Personal Info of 3.5 Million Texans Was Publicly Accessible

SpaceGhost writes "The Houston Chronicle reports, 'Personal information of about 3.5 million Texans — including names, mailing addresses and Social Security numbers — was posted on a publicly accessible server at the state comptroller's office, much of it for more than a year.' Many of the records were for retired teachers and the unemployed, and they sometimes included DOB and drivers license numbers."

Comments

unemployed

[Aighearach]

Fortunately the unemployed are less desirable than average for identity theft, so that will limit the losses a little bit.

Re:unemployed

[Aighearach]

So your thesis would be that the unemployed have equal or higher credit scores compared to the employed?

Re:unemployed

[SydShamino]

My wife was unemployed during that time, in Texas, and has a maximum credit rating. She didn't apply for unemployment though so she shouldn't be on any lists.

Re:unemployed

[TaoPhoenix]

Nah, they're equally desirable because they're less likely to be tech savvy so they won't notice suble abuses as fast.

Re:unemployed

[AK Marc]

If she didn't apply for unemployment, then she wasn't unemployed. She was just "not working."

Why the distinction? Because there are millions of "not working" people who the government chooses to exclude from the unemployment lists to help keep the appearance of unemployment low.

Re:unemployed

[Aighearach]

Your training is complete.

Re:unemployed

[gcnaddict]

I beg to differ.

To an identity thief, the credit status of an individual is arguably irrelevant. All that matters is whether a line of credit or a loan can be opened in that person's name. Details such as the interest rate, credit limit, etc. don't matter at all. If the difference between someone with a subprime score and someone with a good or excellent score is merely the type of account the thief can open, and a thief can easily open an account under a subprime identity with a credit shop that has ridiculous interest rates.

I mean, are we expecting the thief to pay this stuff back? Of course not, so why would the interest rate matter? Why would the credit limit matter when an account opening can still score a thief at least 1,000USD?

So?

[pclminion]

Names and addresses I can get from a phone book. SSNs are "not to be used for identification purposes." Thus, BFD.

Place blame squarely where it belongs: lending providers and others who use the SSN as some sort of magic key to an individual's identity. All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

Re:So?

[NevarMore]

All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

Yep, because laws stop people from doing stupid and illegal things.

Re:So?

[DriedClexler]

Now that you mention it, why don't we use some sort of web-of-trust/public key infrastructure/certificate authority-based system for establishing identity and trust?

Or would that just have the same inconvenience and fraud that an SSN-based system has?

Re:So?

[pclminion]

If you make the collection of social security numbers a felony I guarantee you the banks would stop doing it. To make doubly sure, make it a civil tort so that the individual who was asked for their SSN can sue the bank. Let everyone know they can do this. It would stop instantly.

Re:So?

[nedlohs]

They stop most people for situations like that. In fact I suspect the only people they wouldn't stop are those ignorant of the law in question.

Example law:

* Using a SSN for *anything* except other than the adminstration of social security and the collection of taxes shall be punishable by a $42 billion fine.

You really a bank is going to use your SSN for anything when that is law? OK then, do you really think after all the banks that did so have filed for bankruptcy due to a trillions of dollars in liability (fine is per SSN after all) that suddenly appeared on their books that the rest are going to?

Re:So?

[Dachannien]

Forbidding the collection of SSNs isn't really the answer. The banking industry will just devise some other unique key that people will need to provide so that credit checks and such can be run, and then that key will become the center of risk.

The real answer is to make this information worthless by requiring banks to actually follow up and ensure that a new credit line requestor is the person they claim to be before opening the new credit line. Currently, the banks do everything they can to prevent themselves from eating the loss, but they don't do much to prevent the loss in the first place. They push as much as possible onto merchants and individual consumers. It's worth more to them to open instant credit lines virtually anonymously than to eat the occasional loss, and until that changes, the rest of us will continue to suffer from financial predation by third-world organized criminals.

Re:So?

[houstonbofh]

But the government will pay the fine to itself because the banks are too big to fail...

Re:So?

[nurb432]

SSNs are "not to be used for identification purposes."

You actually believe that is still the case?

Re:So?

[Solandri]

Place blame squarely where it belongs: lending providers and others who use the SSN as some sort of magic key to an individual's identity. All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

No it won't. Like it or not, there's a need for a unique individual identifier in the credit industry. If you can prove you pay your bills, you're less of a risk, and can get lower rates from them. A lender does not need a SSN to lend you money. It's just that all of them choose to require it and a credit check to minimize their risk. If you feel this is wrong, feel free to start your own lending company which does not require SSNs nor credit checks, and tell us how that works out for you.

