1 million. If you haven't paid your fee, fuck you, you're probably an ISIS recruiter anyway.

        3) The same "due process protections" that were available for the people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay -- jack fucking shit. You THINK you have rights. I'm sure you have your handy novelized copy of the Constitution handy and all, feel free to look them up. If you think that any of it applies when the government decides you're a terrorist, you're both wrong _and_ hideously stupid to boot. These people don't care about "rights." These people redefined the word "torture" in the American legal system so that they could waterboard people and build human pyramids out of naked prisoners. You know, to pose with for the ol' Facebook account.

        The _REAL_ question is this:

        Are you so deluded, so blind to the world around you that you're still waving your little red-white-and-blue flag on the fourth of July, so glad to be in the land of the free? Land of the torturers, land of secret prisons, land of Homan Square and corrupt politicians, land of militarized police forces and George Fucking Zimmerman? If so, I'm glad. I'm glad because it indicates to me that you are at an evolutionary dead end. You are a human being with zero worth. THAT is how your government sees YOU. A potential source of revenue or a potential terrorist, there is no in-between.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Nice of you to show that you're only interested in the civil rights of about 5% of the world's population. Everybody else is an acceptable target, right?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          From my perspective yes, they have their own governments that should be looking out for their interests, the job of the US is to look out for the interests of US citizens.

          • That's my problem with domestic spying, I never had a problem the NSA and CIA spying on all the other countries and their leaders and their people, that's their job to protect the US through foreign intelligence gathering, Those people don't get the protections of our laws or our constitution, but we do and that's why the domestic spying pisses me off.
            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              That's why other countries have a problem with the US. We aren't supposed to spy on allied leaders (we do, but it's bad and we shouldn't) and more importantly our laws, especially human rights, apply to everyone. Even to US citizens. For us, grabbing someone, flying them to a black site and torturing them is illegal and wrong, and just being a US citizen wouldn't make it any better.

      • by kaur ( 1948056 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @04:28AM (#52418095)

        The real question is this:
        How many American citizens are on the list?

        Why is this relevant?
        Are American citizens somehow more or less entitled to be on the list than, say, Germans or Japanese?
        Due process should apply to everyone regardless of their citizenship.

        Imagine you learn that there are no Americans on the list.
        Would it make the list and related contoversy a) better b) worse?

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Due process can be given to non-citizens but there is no obligation to do so.

          • by Hans Adler ( 2446464 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @08:31AM (#52418735)

            Yes, I know. The rest of the world are just your colonies. Because if we'd try the same kind of stunt the other way round all hell would break lose.

            I would call the US a pathetic bully - only the country actually gets away with it, so 'pathetic' isn't really the correct word. But what is worst is that most US citizens seem to be brain-washed to the point that they think this is OK and simultaneously wonder about why it is their country isn't more popular internationally.

            • by Anonymous Coward

              Very few people give a fuck, or "wonder" why the US isn't more popular internationally.

              • Very few people give a fuck, or "wonder" why the US isn't more popular internationally.

                I get the impression that many 'Murcans would like very much if the US were LESS popular internationally!

                • I get the impression that many 'Murcans would like very much if the US were LESS popular internationally!

                  The majority of Americans do not have passports... or only have them for their once a year trip to Mexico.

            • This "bully" saved Europe from extreme Nationalism ... twice. Perhaps the EU will succeed where Germany and Italy failed the last time at enslaving the world.

              Perhaps you want to speak Russian?

              • You might want to look at US participation in both European wars.

                In the first one, US entry did change the strategic balance of the war, and the Germans knew that they needed to win in the first half of 1918 or not at all. They responded by launching offensives, which failed to break the British and French and pretty much used up German army capabilities. It was after that that US troops got in the line in large numbers. Belleau Wood involved a relatively small number of German soldiers.

                In the secon

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              If you had two brain cells to rub together you would understand that in international affairs, a country, or "power" that has the ability to maintain or increase its sphere of influence, will always do so. Would you prefer a power vacuum filled by some other power besides the US? Think about that.

