Slashdot Mirror
Cash Value 1/10 of a Cent
goombah99 writes "It happens all-too-often that the govenment and companies negligently reveal citizen's private information on their websites. When collection of this information is something required by law there is an obligation to protect it. But is privacy a 'property' and does its loss require compensation? Wired news reports 'The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven. At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is.'"
Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. This is evidenced by taking away certain levels of privacy from criminals... You can find out information about the location of a federal prisoner through the Freedom of Information Act; neighbors must be notified when some sex offenders move into an area - thus limiting their privacy...
I think the wording is odd in that statement. It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property. Privacy is a means to protect that information, and failing to protect personal "property" that someone is required to provide is my issue here. Just as if the government required a key to your house and then made then available for duplication.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
"If someone rummages through all your stuff, nothing's taken, but they find out information about you, (yet) you can't show actual damages.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise? Did some one ever come up with an answer to that age old parabole? If not, I don't think the Supreme Court any time soon will wrap its hands around an ancient Zen koan.
The Custom Mary
Is good for the Gander... If companies can make money by selling private information, then they can lose it by releasing it publicy if they are not authorized.
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
Suppose I
1. copyright all my personal data
2. put it in a database
3. ad a PGP signature to bring in the DMCA
4. Sue everybody and his dog who sells or distibutes said information
5. Profit?
It shouldn't really matter if no damage can be proven to the people... I would think the Court should award punative damages to punish for the illegal disclosure, and hopefully 'encourage' them not to do such a thing again.
It's also really funny.
I think this is a wise move, since the companies and governments will probably take a more pro-active stance for security. If security was already an issue in the past at a given company/government, they will probably do even more work to secure it even better. And those who didn't care about security, really need to start looking for some security administrators. Remember: money makes the world go 'round.
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven.
At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is.
The Privacy Act of 1974 prohibits the government from disclosing private information intentionally, without the individual's consent, and provides for a $1,000 minimum fine if the individual is "adversely affected."
In the case, known as Doe v. Chao, to be argued Wednesday, the Department of Labor distributed the Social Security number of a coal miner who was appealing for black lung benefits.
Since 1969, the Labor Department has used miners' Social Security numbers as their case numbers on documents shared with coal companies, insurance companies and lawyers for all sides. Those documents also were published in court filings that later ended up in legal databases.
In 1997, seven anonymous coal miners sued, alleging the government had flagrantly violated the Privacy Act and put them at risk of identity theft.
Only one of those miners, known as Buck Doe, prevailed in the original case, winning $1,000 by arguing that he suffered emotional distress from the fear that the data leak would lead to identity theft. The government, arguing that the plaintiff needed to show real injury, appealed the decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and won.
Buck Doe argues that the leak itself causes enough distress to warrant an automatic penalty, even if the information leak never leads to financial harm.
Marcia Hoffman, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which filed a friend of the court brief (PDF) supporting the anonymous miner, argues that Congress preset the penalty precisely because it is so hard to put a price on an abstract concept such as privacy or to prove damages in absence of others' misuse of that data.
"If your Social Security number is disclosed, there is a real potential harm from identity theft," Hoffman said.
Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, which was one of many organizations that cosigned EPIC's brief, argues that the outcome of the case will have implications beyond the Privacy Act and could affect future privacy legislation.
"The outcome of this case will make a general statement about how we value privacy in the United States today," Schwartz said. "If someone rummages through all your stuff, nothing's taken, but they find out information about you, (yet) you can't show actual damages.
"Yet something intangible has been taken from you, and what do we do to make up for that as a society?" asked Schwartz. "It seems clear to us from the history of the Privacy Act that Congress at that time wanted people to be compensated even for intangible harm."
The government, on the other hand, argues that the law requires citizens to demonstrate real damages from intentional disclosures of information.
In its brief (PDF) to the Supreme Court, the government notes that the Veterans Affairs department is currently engaged in a class-action suit over privacy practices and could be liable for a $168 million penalty if the high court holds that the 168,000 individuals involved do not have to show harm.
The government was joined in its opposition to the miner's claim by an odd ally, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The group's executive director, Lucy Dalglish, argues that if the government has to pay damages in the case of any improper release of someone's Social Security number, then reporters will not get information from the government that they need and are entitled to.
"In the spirit of releasing as much information to the public as possible, we think he should have to prove damages," Dalglish said. "If every time you release information about an individual, you are going to be threatened with this $1,000-per-record
"At issue before the court, according to privacy advocates, is how valuable privacy really is."