If it became illegal to use SSNs for this purpose, then everyone would get lumped in the same risk pool. People who are good about paying their bills on time would see their rates and fees go up. People who are deadbeats and delinquents would see their rates and fees go down. Pretty obviously, that'd be bad for the economy as a whole. So what would happen is a different unique identifier would come into being to fill this need, and we'd be right back where we are now. Only instead of some state comptroller accidentally releasing the unique numbers, it would be some credit bureau accidentally releasing the numbers.

The problem is not with them using the SSN. The problem is that except for a few new state laws regarding personal info loss and theft, there's very little incentive for them to protect your SSN. When they lose your personal (or a few million of them), they suffer no harm, but you do. So although having your SSN become public is a big deal for you, it's not a big deal for them, and so they don't really go out of their way to prevent it from happening. What's needed is to jack up the penalties for losing an SSN so that it's as expensive for them as it is for you (or better yet, for them to just pay your expenses for getting any identity theft cleared up). Then they'll take seriously the need to protect their customers' private info.

Re:So?

[corbettw]

It's so cute how you think law makers would make laws against the interest of bankers.

Re:So?

[Samantha Wright]

Stop the presses! I have a brilliant proposal!

They can use MD5 hashes of SSNs instead! Yeah!

For the security-conscious, all bank forms will now include a ten-page instructional booklet on how to perform an MD5 hash by hand. This will be superseded by a number of handy and free online tools provided by the Russian Business Network.

Re:So?

[countertrolling]

The banking industry will just devise some other unique key...

Yeah... That's the idea. The bank, insurance, and other industries and departments are supposed to use their own unique to them ID system. Now a thief would need to break into all those different databases. IT is up to all of us to resist allowing them to use the SSN. Just say no.. The law doesn't prohibit that.

Re:So?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, we should be much more worried about the financial predation of first-world organized criminals: The banks and the credit rating agencies and similar such institutions are the ones who make it trivially easy to act in other people's names, in order to move their product more easily and cheaply, and then attempt to sidestep the losses from fraud by hounding the people whose names were used.

The only predation by third-world organized criminals that occurs directly against the end user consists of 419 scams. The rest of it consists of various sorts of bank fraud that the banks aren't sufficiently motivated to take measures against; but are willing to put those whose names are used through the wringer.

It's very clever, really: "Identity theft" makes it your problem. Admitting that it is "bank fraud" would make it their problem.

Re:So?

[pclminion]

No it won't. Like it or not, there's a need for a unique individual identifier in the credit industry. If you can prove you pay your bills, you're less of a risk, and can get lower rates from them. A lender does not need a SSN to lend you money. It's just that all of them choose to require it and a credit check to minimize their risk. If you feel this is wrong, feel free to start your own lending company which does not require SSNs nor credit checks, and tell us how that works out for you.

"Being a lender is tough! Whaa!"

Boo hoo, cry me a river. There's enough profit incentive in lending that they'll figure something out.

Re:So?

[Culture20]

All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

Yep, because laws stop people from doing stupid and illegal things.

This is Texas. Laws don't stop people from doing stupid and illegal things, guns do. ergo:
"All it takes is a simple six shooter and this shit could stop next week."

Re:So?

[pclminion]

It's so cute how you think law makers would make laws against the interest of bankers.

The complete failure of our system of government is an orthogonal problem to what we're discussing here.

If you compare the United States government to a computer program, it's basically a pile of hacks upon hacks sitting on top of a shitty core library. The hacks are there because the core is all fucked up, but just because you can make it work by adding even more hacks doesn't mean the whole thing won't fall down and collapse eventually. We need USA 2.0 at this point, written from the ground up.

Re:So?

[toadlife]

We need USA 2.0 at this point, written from the ground up.

From the ground up...like Netscape 5?

Re:So?

[pclminion]

Sure, there's the second system effect to contend with, where you try to cram in all the crap you wish you'd had in version 1.0 and end up making an even bigger mess in version 2.0, but that's just an observation, not a law of nature.

Also, by "written from the ground up" I do not mean tossing out the Constitution and starting completely from scratch. To continue the computer analogy, let's treat the Constitution like the hardware. We know it works, it's just the pile of shit built on top of it that's wrong. Development is an iterative process for sure, but if you flat-out refuse to throw away your models which are clearly broken you'll eventually end up out of business.

