New Jersey DMV Employees Caught Selling Identities

phaedrus5001 writes "Ars has an article about two New Jersey DMV employees who have been accused of selling personal information they routinely had access to. The NJ prosecutor's office claims (PDF) their investigation 'uncovered that two employees of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission were providing the names, addresses, dates of birth and social security numbers of unsuspecting residents that they obtained through their employment. They were charging as little as $200 per identity.'"

Comments

This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

More proof that the best government is the one that governs least.

Re:This is more proof

[Jeng]

How so?

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

Because a private company would never be caught doing something like this. Nope. They are all completely above any kind of corruption.

Re:This is more proof

[0123456]

Because a private company would never be caught doing something like this. Nope. They are all completely above any kind of corruption.

Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services. Nor can they push a unique identifier on you which is then used as an id by numerous different databases.

Re:This is more proof

[cptdondo]

Great soundbite. Now expand on it. Tell us how, exactly, you would put your proposal into practice.

Fewer cops? Less regulations? Which ones? Fewer teachers? No DMV (and no vehicle registrations, or safety regulations, or license plates, or insurance?)

I want to know.

Re:This is more proof

[zAPPzAPP]

If the private company owns any of your local infrastructure, or it got an outsourcing deal for a former gouvernment service that you need to use, how do you avoid them?
Because that's what "less gov" means around here.

Re:This is more proof

[cptdondo]

Experian? Other credit rating companies?

I'm sure I could come up with a lot of others that disprove your hypothesis. There are lots and lots of private companies that we have to do business with. We have no choice in the matter.

Re:This is more proof

[corbettw]

Can't force you to use them? Sure, OK. Can't make you use a unique identifier that's then used by other orgs? Bullshit. How many websites use Facebook, Google, or Yahoo login services for their users?

Re:This is more proof

[AngryDeuce]

Yes, and our roads will be awesome when any asshole can just hop into a car and put the pedal on the floor....

Please, explain how the free market regulates people that don't know how to drive without causing millions of people to lose their lives in accidents. I would love to hear it.

I swear, some of these anti-regulation people must just be closet anarchists. It seems more and more like they just want to live in the Old West where the only rule of law is the one that comes out of the end of a gun...

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever read about Americans who refuse to use their social security number for absolutely anything? It's almost Kafkaesque.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

So...what? You sound like you're suggesting that not having a standard identity card for things which require them is a good thing:

"Yes officer, that's a valid ID, I got it from Honest Bob's Discount ID's just this very morning!"

What's even more worrying is you may actually be seriously suggesting that we shouldn't have ID for anything at all, which is equally stupid:

"I'll take the sniper rifle and a couple of boxes of ammo. Am I convicted felon with a history of violence? No sir, I am not. Why thank you, you have a good day too!"
"No officer, I am not an escaped criminal on the run. My name is John Doe, honest. O.K Sir, I sure will drive carefully!"

Re:This is more proof

[DanTheStone]

Obviously the government shouldn't know your Social Security number...

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and our roads will be awesome when any asshole can just hop into a car and put the pedal on the floor....

You haven't driven in Boston, have you?

Re:This is more proof

[Jessified]

Well, just like if you don't like airport security you don't have to fly, if you don't like the DMV you don't have to drive, amiright? /sarcasm

Re:This is more proof

[robthebloke]

No one is forcing you to drive a car.

Re:This is more proof

[Runaway1956]

In effect, none that matter. I don't use my Facebook credentials anywhere except Facebook. The popup says "Log in with Facebook", and I say, "Fuck you!" I either register with a throwaway email, or I don't bother logging in at all.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the inmates in TX, NM, AZ, and the US about not having to use Corrections Corrections of America "services", then return back to me about that...

Re:This is more proof

[vlm]

No DMV (and no vehicle registrations, or safety regulations, or license plates, or insurance?)