...make it clear to the Judges, Lawyers, and Representatives involved that their decision WILL apply to THEIR personal data! I really believe they forget that sometimes. There was a /. article, which I'm too lazy to look up now, about a District Atourney who ruled getting personal data from someone's trash was not actionable. His attitude changed when a group of activists raided HIS trash and published what they found.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
My personal information is worth atleast 2/10 of a cent :P
This sig was generated by a barrel of trained kittens for SeXy_Red (550409).
what the hell? so, what it sounds like is that unless your a paris hilton or michael jackson, they don't really give a shit about you because you're not worth enough to sue anyone.
privacy is privacy and it should apply to all equally. who determines what the cost was? for famous person it's pretty easy to prove lose, but for the average joe, we're just fucked. fuck that noise
disclaimer: I did not RTFA
Finally... micropayments!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
It should be fairly easy to place a dollar value on privacy. First we can geta value by looking at what marketers (or marketeers) are charging companies for your information. A list of 10,000 names and phone numbers can cost a mortgage company's telemarketing department tens of thousands of dollars. So, it's rather simple to place a dollar amount on the value on an individuals information. Compound that value with the multiple of times that the information was disclosed and throw in a percentage for damages and you find that privacy has a rather high cost.
And yes, they should reimburse people for breaches. Stupidity should definitely be painful.
Ok, I know this is a serious matter, but did he have to pick "Buck Doe"? Sounds like a porn star for bestiality movies!
I have came across people's Social Security many times. By putting a value to people's information you will hopefully decrease the leaking of this data to the world. Now the only question is what is the number we need to put on it.
Get Movie Posters
then why is it the death penalty flies in the face of our constitutional rights?
(your rights can be taken away too ya know)
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Absolutely, unequivocally "YES" on both counts.
We live in an increasingly Corporate culture, where it's always "the economy stupid." We have become global Corporate citizens instead of citizens of any one particular country. Privacy is not respected by the machinery of business, and those of you out there who have ever worked with or in a Marketing department know what I'm talking about.
It took a law to put the brakes on telemarketers, and God knows what it will take to stop spam, if that's even possible. But by making privacy a "property" that has monetary value, we can finally put it on the radar screens of Big Business.
The lawsuit concerns disclosure of a person's SSN. However, in a written response from my US Senator, I was informed that any company, anywhere can DEMAND your SSN as a condition for services, e.g. I go the the doctor's office and the doctor can require my SSN before seeing me, I apply for a lease on an apartment, the lease company can require my SSN as a condition on the application. There are absolutely no restrictions for companies requiring/requesting this information, and there are no regulations on how they must then safeguard it! I was told that if the kid cutting my grass wants my SSN as a condition, he can require it (of course this is a silly example, but is perfectly legal, according to current US laws. Either that or my Senator and the government websites I was directed to are seriously flawed.) Now, I routinely refuse to provide the info and challenge them to deny me service (with a crowded waiting room, etc), but it isn't a good way work with some businesses. (normally they just want the number because it makes it easy for assigning a unique number for their databases)
The privacy act applies to government use of our information, not private corporations. And the SSA told me while Congress passed laws governing the use of SSN, Congress never bothered passing legislation authorizing the SSA to enforce the laws.
If I can locate the document, I will try to provide the rest of the info, but I have to go take my blood pressure medicine.
even if no harm can be proven.
How can you disprove harm in this case?
A social security number is an American's entire life and worth, as far as law and government are concerned.
Without it, you arent even a vote.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's article IX or the U.S. COnstitution. The fact that trroubling issues of privacy and technology didn't arise until 220 years later doesn't mean jack shit to me. Article IX makes it quite clear that the notion of a "Right to Privacy" must certainly exist. How dare anyone disparage my beleif that it is my right? The time is drawing near when politicians who ignore the Constitution and the judges who are bought right along with them, will have to account for their actions. And I'm not talking about violence here. I'm talking about a second Constitutional Convention. Something that strikes fear into the heart of every politician and every greed head in the land.
A Second Constitutional Convention would do us a world of good. And possibly a world of hurt as well, but the medicine must be strong for what we've allowed this nation to mutate into. All it would take is a two-thirds vote of the states. The day is coming. It might not be right around the corner, but it is coming.
since databases are now copyrighted, if a company collects the info don't they now own it?
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Laws are starting to tighten up with regards to what can be done with data. medical folks have HIPA, financial group have one, There however is not a universial law to cover data.
Hey will someone ask for my SSN, I give them my Special Society Number. works for places that think they need my number and dont.
The amazing thing about this whole debate is that there is no clear constitutional right for privacy (at least in the U.S.).
... usually State's Rights (10th) is involved) ... or when a particular phrasing in the Constitution is deemed "ambiguous" (1st Amendment ... what is "speech") ... but neither is the case for privacy.