              The government of the USA does that, as does any other government that has that ability.

              Sure, you can put moral judgements on what the US has done, but if you do, please add every other government or "power
            • If we viewed the rest of the world as our colonies, we'd grant all of you the same rights we grant ourselves. Now lay down on the board so we can strap you in and stuff this rag in your mouth so you can't cough the water out.
          • by kaur ( 1948056 )
            Non-citizens of WHAT exactly?
            ThomsonReuters is a Canadian company.

            Quoting their 2015 regulatory report from http://ir.thomsonreuters.com/p... [thomsonreuters.com]:
            "We are a Canadian company with shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange (symbol: TRI)."
          • by Anonymous Coward

            That's false, according to the 5th and 14th Amendment non-citizens have a right to due process.

      • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @06:34AM (#52418271)

        >"And do they have a right to know that they're on said list? What are the due process protections for these people?"

        Then what is the due process for the USA's "terrorist watchlist"?? Thinking there is any due process for ANY of these types of list is a fantasy. And yet there is now even a movement we should start denying citizens their Constitutional rights for being on the secret list without even being told they are on a list, must less having any due process to challenge it.

        • by judoguy ( 534886 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @08:47AM (#52418831) Homepage

          Then what is the due process for the USA's "terrorist watchlist"?? Thinking there is any due process for ANY of these types of list is a fantasy.

          And the answer is: No due process [youtube.com] As an aside, I find it incredible that the LGBT community constantly votes for Democrat politicians that scream for secret lists that can be used to take away constitutional rights. My god, if any group should fear that, it should be the LGBT community.Let's do away with civil rights [lgbtqnation.com]

          • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:15AM (#52418941) Journal

            To be honest, the LGBT community is starting to wake up to the fact that the hodgepodge amalgamation of "united" interests that forms the Democratic/Progressive movement may not actually suit their interests. In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, the "progressive" anti-gun bits of the LGBT community pretty much disappeared.

            My suggestion for the LGBT community is to look at the Libertarian Party, which views rights not as only for specific"Groups" but as absolutes for individuals.

            I suspect that LGBT people will someday realize that Progressive politics hasn't and isn't suiting their real interests.

            • My suggestion for the LGBT community is to look at the Libertarian Party, which views rights not as only for specific"Groups" but as absolutes for individuals.

              That is as likely as a Sanders fanatic voting for Trump.

              • Actually, there are a number of Sanders supporters that will be voting for Trump, because they see Hillary as being more evil than Trump. Just like you're likely to see Republicans voting for Hillary, because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

                So, this year, all normal prognostications are going to be wrong.

                I am a Libertarian, and so I am enjoying every popcorn munching moment so far.

              • That is as likely as a Sanders fanatic voting for Trump.

                First of all, that's not completely out of the question. A lot of Bernie's little guy talk resonates strongly among Trump supporters, so I imagine the converse is true, that there might be some things Trump says that will attract some Bernie fans. Some people just liked Bernie because he was an outsider and not a Clinton. Trump fits that bill.

                I don't see why a LGBT Libertarian is unlikely either. (besides the fact that it is unlikely for any American to be Libertarian). Gary Johnson has taken a fairly progr

                • First off, as a Libertarian, people (all) have the same rights. Gays don't have more or less rights than I do.

                  Second off, as a Libertarian, I have no idea why government is involved in defining marriage, one way or another. Government shouldn't be supporting, promoting or otherwise having anything to do with "Marriage". The problem with gay marriage isn't the "gay" part, it is the nature of the "promotion" via government sanctioned grants, deductions and benefits to people engaged in contractual relationshi

                  • by david_thornley ( 598059 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @04:44PM (#52422457)

                    The reason the government is involved with marriage is tradition.

                    The important thing about marriage is that it's a package deal of changes that otherwise would be difficult or impossible to accomplish. It establishes an artificial and close family relationship. If my wife or I were to be unconscious, the other would make the care decisions. It's simple for one of us to inherit from the other. The government recognizes us as an economic unit for tax purposes. If she has a baby, I'm automatically the father unless I object and demand tests. There's a host of things that marriage is involved in, some good and some not so good, and most of these aren't government benefits. (For income tax purposes, a married couple pays less taxes than a family with one worker and one stay-at-home, and more than they would if they were able to file individually and had roughly equal and substantial incomes. This certainly isn't an unalloyed benefit.)