The following licenses I have, or previously held, none of which are "IDs" requiring SS number:
ham radio license
GROL
former private pilot license (maybe this has changed to photo now?)
former fishing license
several former military operators licenses including really weird stuff like immersion heater (I kid you not) and RTFL rough terrain forklift
my library card is functionally a license as opposed to an ID card
my old non-photo college ID card (I guess those are mostly photo "real forms of ID" now?). It was mainly used at the library and to pay for photocopies.
My temp drivers license when I was 15 until I passed my formal DL test had no "id" properties, it just gave me permission to drive with a parent in the car supervising me.

Functionally American drivers license functionality is merged with ID card functionality, as if any separation is impossible, but its certainly not required. None of the stuff you listed requires ID directly, although registration title transfer is gonna require the services of a notary, and the notary will demand an ID, or the DMV personnel could operate as notaries, ending up right where we started...

Re:This is more proof

[jmottram08]

It might interest you that there used to be way fewer teachers, no administrators, no dept of education ... and the quality of education was way higher. It might also interest you that the DMV could actually be reduced in size and scope while still making insurance mandatory, same with licence plates. Vehicle registration? deos it really cost 100+$ a year to keep my VIN on record? Safety? The (federal) dept of transportation handles that, not the DMV.

So what does the DMV by and large do? Drivers licences. Which are worthless as they dont do driving tests anymore. . . its a computer test and you can get your license without taking the practical test... certainly not any indication of whether or not you can drive. And they can be renewed online, so you dont even have to pass a eye test -or- a practical.

If you really think that the DMV does anything good you need to think again.

Re:This is more proof

[trum4n]

Sounds to me like you have deep personal issues. Login with facebook is the best way to get on a forum where you will be constructive(like in my case, car forums). It's fast, it's easy, and I'm not breaking any laws. OH NOES, THEY FOUND OUT I DRIVE A HONDA FIT!?! Who the hell cares. The fucker is orange, and i can be found driving the hell out of it. No one cares enough about you for it to matter. Privacy has its place, but some people obsess.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the DMV, just drive anyway... :)

Re:This is more proof

[jmottram08]

. . . ummmm every asshole does jump in a car, every day. Or do you think that the DMV regulates drivers? Because regulation means that some cant do it, and with tests for a drivers licence entirely on a computer and renewals online, they arent actually regulating -anything-, except for age.

These anti-regulation people would say that the market adjusts and insurance prices would keep the bad drivers off the road. Do you honestly think that without a drivers licence telling people that they can drive that millions would die? ...because.... no. A drivers licence literally only tells you that you are over 18, and that is it.

Re:This is more proof

[rickb928]

Well, at least not for your dirver's license. Kinda like using the same password everywhere. Break into one, break into them all.

Re:This is more proof

[jmottram08]

You have a lot more choice in the matter than with governmental agencies.

Re:This is more proof

[rickb928]

Unless your work environment blocks Facebook. Then being able to log in independently is a blessing.

Assuming they also don't block Disqus. Weasels.

Re:This is more proof

[vlm]

Yes, and our roads will be awesome when any asshole can just hop into a car and put the pedal on the floor....

What stops them now? Absolutely nothing? No problemo then, I guess.

Please, explain how the free market regulates people that don't know how to drive without causing millions of people to lose their lives in accidents. I would love to hear it.

If the manufacturer and/or seller of a gun is liable for what the new owner does with it, or a bartender is liable for what a patron does after purchasing booze, or I get in trouble for selling you a class 4 laser and you do something dumb, I see no reason why Ford can't be legally liable for handing over the keys to someone who didn't pass a vehicle test, or a parent can't be legally liable for loaning the keys to a teenager. Thats how it works in private aviation, anytime anyone crashes for any reason, the vehicle manufacturer gets sued, because that's where the money is.

There is a mass confusion about free markets, in that they like to say there is one in the USA, but everyone knows how the market works in the USA is the big and powerful have no rules, therefore a "free-er" market must mean there would be no rules for anyone at all, other than might makes right. Not so. All it means is the govt is not a counterparty to every agreement and activity, that's all. It doesn't mean no laws could ever exist, or no judicial system could ever exist, or no civil courts could ever exist.