... or do we require Congressional action?
Consequently, it is not clear what the basis will be for any Supreme Court judgement in this case. Usually the Supreme Court rules when two or more Constitutional rights are at odds with each other (e.g. 10th vs. 16th
So a key question is whether the Supreme Court, through its judgement(s), can establish such an expliit right
Personally, I think we need more federal legislation and/or Constitional Amendments safe-guarding our privacy rights. In recent years, we've seen a piece-meal movement toward achieving such a goal (most notably, rights protecting student/criminal records) but it should be a concerted agenda. This will become a much more pressing need as the availability of sophisticated, cost-effective information technology increases. Can you imagine *physical* stores creating databases based on security camera recordings? It's not far-fetched (Vegas casinos already do it)
not trying to sound like a troll, but to all the people saying that privacy is a right, i ask you this: a right granted by whom?
fyi, the united states bill of rights says absolutely nothing about privacy. neither does the constitution. a bit scary, but its true. look it up.
the 4th amendment to the bill of rights sorta hints at privacy, but its obvious that our forefathers could not even begin forsee the type of privacy issues we deal with today.
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
But if each individual has to prove harm this becomes prohibitive. Say if my SS is left exposed for a few months on a web site, and later my identity is stolen. Can I prove that one caused the other? Not likely.
It seems like certain information shoul dbe designated as must-be-kept-secure and its very exposure shifts the burden of proof that no harm was done to the government.
Of course as a practical matter this could get sticky if one day say a server containing all of the SSN numbers were hacked or a disgruntled employee posted them.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I dont have any mod points :(
Certainly he has just proven that the free market has already put a price on private information. And for things that arent legally traded such as SSN the government could put an arbitrary high value but not an extreme one, and of course the value of such data could be changed from tiem to time through acts of congress or executive order...
So what you're saying with the tree metaphor is that if a crime has been committed, and no one is affected by it, why is it a crime in the first place?
If private information is released, and no one is affected by it, then why is it a problem to release private information in the first place?
This creates its own self-serving logic... which logically (and it doe smake sense) gives right to let the supreme court release what they want.
However, if it is a problem to release private inforamtion... then let's step back: why should government have this private information to begin with? Do they actually *need* these certain things? Control for the sake of control? Is technology and thirst for statistics driving the need for more and more details... which inherently run into the problems or corruption and misuse that we seeing arise in such cases as this article?
Americans discussing rights!
Jonathanjk.com
try reading past the 4th amendment mr know-it-all. the 9th amendment says that the billof rights is not an exlcusive list. It also says that the people grant themselves rights, not the constitution. So to answer your lame freshman question you dont need some king to have paternalistically "granted" you the right to privacy for it to be a right.
What damages are shown in cases of rape? What if, for example, I raped someone but was careful not to do any physical damage? I know that doesn't seem possible but just indulge me for a moment. Let's just assume such a thing was accomplished.
Now then, if no "damage" was done, was there a crime? You're damned right!! Something was done against an unwilling individual that made them feel quite uncomfortable and would rather you hadn't done it. It was without consent, immoral and while no "damage" was done, it was still a violation of that other person's will. In fact, asside from degrees of severity, I see no difference between the crime of rape and the crime of stealing, selling or otherwise abusing my personal information. When there is so much about a person that defines a personality, I have realized that anything as simple as a [portable cell] phone number is actually a part of a person's identity... as much as a person's address, place of work, the car he drives or the people he knows. It's a part of the definition of a person. Using and abusing that person constitutes an abuse of that person.
Is this an extreme opinion? Maybe... I don't know... it's a question of where you want to draw the line. But consider how uncomfortable you might feel about life if you knew something about yourself was out there somewhere being abused.
Two weeks ago a position opened at AT&T in my area, with a set of skill requirements that was rather hard to find in my area. Consequently I received calls from thirteen different recruiters over a three day span. I was flattered.
Each and every one of them told me that AT&T required my SSN along with my resume in order to apply for the job. I told every one of them that it wasn't going to happen. (I only had to hang up on one for not being willing to at least accept my choice.)
A company can, and will, demand anything they can get away with. It is up to us to take a stand and tell them that we have a right to refuse to do business with them as well.
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
It is about time that we all started to think about the question of compensation/damages. Far too many people seem to think it is a bit like winning the Lotto. That guy bumped me so I claim whiplash and a $1m settlement.
People should receive fair damages or reimbursement of losses sustained through the negligence or incompetence of others. It is not right that they culprit is "fined" and the proceeds passed to the victim.