                    What I'd like to see is some sort of declaration that would establish two people as each other's next of kin, with all that that implies. Legally, it would function something like marriage, but it wouldn't be called that. Marriage would then be a concept that various churches could latch onto with whatever religious restrictions they pleased.

          • I think it's one of the problem with our two party system. it makes it so that very few people can be part of a party they truly believe in. Democrats seem to care more about LGBT rights so that's what the demographic tends to support. I guess it helps that persecuting the LBGT group involves outing them instead of quietly restricting them with secret lists. Conversely, I know Christians who are Republicans even though their faith & morals makes them support stronger social safety nets and looser restr
      • Many, quite probably.

        No. This is a list compiled by a private party. A better question would be to ask why US government agencies are acting on intel compiled by a private Canadian company.

        • When a private company becomes an agent of the state, it should be subject to the same constitutional restrictions, but few people are willing to enforce that unwritten rule. Very unfortunate.

      • And do they have a right to know that they're on said list?

        Of course they do. That's why we need people to break in and take it if they don't cough it up voluntarily. If they can spy, we can too.

      • by bbsguru ( 586178 )
        "The real question"? Really?

        You have no right at all to know what is on my "secret list". I have compiled it by digesting every news article published worldwide on the subject of underwater cribbage, and cataloging the names mentioned in any way. My reasoning is that people who have anything to do with that horrible sport are more likely to die by drowning, and I will base my Life Insurance rate quotes to them on that belief.
        You want to know who is on the list and why? Tough.

        You want to sue me for un

    • ... is still considering whether to publish the information contained in it ...

      How can a databse is said to be leaked online when the person who says he has it is still considering whether to publish the info?

      "... he understands that the "original location of the leak is still exposed to the public internet"..."

      It sounds like he is aware of the current leak location, which the administrators of the database are apparently trying to shut down.

      I agree, proof is needed to validate these claims, but publishing it online for the masses may not be a wise decision for a database like this. From a reputation standpoint, this is akin to labeling a teacher a child molester, with a due-process capability of the No-Fly list. And that's before you find the list was tampered with prior to a mass leak. Could be rather career-

      • I agree, proof is needed to validate these claims, but publishing it online for the masses may not be a wise decision for a database like this. From a reputation standpoint, this is akin to labeling a teacher a child molester, with a due-process capability of the No-Fly list.

        Yeah, it could be bad for a lot of people, but the only way we're going to solve the problem is by being completely public about it. You can't solve a problem by pretending you're not having it. That's the same reason why the EU's "right to have your bad behavior forgotten" directive is evil. The wealthy will have the most ability to have things forgotten (they have the power to be aware of more of the information: they can pay someone to look for it) and to hide their misdeeds. As ever, the people we need

        • The right to be forgotten doesn't seem to rely on money. An individual can submit a request to Google, and I haven't heard they're charging large fees. Doing the investigation to see if the information is trivial: google yourself and look at the results. If there's information there that might be harmful to you if known, and the information may not be legally considered in various decisions, submit the request.

          I'd imagine that a wealthy person would find it harder to exercise the right, since there'd

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      Because he was not the intended person. Leaked does not mean 'published'.
      If one person that should not have access to data has access to data, it is leaked.From that moment on the data must be considered unsecure.

      And I mean access, not even in possesion of said data. Used to work in a bit of a security enviroment and one day the police came in who had a meeting. (Non-uniform guys) We all locked our monitor as they walked by to the meeting room as they might have seen something they were not allowed to see.

    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      "How can a databse is said to be leaked online when the person who says he has it is still considering whether to publish the info?"