Re:This is more proof

[lymond01]

Experian? Other credit rating companies?

Oh, you're one of those people who buys things they can't afford? This is fixable.

(Yes, yes, everyone uses credit these days, even when you rent they generally run a credit report. If they didn't, or if you just paid by the year, my comment would be less ignorantly snarky.)

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't forced to use Experian. You just find it inconvenient if you don't. There's a big difference.

Re:This is more proof

[jmottram08]

Obviously some retard behind the counter at the DMV shouldn't.

If this happened to a private company they would be dragged into court and sued to death, or at least be forced to drastically change policies. Will that happen to the DMV? hell no. They might start a study on methods to control data, and in 3 years the company that got tho no bid contract to do the study will report that it will cost X to implement, which the legislature will reject due to budget constraints.

Re:This is more proof

[Bigby]

You don't need credit, nor is it forced on you.

Re:This is more proof

[neonKow]

You are probably forced to use Experian a lot more than you are forced to use New Jersey DMV.

Re:This is more proof

[lucifuge31337]

"I'll take the sniper rifle and a couple of boxes of ammo. Am I convicted felon with a history of violence? No sir, I am not. Why thank you, you have a good day too!"

This might be a convincing argument if it weren't for the fact that one can do this in most states legally for a private party face to face transfer. Also, "sniper rifles" aren't all that scary. They are typically nothing more than an off the rack deer rifle (that you can walk in and buy from Wal Mart) with a bipod and a different stock. Better ones have some accuracy work done to them, but it's really not much of a huge difference.

Re:This is more proof

[jackbird]

A credit check is increasingly becoming part of employment screening, and is entirely necessary for both renting and purchasing a home (unless buying the home for cash). Being homeless rises above "inconvenient."

Providing a social security number is also required to open a bank account, the lack of which is also a bit more than "inconvenient."

Re:This is more proof

[Bigby]

I don't sign up for services when they require a Facebook account because I don't have a Facebook account. I, as a human being located in the United States of America do not need a Facebook, Google, or Yahoo account. In fact, more than half the country don't have any of those accounts.

You can't say the same thing about who is in a DMV system. Even if you don't drive or even not allowed to drive, you need to have identification. Just the basic idea of being a human being in the US at 20 years of age will get you arrested for not having proper identification. That is wrong. Alliances between companies is wrong, but on such a lower level it isn't even funny.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that stupid? Yes, quality of education may have been higher with fewer teachers when the percentage of the population afforded the opportunity to attend school was lower. What exactly is your point there?

No, dumbass, it does not cost $100/year to keep your VIN on file. The $100/year is a freaking tax, to pay for things you might find useful, like roads.

The federal DOT handles vehicle inspections? No, they set requirements on manufacturers, not vehicle owners.

What idiotic state do you live in that doesn't make you take a road test to get a license?

Re:This is more proof

[rickb928]

This is the debate. If you don't like the restrictions, don't drive.

This is the WRONG attitude and approach.

We expect our government to, among other things, serve us by managing certain things. One of these is the licensing of drivers, so that we can be marginally safe on the roads, that entirely unqualified drivers are not allowed to operate vehicles, and that dangerous drivers are removed from the road to some degree. Imperfection is rampant, but it works farly well.

Driving is, in much of American a NECESSITY. To claim it is a privilege may be linguistically accurate, but it is not accurate at all. It is a necessity for most of us.

In that light, our governments' role shoudl never be to make licensing as difficult as possible, nor should it be to force applicants to exert themselves merely to satisfy the bureacracy's self-serving purposes. It should be the goverments' role to facilitate and deliver the needed service, IE licensing etc.

The argument that driving is a privilege is to leave open the option that for some reason, we should serve our govermnent. The opposite is the desired relationship, and one that should be not only normal, but expected.