If a Government causes damage by revealing private information it should compensate the victim even if it is only a token amount for embarrassment. If the misbehavior is so bad that it deserves a punitive settlement I see no reason for that to be paid to the victim. There are many better ways of distributing these windfalls.
If a department loses a chunk of its budget through malicious or arrogant disclosure of personal information it might start asking who was responsible and trying to prevent future abuses. There is no need to turn it into a get rich scheme and a honeypot for ambulance chasing lawyers.
ZB
The value of the lost privacy is the damages, hard to quantify in terms of its replacement value, or even market demand. Of course, the actual acts that destroy the privacy have their own legal consequences. And of course there's the breach of contract when the keeper of your info unilaterally changes the rules, especially when that's secret. If the court represents the people, it will come down hard on these acts, but the Rehnquist court has quite the tight relationship with corporations, especially "direct mail" moguls like Bush politcal director Karl Rove.
--
make install -not war
After companies sell my private information 50 times, I can manage to buy some nickel candy! Sounds like a sweet deal to me!
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
If my personal information can be sold, it has value and I should always be paid for its use- the price is up to me, not the company doing the selling. (Imagine if you gave your car to a dealer to have it serviced, and when you got it back, they had installed a tracking device which delivered targetted advertising to you 24/7. Don't you need to agree to things like that before-hand? They can't just say "We've decided that the irritation you may feel is worth ten dollars, so here")
If my information has value, no offer should be allowed to use the term "free!" if your personal information will be sold by the company. If they sell it, it has cash value to them, and so the deal is not "free".
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
We have a law since 1996, it's number 675.
In Italy people can't collect, use, process, sell and give away your personal information without your explicit written consent collected in advance.
For some data, the state is exempt by default (those strictly needed for tax and justice work).
Sensitive information (sexual, religious, about health and politics, and so on) is protected by special regulation.
Violating this law could result in penalties or prison, depending on gravity of violation.
This is very useful for spam too: many italian spammers have been already fined 250EUR for each spam email they sent (this money has been given to spammed people) plus legal costs.
Most health insurance companies in the USA use your SS# as your patient ID. Quite a few companies also use it as Employeee IDs. It is on a lot of mail that is sent to your house ( think financial type stuff ). And speaking of financial stuff, ever wonder just how much private info about you is processed by folks from India , Pakistan and such > Until credit card companies and others stop trying to get every man woman and child in the USA to carry their cards. Or the goverment finally starts making THEM not us carry the cost of clearing up the mess you might as well tatoo it on your head. We are sitting ducks because it is SO easy to get credit.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday over whether the federal government should reimburse individuals whose sensitive data was disclosed illegally, even if no harm can be proven.
So, let's see:
We all pay more for blank recordable media because we *might* use it to illegally copy copyrighted material and cost some huge corporation a few bucks. We've all effectively been found guilty and penalized by a fine.
Put the shoe on the other foot, the government does something that *might* cost one or more of its constituents considerable time, money, and frustration trying to sort out the aftermath of having their identity stolen, and they don't want to be liable for it. You can bet that if they manage to avoid liability, the corporations that own the lawmakers will be pushing to join them.
because it is so hard to put a price on an abstract concept such as privacy or to prove damages in absence of others' misuse of that data.
What about Intellectual Property and Copyright?
The RIAA bills you $150.000 a song by distribution via Kazza
SCO belives that they have such an abstract thing as Intellectual Property of the Linux kernel because they granted some companies (IBM) access to source code...
As mentioned above about my private data: If it can be sold, it has value!
NoSuchGuy
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
Just because privacy can be taken away doesn't mean it's a privilege. Liberty can be taken away, too, yet we regard liberty as a right.
Rights are things we inherently have unless they are denied us. Privileges we inherently do not have unless they are granted to us. Privacy is a right.
So all the people who claim IP (music, code, movies) "wants to be free" should have no problem publishing their info to the web. It's just information, after all. You haven't lost any property, right?
For all the ranting about /. readers "rights to privacy," which are clearly deeply felt, it's not clear where in the Constitution such a right comes from.
Go and read Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) to see just what hoops the SCOTUS had to jump through in order to find a "privacy" right sufficient to protect married couples using contraception.
Read the whole thing and in Justice Black's dissent you'll find the following language: One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term "right of privacy" as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against "unreasonable searches and seizures." "Privacy" is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 293 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons, I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional "right of privacy" as an emanation from [p*510] one or more constitutional provisions. [n1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to. invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons, I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.
Justice Black lost that argument, of course, but the decision was narrow in scope and the "right to privacy" is STILL hotly contested. See Lawrence v. Texas from earlier this year, among a crapload of other cases implicating it.