Re:So?

[clang_jangle]

You obviously must live in mom's basement. If you don't give up your SS# you'll have to pay cash for everything all the time. You know, storing all your money at home and carrying large amounts of cash have some pretty big downsides, too. Not to mention there are plenty of things many of us do every day that can't be done (or can be done but at much greater expense) without a credit card.

Re:So?

[pclminion]

You can't borrow, but that also means the banks can't lend. A bank that can't lend is a dead bank.

Re:So?

[countertrolling]

They cannot legally require you give up your SSN. They can only ask. The law is already on our side. Public acquiescence is the real problem.

Re:So?

[clang_jangle]

It's an interesting idea, but the problem is most our troubles don't originate with ill-conceived or poorly-written laws -- those are just symptoms, not causes.

Re:So?

[clang_jangle]

So you have bank accounts, credit cards, a mortgage, a car, and no-one knows your SS#? I call bullshit. The law "protecting" you from divulging your SS# is like US income tax being "voluntary". It's fake. You cannot have a credit card, a home, or anything else without giving up your SS# unless you're filthy rich and can pay cash for everything all the time. And you cannot decline to pay your "voluntary" income tax unless you want to lose everything and go to prison.

Re:So?

[countertrolling]

Whatever you say..

So you have bank accounts, credit cards, a mortgage, a car...

Short answer: No.

Ah, one question.. Where did I mention anything about the IRS? Who doesn't already understand they can do what they damn well please? Sorry, two questions..

Re:So?

[clang_jangle]

It was cited as an example of other things that you can supposedly do but in practical reality cannot. Of course you can live without banks, cards, a home, a vehicle but who would choose that for themselves? I think it's probably safe to say the only people who live without those things have little choice.

Re:So?

[jackspenn]

All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

From your comment I can assume that you have never actually spoken with the average state employee?

Re:So?

[countertrolling]

...but who would choose that for themselves?

Me.. If you prefer to live neck deep in red tape, by all means...

I think it's probably safe to say...

...that you're not a very good odds maker.

However, you can redeem yourself if you can call a triple crown winner this year. Place yer bets. Cash only

Re:So?

[clang_jangle]

Sorry, I don't even know what a "triple crown winner" is. I'm guessing it isn't football or yahtzee.

Well, you're most likely either
(1)dependent on someone else for your survival, or
(2) totally down-and-out (lots of people are, it's nothing to be ashamed of), or
(3)you're a redneck hillbilly whose been training for the breakdown of society sonce the civil rights movement began.
How close am I? :D

Re:So?

[barrtender]

Boo hoo, cry me a river. There's enough profit incentive in lending that they'll figure something out.

That was the next paragraph.

If it became illegal to use SSNs for this purpose, then everyone would get lumped in the same risk pool. People who are good about paying their bills on time would see their rates and fees go up. People who are deadbeats and delinquents would see their rates and fees go down. Pretty obviously, that'd be bad for the economy as a whole.

I agree with what he said, and really REALLY don't want to be an anonymous lender (lendee?).

Re:So?

[14erCleaner]

Banks need SSNs so that they can report interest paid to the IRS. In fact, this is one of the few legitimate uses of the SSN.

Re:So?

[countertrolling]

Triple Crown - usually associated with thoroughbred horse racing. Google knows all..

Man, you are ice cold.

Re:So?

[icebike]

If you make the collection of social security numbers a felony I guarantee you the banks would stop doing it.

No, they wouldn't.

Banks are REQUIRED to have an ssn on file these days.

Re:So?

[clang_jangle]

Good, glad to hear it! :)

Re:So?

[Dachannien]

My point was that it doesn't do any good for the unique key to be different for each financial organization, because the key is supposed to uniquely specify the individual customer in a way that works across all financial organizations. The industry as a whole has to be able to specify the individual in order to keep track of the risk associated with that individual (e.g., credit checks). SSNs are used because they're convenient, and that's because the government issues SSNs with the intention of uniqueness per individual.

Re:So?

[pclminion]

Incompatible laws lead to paradoxical consequence! News at 11! How are we to deal with this insurmountable problem? Perhaps with a change to the law.... No, that would never work.

Re:So?

[countertrolling]

I'm not really concerned with the problems of the industry or any difficulty they might have devising a secure system. Only that it remains their problem, not ours. If the house becomes uninhabitable, tear it down. Legally we are not required to give them our SSN, and we shouldn't. Only certain departments of the federal government is entitled to use it. We can keep it off limits to anybody else, but we have to do it. If we back down, we only have ourselves to blame.

Re:So?

[tlhIngan]

If you make the collection of social security numbers a felony I guarantee you the banks would stop doing it. To make doubly sure, make it a civil tort so that the individual who was asked for their SSN can sue the bank. Let everyone know they can do this. It would stop instantly.

And yet we'll just need another ID code. Registered with the IRS, because financial institutions report such incomes to the IRS. Which then becomes the de-facto ID code that the entire industry uses for credit reports and other stuff, and we'd be exactly in the same position we're in now.

Not using an ID code is such an inexact match that it's really unusable. Think of all the people who get calls from collection agencies because they share the same name as a creditor (but not SSN), or a creditor gave the wrong phone number or address, etc.

Re:So?

[drinkypoo]

I'm not sure we know the constitution works correctly. Totally failing to take political parties into account was a miss. Not enough was done to ensure free trade though it was clearly intended. The interstate commerce clause is entirely open-ended. I'm not saying I'd have seen this stuff if I had been there, but let's not pretend there are not real fundamental problems with the constitution. A few more rights need to have been enumerated, at least. The founders considered that a futile exercise but given recent history I'm pretty sure they should have taken a stab at it anyway.

Re:So?

[NexusTw1n]

It won't be unique to each bank though. They will simply require you to provide the ID# assigned to you by Experian.

This ID# will effectively become the new SSN, and the problems will continue.

Until you make data security a legal requirement punishable by prison, you are going to see leak after leak. Making the leak of personal data a criminal offence is the only way to make it cost effective to have decent security procedures in place.

Re:So?

[atisss]

In country I live there is unique number identifying person, and it's supposed to be legally protected from storage/processing, however you can easily find it in legal documents circulating internet, or just in any legal document you have access to. This just doesn't work.

Re:So?

[corbettw]

We've had our differences in the past, but I wanted to go on record as saying I agree with all of the points you've raised in this post.

Re:So?

[drinkypoo]

We've had our differences in the past, but I wanted to go on record as saying I agree with all of the points you've raised in this post.

I like to think my heart is in the right place even if my head is totally up my ass sometimes.

Re:So?

[maxwell demon]

The banking industry will just devise some other unique key that people will need to provide so that credit checks and such can be run, and then that key will become the center of risk.

Why not adopt a solution which is already technically possible? Just have everyone be given a smart card storing a private key, with the public key being used as that unique key, but the requirement that you prove your identity by signing some document using that private key. That way, the only way to steal your identity would be to get hold of that physical card (and possibly a PIN for it). Just having the public key wouldn't be of any help.

Of course the system would have to be designed so that the private key never leaves the smart card, but the whole signing process happens on that card.

Re:So?

[countertrolling]

"Lock 'em up" is not the solution, never was. The wrong people, the ones who can't defend themselves are always the ones to end up in the hoosegow. Nope... revoking their corporate charter and tattooing 'THIEF' on the boss's forehead will be much more effective. Gets to the root of the problem. Therefore it will never happen.

In the meantime, do not let them use your SSN. They cannot require it. The law spells that out very specifically.

Everything is bigger in texas....

[CTU]

....even their screw ups.

How could that mistake have gone on for a year without somebody seeing it?

Re:Everything is bigger in texas....

[Thing I am]

We are too busy doing our "Hold my beer and watch this" antics to be bothered with paying attention to stuff like this. /burp I live in Dallas. Hold my beer. Watch this ...

Re:Everything is bigger in texas....

[Sponge Bath]

Comptroller Susan Combs was too busy massaging reports about the financial state of Texas to help re-elect republicans based on "The Texas Miracle" (the supposed superiority of Texas financial management). Now that the election is over and the reality of a $27 billion shortfall for the next budget sinks in, I guess her office has time to look into these basic things.

Texas: where 12 years of absolute republican rule is propelling us into Mississippi territory in state rankings for services, health care, education, and now IT security.

duck and cover

[bakamorgan]

Better duck and cover. Typical person from Texas shoot first then ask questions later.

Re:duck and cover

[snspdaarf]

Wait... Texans ask questions?

Sure. Questions like, "What the fuck are you lookin' at"

Re:duck and cover

[houstonbofh]

We hit what we shoot. There are no questions later.

Re:duck and cover

[bakamorgan]

The questions I was referring too are: Whos going to hold the camera to take my picture with my kill? You see that shot it was from 400 yards away? and Think I got room to mount anothet on my wall?

Re:duck and cover

[Dahamma]

You just need to stop inviting Vice Presidents to Texas to shoot, sometimes their aim isn't as good...

I forsee a large increase in junk mail

[rjejr]

for propane and propane accessories. Maybe this will help the USPS.

Re:Well, now I almost wish

[pixelpusher220]

No no. Texas was *helping* you here. They were giving your info to potential employers. Yeah that's it.

Re:Phew!

[UncleTogie]

Then I saw who was affected and said "Phew! This is only the unproductive people!"

I love it when jackasses speak from their rear.

You oughta meet my wife. She took unemployment for two months while she was looking for a job. Other than that, she's had a steady job since before I knew her, 7 years ago... and outperforms kids half her age.

Unproductive, my foot.

Let me guess: you're a conservative.

I call your bluff...

[Kamiza Ikioi]

BFD? Then by all means, let's see your name, address, and SSN. ;)

Re:Phew!

[DigiShaman]

As a resident of this state, I had my last paycheck from my previous employer go to the state. I never knew about it until many years later. Apparently my pervious employer tried locating me, and gave up. So now that the state was given it, they contacted a collectors agency whom hunted me down. The basic idea is that they collect a small percentage of the finders-fee. It sucks, but I never would have known about it otherwise. Anyways, I had to contact the Comptroller office in Austin, TX to make my claim. Makes me wonder if I was on that list...

Re:Phew!

[houstonbofh]

Let me guess: you're a conservative.

In Texas, that ain't exactly a reach... And there is also a very strong thread of personal responsibility and self reliance. Hence, people are much less likely to try for unemployment then in traditional "entitlement" states. That said, I do consider teachers (even if retired) to be productive people.

Re:Phew!

[UncleTogie]

Wow, and she didn't find it shameful at all to go on unemployment just for a two month gap?

Actually, she was fired for something she didn't do, and the state of Texas backed her on it when her former employer decided to appeal.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Re:Phew!

[Qzukk]

she didn't find it shameful at all to go on unemployment just for a two month gap?

Not nearly as shameful as your assumption that everyone has psychic powers and knows how long it will take to find a job.

Re:Phew!

[UncleTogie]

Actually, it only skews conservative outside the urban areas and the valley....

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/texas.html

Re:Phew!

[DriedClexler]

Then that's not "taking unemployment", that's "taking payments from a court victory/legal settlement", and thus loses its objectionability.

Makes it easier

[koan]

to get the info for illegal immigration.

Re:So? really?

[reasterling]

That is just what we need.

Joe Public: What do you mean I have to pay verisign a $100 a year just to file my taxes?
IRS Operative: You have to have your signature signed to prove who you are to us.
JP: You don't know who I am? Can you tax me if you can't identify me?
IRS: We can not tax you but you will be charged with tax evasion.
JP: How can you charge me if you don't know who I am?
IRS: Well first you will have to have your signature signed by verisign.
JP: Where did you get such a messed up idea like this?
IRS: From a slashdot poster.

seriously man this is a terrible idea.

Re:Phew!

[UncleTogie]

Then that's not "taking unemployment", that's "taking payments from a court victory/legal settlement", and thus loses its objectionability.

You really have NO idea how unemployment claims work, do you?

They canned her, saying money was missing, even though the manager that was in charge of the cash at that time was later let go due to embezzlement. They had no proof, no documentation, etc., and I can guarantee you that she'd not taken a dime. Y'know, that whole "moral structure" riff. She decided to get unemployment and started looking for a job. She found one in short order and IMMEDIATELY dropped the UI.

About a week later, we get a letter that stated that her former client didn't like her getting UI, so they appealed. Denied. They appealed AGAIN, and showed up armed with only a bunch of accusations, telling the mediator that it was "good enough".

The state disagreed, allowed one last appeal that they didn't even respond to on time, and closed the case.

BTW, what twisted chain of logic leads you to believe that going on UI temporarily is sign of moral turpitude?!?

Re:Felony

[TaoPhoenix]

What if Social Security Numbers + the Person's name were a Copyrighted Work? That would be the legal protection that would scare snarks!