I know you're being sarcastic, and you're excused from being the target this screed. But some people actually hold that driving as a privilege means that the agencies can be permitted to make it difficult to maintain the privilege.

That is wrong.

Re:This is more proof

[cptdondo]

It might interest you that there used to be way fewer teachers, no administrators, no dept of education ... and the quality of education was way higher.

Citation, please. Hard data, not more soundbites.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice.

"Well, you are guilty of robbery, would you like to go to a hell-hole Gulag or a tropical beach for your sentence?"

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is forced on you. Just try going through your entire life without ever having credit pulled on you. Want a phone? Credit check. Internet? Credit check. Car insurance? Credit check. Rent an apartment? Credit check.

Or how about a job? Credit check.

None of these involve providing credit, and all of them are part of a normal responsible American lifestyle. Yet you still get a credit check.

Re:This is more proof

[trum4n]

You have a valid reason. The Tin-Foil-Wearing "Runaway(hint?)1956" does not.

Re:This is more proof

[cptdondo]

You don't need a driver's license, nor is it forced on you. You probably need a license a lot less than you do a clean credit report these days, seeing as you can't get a job or an apartment without a clean credit check - even if you don't have a loan or credit card to your name.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least not for your dirver's license. Kinda like using the same password everywhere. Break into one, break into them all.

Yeah, what we need is four different forms of identification and authentication for each government entity we want to talk to. Not a single one of them can be repeated between entities. It's the only way to be Safe(tm)!

What's more, it's so easy to implement! All you need is a registered public encryption/signing key with a strong web of trust backing it (at least a couple hundred signatures, obviously; we need SOME sort of assurance you're who you say you are), a modern smartphone with an ubiquitous data plan (screw you, poor people! You don't have identities, you're just faceless masses!), a perfect data connection with that plan (screw you, rural areas! If you wanted to survive, you should've moved to somewhere more trendy!), data remaining on that plan, your identity given to one of a few Data Certification And Holding Companies so they can process this, the knowledge of how to handle all this (grandma knows how public-key signing and encryption works, right?), the patience to get all these forms of identification in order, and the willingness to unlearn and throw away all manner of convenience because some nerd a thousand miles away is afraid of his own shadow if it doesn't authenticate itself anonymously every time he looks at it!

Re:This is more proof

[rickb928]

Exactly. DMV should, generally, be testing drivers, keeping records on who got caught committing what violations and when, reporting to the police who had their privileges suspended and who got them back, and collecting enough money to pay for the service,even for the ancillary services like reporting to such agencies as needed, etc.

Again, who's working for whom?

Re:This is more proof

[bws111]

This is about the fifth time you posted this crap. What states allow a previously unlicensed driver to obtain a license without a road test?

Re:This is more proof

[Bigby]

If you never used credit, then you simply won't have a credit history. Your potential employer will ask why. You will say that you don't believe one should rely on debt. Any employer that refuses someone because they don't have a credit history is foolish. Remember, it isn't a bad credit history; it is NO credit history.

You can get a phone and Internet without credit. It is just month-by-month and requires a large deposit.

All these examples can do all the credit checking they want. They will just find no history with a lot of inquiries. Most places understand the difference.

The only problem will be around purchasing online, booking a flight, or getting a hotel room.

Re:This is more proof

[Bigby]

I know it is sarcastic, but a license is more than about driving. It doesn't even have to do with driving. In most States it is required to have identification, and that is handled by their DMV-like institution. You don't have to drive. You don't have to drink alcohol. You don't have to vote. But you still need an identification.

Re:This is more proof

[b0bby]

That works best in Idaho & Montana...

Re:This is more proof

[ryanov]

New Jersey doesn't require a real road test, but there is a test on a closed course. I already thought that was bad enough.

Re:This is more proof

[silverspell]

If you never used credit, then you simply won't have a credit history. Your potential employer will ask why. You will say that you don't believe one should rely on debt. Any employer that refuses someone because they don't have a credit history is foolish.