If you read the majority opinion carefully you'll see that the right is derived from "penumbras" and "emanations" in our Constitution. That is, shall we say, not the most concrete ground for privacy rights to rest.
I realize that the idea that there is not a fundamental, clear, and general right to privacy in our constitution many of you guys think is a severe affront. And I'm with you. But making conclusory "there IS a right to privacy because it's important to me and ... umm .. stuff about searches and seizures and other unspecified rights that can't be taken away which must include privacy as i'm defining it because i say so and .. oh yeah .. it's really important to me" statements isn't helpful. It's understandable, mind you, but the Supreme Court is going to have more sophisticated stuff on its collective mind.
(which is not to say that making the argument, if you could show it, that the framers would clearly have supported such a privacy right and indeed it was intended to be understood as part of the guarantees in the Constitution would be a bad argument just because it's not "sophisticated" ... it's just that's not nearly the whole story about what's going to go on in real life.
um, when I wrote "this post should be +5 Informative." at the top of the above post I was refering to the parent and wasn't planning on writing the long post that appears below .... the first line of my post was not intended to announce to the /. world that my thoughts self-evidently deserve +5 moderation. :)
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
More and more companies are asking for your SSN so they can run credit checks on you. Apparently if you have bad credit they'll believe you're a bigger risk for theft. I'm glad I work for myself.
Does anyone else automatically think SCROTUM everytime they see the stupid acronym SCOTUS?
I've been told by a friend of a friend (the most reliable source of information, I know) that to evade and disuade most physical spam she copyrighted her name, phone number, home address, etc, and then replied to all mail spam that they were infringing on her copyright and they must cease and desist or pay up. The story goes that they obliged and she doesn't get credit card applications or phone offers in the mail anymore.
:)
If this is true (and legal) I would think this would definately apply to your SSN. Especially since it's unique, you could easily register it as original. This would make it easy to collect damages and assign a value to it as your SSN should only be used by the people you give it to.
I know there are probably giant leaps of faith and hope in this idea, but it's a thought
The fact that someone has some bit of information about you isn't usually a problem.
The problem is that that bit of information which is uniquely identifiable to you, is being moved around without your knowledge, to third parties.
Take a (fake) example: I own a pair of black size 13 Bruno Magli shoes with RFID#112512214412211 in them. Anyone who can look at me can know I own a pair of this kind of shoes. Anyone who can get a few feet from me can tell that I have that one specific pair of shoes. But you have to hook that piece of information (these shoes were at this place at this time) to another piece of information (the mapping of the RFID# -> the store where I bought them->my Visa Card#) in order to violate my privacy. And once you bring those two things together, violate it you do.
Another way to think about is that people are really talking about you behind your back, and nobody likes that. Nothing good comes from gossip.
The only real way to fix this is with a constitutional amendment - freedom of speech and the press trumps it.
So, lemme get this straight.... If someone publishes personal information illegally, the most a person can sue for is $1000, *and* they have to prove damages?
Well, so that means that if someone were to publish Michael Jackson's personal info, or Carmen Electra's home telephone number, or President Bush's cell phone, the most that any of those celebrities could get is $1000?
I think not.
So, *why* is Michael Jackson's right to privacy more valuable than mine? Or is this yet another issue where the rich are protected by law, but the common citizens are not protected by law?
I think there's a huge double standard going on here, particulary if the RIAA can claim millions of dollars of damages per song, but I can't claim millions of dollars of damages when TRW sells my credit history to a telemarketer.
I think there's a huge double standard going on here, if celebrities can sue for privacy, but the average joe cannot.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If you refuse to give your SSN to employers, no employer in the United States will hire you. The IRS uses your SSN as a taxpayer ID, and employers need this in order to file tax paperwork.
It may not say the word "privacy" in the Constitution, but if the Supreme Court finds a right there anyway, it might as well say it...
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
I believe privacy-sensitive information should be treated as a form of intellectual property; it's the only thing that makes sense.
(Sure, I could copy and paste it, but Slashdot would probably get annoyed at the length.)
To summarize, if the bitch is ugly, shut your eyes and think of Heidi Klum.
Sure, but that's after they've agreed to hire you, not before. It sounds like AT&T wanted this person's SSN as a part of the job application process, which does seem kind of odd to me.
Correct me if im wrong, but its not illegal or anything to not even get a SSN ? What happens in this case? I didnt get mine untill i was like 18. Since its legal to not own it, shouldnt it be not legal for people to force you to give it ?
:)
I really am asking here,not offering a point..i want input
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
I refuse to give my SSN in order to get an interview. I will gladly fill out a W-4 form, including SSN, once they have agreed to hire me.
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --