Slashdot Mirror
State Cannot Force Removal of SSNs From Privacy Advocate's Site
jvatcw brings us a story about Betty Ostergren, who operates a website dedicated to pointing out the social security numbers visible in public records. The purpose of the site is to raise awareness of privacy concerns regarding the personal information shared in Virginia's governmental websites. Legislation was introduced in Virginia to combat Ostergren's website, but last Friday a judge shot down the attempt to censor her, writing, "It is difficult to imagine a more archetypal instance of the press informing the public of government operations through government records than Ostergren's posting of public records to demonstrate the lack of care being taken by government to protect the private information of individuals."
Can the states force the credit reporting agencies to allow citizens to lock their credit reports?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+freeze+credit+report
This is already available, and it's free. Just like opting out of marketing offers.
I'm a big tall mofo.
To take a simple example: until 5-10 years ago, it was common to list SSNs in divorce filings. Get divorced and your SSN was listed in the filings, which are public records and can be looked at by anyone. Even today, in some states, you have to file a motion to have the SSN suppressed from the public version (routinely granted, but still it illustrates how common SSN publication is).
Publishing SSNs found in public certainly advertises the problem, but it also creates problems for innocent, even cautious people who have no way of fixing them.
Of course, the real problem is why we have tied so much personal information to a single government-issued number...perhaps because it's the only nationally unique identification number issued by the Federal government...
Advice: on VPS providers
So to combat the stupidity of the State of Virginia, She goes on a tear of Stupidity of her own?
The next law the State of Virginia should pass in this vein is one that makes it a felony to post SSN's in public.
That's kind of the point: Ms. Ostergren got the numbers from publicly available, online state records in the first place, so the State of Virginia would, in fact, not be complying with its own law. She's doing this to ... wait for it ... attract enough attention to get a law passed so all SSNs would automatically be redacted at the document level so there would be no SSN information to reproduce downstream in the first place.
It is stated quite clearly for the vast majority of states that a credit freeze is free for victims of identity theft. e.g.
Iowa
Iowa is one of the few states that has not passed a law requiring the availability of the security freeze. Consumers may use the voluntary program.
Eligibility: All Consumers
Fees: No fee for identity theft victims. All others pay $10 to place, temporarily lift, or remove the freeze altogether.
The ends don't justify the means. She's trying to advocate privacy by decreasing individual's privacy if I'm understanding this. She's saying "this is wrong that your social security number is printed on X public document, so I'm going to post it online to dramatically increase the amount of people who can see it and increase your chances of identity theft."
You missed one important detail.
The records she is putting up on her website are already online.
That pretty much knocks the bottom out of your argument.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Yeah, I know. Data isn't plural for anecdote, but here comes one anyway.
The Philadelphia Inquirrer claimed I owed them $38 (I didn't). They had a collection agency send me a letter. I simply shot a letter back to the collection agency that I in fact, do not owe the newspaper anything and to never contact me again.
I checked my credit, and nothing showed up. If something does, you have the right to challenge it. The creditor has, by law, either 10 days to either prove their case or to expunge the record.
Such a new financial unique identifier number is coming soon, just as you described.
The Bible (Revelation 13:17) says that there everyone will need a mark or a number, without which you will not be able to buy or sell anything.
I often wonder why the SSN in the US is so dreadfully pervasive as 'proof of identity' (which it's not), and why people insist on using it. Sure, it's globally unique, but that doesn't mean anything.
In Canada, our equivalent, the Social Insurance Number (SIN), has somewhat evolved into a de facto ID, the same way the SSN has, but there are restrictions. Unless a company is asking for your SIN for a reason specifically permitted by law (or no other ID would suffice), it may not refuse products or services as a result of refusal to provide your SIN.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has a fact sheet on the SIN and its use in Canada, which is worth reading for any Canadians with a SIN, or any Americans who wish their governments had a clue.
>After all, why should *I* pay for the fact that some bank lends money to someone who says it's me ?
You don't.
You will get a collection call.
At that point, you can ask them to fax you a copy of the signature they have, where you agreed to the credit contract.
They won't have it. Then you call the bureaus, and request your free copy of the report. When you get it, call back and talk to someone on the phone. They'll take it right off your report.
It took me less than an hour each of the 3x that Household Bank got ripped off by someone using my info. Never paid a single penny...
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
US federal minimum wage = $5.85 $5.85 * 3 times = $17.55 And this is under the assumption that you only make minimum wage.
A complicated error is indistinguishable from a feature.
You mean you live below your means. If you lived above your means, you'd be spending more than you earn.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Credit = interest. Interest = drain on resources.
Your equation is too simplistic. Oftentimes (although not always, especially in the current housing market), the equity gained from simply owning a home (not considering "sweat equity") is greater than the cost of the interest payments. In this context, getting a loan or a mortgage can be profitable.
You may not need credit, but if it can help you build equity profit earlier in life than you could with out it, then it is certainly better to have it than not to.
This even applies to your "sweat equity" argument -- you can get a mortgage to pay for that run-down house much earlier in life than you would without a mortgage, thereby increasing your gains.
My guess is that someone modded you -1 flamebait for displaying such a dismal grasp of investment analysis.