There are, however, plenty of employers who will refuse to hire someone because their views and habits demonstrate that they're likely to be a total pain in the ass, lack a sense of proportion, and/or are fixated on being "purer than thou".

No one wants to hire Dale Gribble -- at least if an equally competent and less self-righteous person is available. If you're damn good, they might put up with you, but you'd better be damn good.

Re:This is more proof

[Hentes]

In a private company, it's not the employees who do this, and they charge more for it.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree!

A list of why a car is becoming nearly impossible to live without:
1) Transit is being cut back more and more (even as more and more are actually using it) - and truthfully, the cost is also ridiculous in a lot of cases.
2) Sidewalks are no longer being cleared (or even put in when new buildings are built).
3) Smaller stores are being closed down for Mega malls that are farther away.
4) Road Crossings for pedestrians are being removed (white lines were there, new pavement, no lines repainted).
5) Intersections are now putting cross walks on only 2 or 3 sides (not all four) so can double the time to cross a road.
6) Sidewalks in such poor state of repair that I have to walk on the road.
7) Highways/Multi-lane roads have no sidewalks at all but have residential side streets and/or join parts of a town together (and it's dangerous walking on those roads -- I understand major Highways where they join towns, but the portion "through" the town still needs them!)
8) Bridges will get sidewalks on one side only (and have to go under them (and through the drug addicts) to get to the sidewalk) or, my favourite, they have it on one side and NO WAY TO GET to that side unless you got back 1/2 km to the last light!!!!
9) The first thing that gets blocked during ANY construction is the sidewalks and very seldom are measures taken to make sure pedestrians can get around! Nothing like walking into traffic to get home at night since the Bulldozer is parked on the sidewalk.
10) Bikes - Moving at road speeds on the sidewalk or side of the road where walkers are also - and without Insurance so if they hit me I am really screwed. (At least if a car hits me the car insurance should cover any expenses/losses/funeral costs for my family).
11) Traffic lights that delay before putting up the walk signal, or fail to bring up the Walk signal after pressing the button, or just don't bring up the walk signal (very annoying). (and Yes, I press the damn button and I know you have to press the button WHILE the light is green in the other direction... otherwise some of them reset and don't take your click!) It's to the point now I just ignore the lights and if the traffic is moving in the direction I want, I just walk with the traffic. Standing around "waiting" for a light signal is a great way to get cold fast when walking in the snow or rain.

Re:This is more proof

[Zomalaja]

Ever seen a sniper rifle other than in a movie ? Have a look at pics & specs of a Barrett M82A or a Cheytac 408, compare to a Remington 700. Quick compare:
Cheytac 408 - 31 lbs, 53" long - muzzle energy 11,200 ft-lbs (.50 BMG), 7,700 lbs. (408)
Barrett M82A - 30 lbs, 48" to 60" long - muzzle energy 8000 ft-lbs. (.50 BMG), 9100 ft-lbs. (.416 Barrett)
Remington 700 "Tactical-Long Range" - 7.5 lbs, 40" long, ~2700 ft-lbs. Muzzle energy (Std .308)

Re:This is more proof

[lucifuge31337]

I'm a competitive target shooter.

Every last thing you listed is a bolt or semi that is under no regulation past any other long arms in most states. Same as a .22lr plinker rifle.

Ever been involved in law enforcement? Because, with very few exceptions (larger departments) these guys only have the budget for Rem 700s in .308 done up by an outfit like Iron Brigare Armory. So your grandfather's 30-06 deer rifle has more muzzle energy.

Re:This is more proof

[icebraining]

Our ID card here in Portugal is a smartcard with a key pair. When connected to an appropriate reader, it can provide copies of the public key or sign stuff with the private key (without ever copying it to the machine).
You don't need a smartphone, a data plan or know what is a key pair or even that your card has one.

If you want to authenticate when physically present, just insert it in their reader and input the PIN (as said, the private key will NOT be copied out of the card, so it's safe).

If you want to authenticate online with it, you just need a $16 reader (available on big retail stores) which is supported by IE, Firefox, Safari and Chrome, using PKCS#11 or similar.
Again, no need to understand how it works - the follow the simple steps on the site.

Re:This is more proof

[mcgrew]

The only problem will be around purchasing online, booking a flight, or getting a hotel room.

Or renting a car. I'm sure there are more.

Re:This is more proof

[qbast]

Not using a credit equals pain in the ass,self-righteousness and lack sens of proportion? You are insane.

Re:This is more proof

[icebraining]

You're not forced to drive a vehicle either.

Re:This is more proof

[erroneus]

Yeah, this is thought to be funny, but in reality, the SSN should be used only for Social Security purposes. Instead it is a national serial number which was everyone's concern when the program was set up.

Texas does not use the SSN for the driver's license... not yet anyway... not the last time I got it renewed. I hate to see when other states disregard this and abuse its citizens for a bit of convenience like this. And of course, the SSN is a widely abused thing and the more abused it is, the more damage abusers can case innocents. It's annoying.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Nebraska did for awhile.

Friend of mine his grandfather said this "I have never taken the road test" and he had one for well over 40 years at that point.

Apparently he got his license in the Army. Then just kept renewing it. His road test? His Sargent put him in a jeep and then had him sign something before they moved.

Many older people are like this. They have *never* taken the test. At one point in time getting yours was as simple as showing up and filling out the proper forms...

Re:This is more proof

[mcgrew]

If the manufacturer and/or seller of a gun is liable for what the new owner does with it,

He isn't. Where are you getting this nonsense?

or a bartender is liable for what a patron does after purchasing booze,

He isn't liable selling booze to a sober person. Are you ten years old? It is definitely irresponsible to sell booze to someone who's drunk, especially if you know he's driving. In this case the bartender is responsibe, as he should be.

or I get in trouble for selling you a class 4 laser and you do something dumb

But you don't. Are you trolling, or are you really that ignorant?

Thats how it works in private aviation, anytime anyone crashes for any reason, the vehicle manufacturer gets sued, because that's where the money is.

Citation needed... and considering the earlier fantasies in the same comment, it needs to be a damned good citation.

Re:This is more proof

[Spectre]

I've never had a road test, I'm licensed in Missouri (previously in Kansas) to operate passenger cars, trucks up to 12000# (more if a farm vehicle), and motorcycles.

To get the motorcycle qualification, I did need to actually get on a motorcycle and ride a pattern marked out on a parking lot. That is the closest I've ever been to a "road test".

Yes, the abysmal driving in both states mentioned is a result of how easy it is to get a license. In Kansas the driver's exam is even OPEN BOOK, about all you have to be able to do is read and pass a vision screening ...

Re:This is more proof

[Runaway1956]

"Log in with Facebook" translates to "Allow Facebook and the advertising industry to see everything you do, and everywhere you go, so that they can tailor their targeted advertising to your interests."

Not that it matters a great deal, as I don't see the advertising anyway. It's the whole idea that Facebook has the right to track me.

I might ask you if you have a hard time organizing separate logins or something. Why on earth do you need Facebook to log you in? I'm registered on dozens of sites. I manage to coordinate all those names and passwords, without Facebook to do it for me. Firefox will do it, Chrome will do it, and there are several 3rd party apps to do it. Facebook? Maybe you haven't got the news yet. Facebook's product is YOU, the "consumer". They sell you to the highest bidder, and maybe to the second and third highest too.

Re:This is more proof

[bws111]

Hmm, OK, if you say so. However, the Kansas Driving Handbook says you must pass both the written and driving tests, or have a certificate of completion from driver education.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Konqueror, you insensitive clod!

