Slashdot Mirror
States Pass Thousands of Info Restriction Laws
nebaz writes "The AP has published an article analyzing over 1000 laws passed by state legislatures since 9/11, and discovered a disturbing trend. More and more information is being made unavailable to the public. Some of this information may seem reasonable, dealing with national security and all, but there are other things, such as safety plans at schools, medication errors at nursing homes, and disciplinary actions against state employees, that are becoming restricted." From the article: "In statehouse battles, the issue has pitted advocates of government openness - including journalists and civil liberties groups - against lawmakers and others who worry that public information could be misused, whether it's by terrorists or by computer hackers hoping to use your credit cards. Security concerns typically won out."
Thousands of laws? Um, not quite. From the article:
and later in the article:
The article is informative, and the actual data is compelling enough without going chicken little in the /. headline. . .
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But when life gives you crap, please don't make a beverage out of it.
If you want a good insight on how the military and the current administration views the world, I suggest reading about Tom Barnett. There's an interview at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp?ID=16779
There's a video of a talk he gave via CSPAN from a June 2004 at http://theconspiracy.us/CSPAN/ has the video in XviD format (can someone torrent this?)
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
If you want to know why so many things are secrets now, listen to this week's edition of This American Life, entitled "Habeus Schmabeus".
It's brilliant radio--interviews with former Gitmo detainees included--presenting evidence that most of the people apprehended and fucked over by the US government are guilty of absolutely nothing, and are being held, still...because if their stories were widely known, even the 1/3 of Americans who still love their Bush would be utterly appalled at what The Land of the Free has turned into under this bastard.
It's secret, and they're imprisoned, to save his face and save him some shame. The local laws are just the same crap on a less horrific scale.
Has anyone ever FOIA'd their state government for in-house software to look at?
Yes...well, kind of
What?
What a shocker.
k /
There was an interesting article in Newsweek this week, describing how the 9/11 commission recommended an oversight board to make sure the government was protecting our civil liberties.
It was set up in December 2004, but the board has never hired a staff or had a meeting.
So, yeah.. Our government really takes civil liberties seriously..
The article is available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11677336/site/newswee
There will not be an election in 2008, and the United States will slide into a form of dictatorship. And there is PLENTY of evidence for this if you open your eyes and do some reading. Did you know that there is new legislation about to be passed that makes it a felony for any newspaper/journalist to publish a story about FISA, or about GWB's wiretapping program? That same legislation also makes it legal for the NSA to continue to spy on American citizens without a warrant, at any time, for up to 45 days, for ANY reason. Do you feel secure in your government not using it for improper purposes? If your answer to that was yes, you seriously need to read up on Nixon and why FISA was created in the first place. To add insult to injury, this new law also retroactively protects the government upto the date when President GWB began the warrantless wiretap program. So despite the fact that Bush broke FISA as well as the Constitution, Congress is giving him a get out of jail free card. I could go on for days... just look at it this way, if you get most of your news from CNN, Fox News or any network news, you are getting about 25% of the story with all of the details just glossed over. If you care about the United States of America, you would be wise to find a different news source other than the ones owned by billionaires.
And it's fucking dumb to try to make that point and fuck up on the fact that not all North Americans are from the USA. However, the less pathetically pedantic amongst us know that "Americans" means "Citizens of the United States of America". People from Canada are Canadians. People from Mexico are Mexican. It continues. No other people are "American" so just fucking deal with it you goddamn shithead.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Here's some info to help clear up the confusion regarding use of SSNs (from the Social Security Administration's site):
If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.
Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.
Specific laws require a person to provide his/her SSN for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where an SSN might be required or requested, an SSN is required/requested by:
* Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans* Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes
* States for the school lunch program
* Banks for monetary transactions
* Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number
* Department of Labor for workers' compensation
* Department of Education for Student Loans
* States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction
* States for child support enforcement
* States for commercial driver's licenses
* States for Food Stamps
* States for Medicaid
* States for Unemployment Compensation
* States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
* U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds
Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/
----States can further regulate and restrict private use of social security numbers.
For example:
"In Michigan, in almost all instances it is illegal to require a Social Security number to be written on a check as a condition of acceptance of that check."Source:http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-3 4739_20942-103001--,00.html
----And some boring history:
When did Social Security cards bear the legend "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"?
The first Social Security cards were issued starting in 1936 and did not have this language.
SSA's policy is that the Social Security card is not an identity document. The card only verifies that the SSN on the card is assigned to an individual whose name is on the card. It does not verify that the person presenting the card is the person named on the card.
Therefore, the January 1946 version of the card first contained the language at the bottom of the card reading "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION." Then the language was changed beginning with the September 1961 version of the card to read: "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES - NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION". However, the language was removed beginning with the January 1972 version of the card because it was confusing to employers and others who viewed it because they were not sure whether to accept it as evidence of the individual's SSN. The language has not been on subsequent versions of the card.
Source: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/