Texans

[guybrush3pwood]

... nothing to hide, nothing to worry? 1 2 3 That's how long it takes to be modded flamebait!

Re:Depressingly Common

[guybrush3pwood]

A few years ago, I found a publicly accessible server that belonged to the local K-12 school system in a medium sized city. By using the username "test," and password "test", any one could access all of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that the school system kept for each and every one of its special education students. Probably, most of these documents were for "Gifted and Talented" children, and were standardized forms that had contact information. However, some of them almost certainly contained details about the learning disabilities that various children had.

Dear citizen: thank you very much for your confession. A federal agent will be contacting you shortly. We will notify your relatives and loved ones that you will be unavailable until further notice. Please be sure to have a change of clothes at the ready.

Yours,

Big Brother

Re:Phew!

[DriedClexler]

So y'all couldn't wait until you actually needed the money? It was just, "Fired ... WHOO HOO! First unemployment check, here I come!"?

Re:Phew!

[pclminion]

Why should we pay for the unemployment program from our own taxes and then altruistically choose not to benefit from it? I guess you enjoy paying into the system and having leeches collect on it. Sorry dude, I've been paying taxes into this program since I got out of high school and you're fucking crazy if you think I won't take the benefit if and when I'm eligible for it.

This's what happens when politicians keep promises

[hey!]

Dang. They *are* running the government like a business down there.

Re:Phew!

[houstonbofh]

Bad example... Many Texans liked neither choice... Conservative voter turnout was the lowest for a presidential election in years.

Re:Phew!

[Sponge Bath]

"It's called unemployment insurance for a reason..."

Save your breath. It's clear from the language "deciding she had to resort to being a leech" that all unemployed for however long or whatever reason are immoral people getting what they deserve because they chose their circumstances. Nothing you say will penetrate DriedClexler's Calvinist glee at the suffering of the unelect or endless search for Obama's birth certificate.

Re:Phew!

[lgw]

Unemployment is insurance - you pay the premiums, no shame in collecting the payout when the insured event occurs. I'm not sure you're even eligible if you wait.

Re:Phew!

[DriedClexler]

So when you donate to a church/non-religious charity, do you apply for their aid to the needy when you're not needy, on the grounds that "well I done paid my f'r share, so I's gonna git it right back!"?

Re:Phew!

[pclminion]

A donation to charity is made with the express purpose of helping OTHER PEOPLE. When you pay taxes into the unemployment program, do you feel as if you are doing it to help others or to help yourself? If you feel that it's to help yourself, why would you not take the payout? If you feel it is to help other people, why do you call those people leeches? Furthermore, I am in no way legally compelled to donate to charity. Your comparison is ridiculous and your viewpoint paradoxical.

In Texas it's a mistake, at UCLA its policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Names, home addresses, email addresses, and home telephone numbers are posted by default for all UCLA students (including minors) on a publicly-accessible "directory" at http://directory.ucla.edu./ There are only 60,000 people associated with the university, but apparently it generates 3mm searches/mo... not surprising because it doesn't require a username or password and has only limited protection against scraping. One student was involved in the a mistaken identity case with the Rose Bowl stabbing and received (misplaced) death-threats from gang-bangers. Another student posted a racist video online and also received death threats and harassment (her actions were stupid but she didn't deserve what she got either). Neither knew that their information was out there. The school's response? We're subject to the CA Information Practices Act but don't consider this personally-identifiable information. "UCLA cannot change the default settings on URSA because that would violate UCLA’s policy, according to university registrar Anita Cotter." (http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2011/01/uclas_online_campus_directory_undermines_student_privacy) I'm pretty sure it was Hitler's policy to exterminate millions of Jews but that doesn't make it ethical, legal, or immutable, right? If you know anyone who is a disgruntled student at UCLA and feels like making a little cash with the help of a trial attorney, now's your chance.

Re:In Texas it's a mistake, at UCLA its policy

[herojig]

Fascinating post. Glad they had none of this nonsense when I was there...I probably would have received another ton of Domino's pizza adverts over the years in my mailbox (and I guess now my inbox).

Re:Phew!

[DriedClexler]

Take that line up with the taxman sometime, see how it works out. "Hey, I'm paying taxes to benefit *myself*, and I don't *benefit* from that project, so I shouldn't have to ..."