      It's well described in the summary. There is a vulnerability which allows unauthorized online access to the database. At least one person has taken advantage of that. That's a leak [wikipedia.org]. It doesn't mean it's been leaked to you.
    • He's got to make the sale. Yeah, it's a shell game. Let's see who wins, or if there will any follow up on the story. Unless the "list" comes out, it should be treated as a scam. If it does come out, and it's authentic, chalk one up for the good guys.

    • Am I a Terrorist? I have so many questions. Wait! There's a list for that.
    • by Matheus ( 586080 )

      How can /. be expected to have meaningful and even remotely accurate titles and summaries when there are SO many mines to craft!?!

  • by sittingnut ( 88521 ) <sittingnut@NoSPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday June 30, 2016 @03:03AM (#52417963) Homepage

    that "over 300 government and intelligence agencies" use this corporate run database of suspects is disturbing.

    how does one become a suspect? who investigates using what criteria? how can one get a name off?
      etc etc

    private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.

    • > private individuals and corps can maintain lists of suspects if they want. but that public institutions use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced, and costly too, to make decisions, is not good, and should be unlawful.

      I understand your concern. Your suggestion is:

      It "should be unlawful" for public institutions to "use data, whose origin and processes are closed sourced".

      The list discussed in the article is compiled from open, public sources, so it wouldn't be covered by your proposal, but

      • so you find there is nothing disturbing in public institutions using a privately owned database of 'suspects' to make decisions(presumably security related decisions that may have far reaching consequences for so called 'suspects' and others )? database where suspects status as such is arrived at using unknown, vague, and closed, methods and sources, by people who are unknown and answerable to private entities. meanwhile 'suspects' (ie potentially everyone) have no way of knowing their status in database, a

        • > so you find there is nothing disturbing in

          This situation is a bit icky, sure.

          Your proposed law, that government employees shouldn't be able to use privately-generated information is just ridiculous. A) It wouldn't affect this, because this is a compilation of primarily government lists, and B) most books, web sites, etc are privately generated. You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books.

          Your suggested law doesn't solve the problem you're trying to solve, and does create

          • this more than "a bit icky".
            and you assume too much when you say absurd irrational things like " You've proposed making it illegal for government employees to use books". that is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.

            it should be illegal for government employees to makes decisions about people, especially security related decisions that can alter lives of alleged 'suspects', based on a privately owned closed sourced database, whose methods are unknown, whose administrators are not accountable, and whose

            • Your new criteria sound much more reasonable.

              Particularly "content cannot be questioned by those affected". That's important. That means that before hiring a new employee to work for them, an agency CAN verify employment history / experience (which is based on the former employer's private database, maintained by methods unknown), because the prospective employee can challenge any inaccuracy. It allows government programs which make loans to check the recipient's credit score, which is again a private dat

              • contrary to what you say, there was nothing new in my last comment, i said the same throughout in my objections here to public institutions using closed private data( including costly access and lack of ways to get 'suspect' names off), as everyone who can read see. but you chose to ignore what i said, and assumed absurdities as i pointed out above.
                now out of made up objections to what i said, you pretend to see "new criteria".

                 

                • Maybe you're right, you didn't change the criteria, just made it SOUND better. So tell me which of these criteria does not apply to Fortune magazine's annual list of 100 richest people?:

                  a) privately owned closed sourced database
                  b) whose methods are unknown
                  c) whose administrators are not accountable
                  d) whose content cannot be questioned by those affected.

                  Should it be illegal for a govt employee to read a magazine? Should it be illegal for an IRS auditor to see that while Bill Gates reported $0 income on his t

                  • i suggest you go back to school and get an education. learn(if you even have a brain) to argue using logic instead of trying hard to cover your ignorance and irrationality ( and even idiocy) with absurd statements.

                    -
                    what i said-
                    "it should be illegal for government employees to makes decisions about people, especially security related decisions that can alter lives of alleged 'suspects', based on a privately owned closed sourced database, whose methods are unknown, whose administrators are not accountable, an

  • by rebelwarlock ( 1319465 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @03:15AM (#52417979)
    Title:

    2 Million-Person Terror Database Leaked Online

    Summary:

    2.2 million records of people with suspected terrorist, organized crime, and corruption links

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say there aren't really two million people with terrorist links in that database.

    • Title:

      2 Million-Person Terror Database Leaked Online

      Summary:

      2.2 million records of people with suspected terrorist, organized crime, and corruption links

      I'm going to go out on a limb and say there aren't really two million people with terrorist links in that database.

      While you're out on the limb, I don't even have to climb the proverbial tree to not underestimate the capability to easily grow the list to that many.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "there aren't really two million people with terrorist links in that database."

      Unless "terrorist" is defined as someone who is patriotic, against the war and questions the government.

      That, or it is a membership list of Alex Jones followers.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I'd bet in an illegal casino, owned by mafia that some of those people are involved in moving and laundering money, contraband, or simply representing other people within that list.

    • I'm going to go out on a limb and say there aren't really two million people with terrorist links in that database.

      Probably be four degrees of Kevin Bacon. With six degrees, they could just lock anybody up. Wait, I should stop giving them ideas.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's the old "five degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon" thing. You can link everyone to terrorism somehow, if you try hard enough.

  • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <[mashiki] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday June 30, 2016 @03:51AM (#52418043) Homepage

    And it's a good thing he posted it to /r/privacy. If he'd posted it to /r/news he'd likely have been banned, then shadowbanned for his trouble while the mods and admins would send him messages saying that he was banned for wrongthink or something along those lines.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      So, out of interest, can you cite some examples of this kind of censorshop in /r/news? I'm interested to check it out for myself.

      Also, have you tried /r/TheNews? It claims to be uncensored.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        Sure. Also to note /r/worldnews engages in censorship as well. You can look through this sub which tracks censorship. [reddit.com] Or you can head over to this link here on KiA [reddit.com](aka those "awful" gamergate people, who continue to do their jobs tracking this stuff) which has also covered /r/news censorship. r/news has a long history of censoring anything that doesn't agree with their groupthink. TPP? Removed and you're banned. [reddit.com] Islamic terrorist attacks in western countries? [reddit.com] "Local crime story" removed and you're ban

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You need to work on your critical reading skills a bit. Take /r/subredditcancer, the first link on there is a to this [imgur.com] image. The poster claims that "/R/Politicaldiscussion mod shut down political discussion that's in favor of brexit", but when you look at the image it's just enforcing the rules against racial discrimination.

          The really odd thing is that it's an image, and in the discussion people have posted archive links to said image. Why not post an archive link to the reddit page in question? I can't fin

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            [removed]

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Can yous see a pattern here? Images used to mislead you. Lack of context and links to the original threads that would let you investigate yourself. For extraordinary claims like this you need extraordinary proof, so I remain unconvinced.

            Well that's astounding. You remain unconvinced of threads where information is removed and you can't see anything. Noting above, and the "racial discrimination" or the usual cop-out when something is mentioned that they find offensive. AKA censorship because the subject matter will hurt their feelings.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      And it's a good thing he posted it to /r/privacy. If he'd posted it to /r/news he'd likely have been banned, then shadowbanned for his trouble while the mods and admins would send him messages saying that he was banned for wrongthink or something along those lines.

      Ah yes, the revisionist steps forward providing a false narrative of what actually happened [washingtonpost.com].

      You mean to say that if he submitted to /r/news and was removed for having no evidence and then got a group of fifty people to submit and rapidly upvote each other's submissions all saying the same thing that wasn't yet proven, flooding /r/news and the front page spreading as yet unsubstantiated claims.

  • Well, me and 2,199,999 of my friends anyway.
  • Current version (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @06:51AM (#52418315)
    You can bet that the current version of the db contains 2 million and one names on that last. I doubt Mr. Vickery will be getting on a plane anytime soon, plus he's got that IRS audit coming up too. Oh, and his FICO number is now 30.
  • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @07:32AM (#52418451)

    At work we have an decades-old Oracle database, with constraints turned off and the inevitable inconsistencies.
    Ask anyone who has to work on it : "terror database" would be an worthy name.

"Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the blink again." -- Marvin The Paranoid Android

Working...