FTFA/Translation

[oDDmON oUT]

"I deeply regret the exposure of the personal information that occurred and am angry that it happened," [State Comptroller] Combs said in a statement.

[Translation] Let me put out this public statement saying absolutely nothing, but serving to CMA.

"I want to reassure people that the information was sealed off from any public access immediately after the mistake was discovered and was then moved to a secure location."

[Translation] I soiled myself, and berated my minions.

"We take information security very seriously"

[Translation] Oh *f+ck*! How am I going to spin this?

"...and this type of exposure will not happen again."

[Translation] With the grace of God, this'll all be forgotten by November, and I'll get reelected.

This just in

[oDDmON oUT]

As the AG and the FBI are looking into matters: "Combs has endorsed legislation enhancing information security, including a proposal that each agency designate a chief privacy officer and another to create a state Information Security Council."

Gee Susan, I think the horse has left this burning barn...unless you're looking for ways to spread the blame the next time this happens?

Re:Phew!

[pclminion]

"Hey, I'm paying taxes to benefit *myself*, and I don't *benefit* from that project, so I shouldn't have to ..."

Show me where I said that. Do it. Quote me, and explain where I said that.

If you actually think that's what I said, then you're even more of a fucking retard than I thought. May I suggest a repeat of third grade English?

Re:Phew!

[DriedClexler]

Fine, "I'm paying taxes to benefit *everyone*, and this project doesn't benefit everyone so I'm going to try to get some of my money back for it by fraudulently applying for benefits."

Same diff.

Re:Phew!

[pclminion]

Well, swearing at you didn't work, so I'll switch to treating you as a child.

What I asked, sweetheart, is which of the following two things you believe in your own little head. Here's number 1 for you. "I believe that the taxes I pay toward unemployment are paid ultimately for my own benefit." Let's say you believe that ok honey? If that's the case, why would you refuse to take an unemployment payout when you are eligible for it?

And here's the other possibility, you perfect angel. "I believe that the taxes I pay toward unemployment are paid ultimately for the benefit of others." Let's say you think that instead of number 1. If that's the case, then why would you resent it when those people make use of that benefit?

Re:If my identity is stolen by this act of NEGLIGE

[jmac_the_man]

Didn't you used to be from Vladistock or somewhere? In any case, you're apparently in Ashgabat now, which is in Turkmenistan. Were you collecting unemployment from Texas, despite being in Vladistock or Turkmenistan or wherever?

Also, on a semi-related note, your name looks familiar and I've been meaning to ask you if you used to hang out at a right wing American politics site (I stopped being a regular there in early 2009). If you're the same Kilgore Trout, I think I know you from somewhere.

Re:Phew!

[DriedClexler]

That's not talking to me like a child, that's talking to me like a queen, thweetie.

Yep, _everything_ is bigger in Texas!

[Locke2005]

Especially the fuckups!

Re:Depressingly Common

[Locke2005]

Dude, you should have contacted all the parents, explained to them how they could collect big $$$ from this FERPA violation, and asked for a 10% finders fee!

Re:private parts of all americans pubicly accessib

[Locke2005]

It's okay, I'm not using mine anyway...

Were Bush or Cheney on the website?

[billstewart]

Inquiring minds want to know....

"Not for ID" meant the card, not the number

[billstewart]

The "not for identification" on the Social Security Card didn't mean "You may not use the Social Security Number for Identification" - it wasn't a pro-privacy imperative.

It was simply a disclaimer that the Social Security Administration was making no promises that the card they'd handed out was of any use for identifying the person now holding it. It was a card providing information, not identification.

Public info in Sweden

[erikdalen]

In Sweden all this information is public for all citizens. Private organizations do however need a permit to keep a registry with personal information.

Hanlon's Razor

[jaypifer]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:Felony

[maxwell demon]

Yeah, when looking for a name for your kid, write a poem and use that as the name. And if anyone uses the name without permission, invoke the DMCA.

Waiting for the punch-line...

[babboo65]

There are any number of publicly accessible (or for-fee) search sites where all manner of personal information is available. The US Government is not particularly careful about how, where, and what they store about citizens. True, the SSN was not "meant" to be used as a means of identification, but it IS used as such (hence identity theft). Like the fire team getting to the bar-be-que says, "Where's the fire"?

Having names, addresses, driver's license, voting, DOB, marriage, titles, deeds, etc ad nauseum is nothing new. Creating "new" legislation in response to such events is equally pointless as the previous "law" left unenforced.