Re:This is more proof

[silverspell]

If you have NO credit history whatsoever, then yes, I think it's a fair bet that you're the kind of person who's too attached to his fantasies of perfect autonomy, and who uses words like "sheeple". Such a person is someone I'd rather not hire, if an equally (or more) competent candidate is available; they're generally tiresome, pedantic, and childish, and see themselves as enlightened figures in a world of fools.

It's a serious hassle to do without credit in this society, and you have to have some serious ideological baggage to make a lifelong point of doing so. More to the point, credit represents a willingness to take on obligations to other people and fulfill them over the long term. Going into long-term debt and repaying it in a timely manner is a sign (not 100% reliable, but still a sign) good judgment, fiscal discipline, and personal integrity.

If someone isn't willing to do that -- if they go to great lengths to retain the fantasy that they can give it all up at any time and head off into the wilderness, perfectly autonomous and beholden to no one -- then it seems to me that they probably haven't come to terms with adulthood.

Re:This is more proof

[Oswald McWeany]

Yes- but if you don't go to the DMV you can't be entered into the public lottery that everyone craves:

Jury duty.

Re:This is more proof

[Kamiza Ikioi]

That's a great system that the United States will never adopt. Between the tin foil hats and the Apocalypse believers, we're thoroughly terrified against any type of secure identity verification cards. Because, after all, it's a slippery slope to reading your brain, watching you have sex with your wife using satellite x-ray vision, and tattooing 666 on your forehead.

So... "no need to understand how it works"? I see you've not encountered sheer stupidity in its raw, unbridled form. Welcome to the United States!

Re:This is more proof

[Bucky24]

To be honest, the DMV doesn't force you to use their services. It's not mandatory for every citizen in the US to drive, or write checks. Yes, it's pretty damn useful, and a lot of jobs require it, but the DMV doesn't force anyone to get a license.

Re:This is more proof

[interkin3tic]

Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services. Nor can they push a unique identifier on you which is then used as an id by numerous different databases.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that private companies don't have the bigger effect. Facebook is nearly completely voluntary, but the privacy erosion going on there is still on a much bigger scale than some DMV employees breaking the law. I know the general sentiment around here is that you deserve what you get if you sign up for facebook, but I don't take that point of view.

Re:This is more proof

[Bucky24]

Often having no credit history is worse then having bad credit. If you have bad credit at least the companies checking you know that you're high risk to give money/service to. If you have none then they don't know, and that bothers them even more. An employer will wonder if maybe your identity is fake, since having a long credit history is probably the best way to show you are a real person.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: We are rightfully concerned about being *compelled* to use such an identification scheme.

I see you've not encountered sheer stupidity in its raw, unbridled form.

No doubt there are some people who refuse to be a cog in the machine for stupid reasons. But many people have considered the consequences and decided they prefer to not have these so-called "smart IDs." Reasonable people can disagree, but it is certainly remarkable that your stance is basically "damn your preferences, damn your reasoning, you are stupid!"

Re:This is more proof

[Bucky24]

So you trust Google to handle your passwords, but not Facebook? I'm quite sure Chrome reports your usage data just as much as Facebook does.

Re:This is more proof

[Bucky24]

Washington does (the state on the West coast, not the capitol). Oregon does too, as I recall, though in Oregon they require a written test.

Re:This is more proof

[Bucky24]

I see no reason why Ford can't be legally liable for handing over the keys to someone who didn't pass a vehicle test, or a parent can't be legally liable for loaning the keys to a teenager.

I dunno about others, but when I purchased my car Honda made sure I had a valid license before selling it to me. Then again that doesn't mean it was legally required of them-maybe they just wanted to do it.

Re:This is more proof

[bryan1945]

Bingo!
My wife, who does loans and such at a bank, will occasionally come home with interesting stories about people's credit checks.

Re:This is more proof

[Nidi62]

More proof that the best government is the one that governs least.

There are plenty of examples why we have an overreaching government. Corrupt and criminal bureaucrats in an organization that is providing a legitimate government service (and even a small government needs licensing for motor vehicles, and therefore a department to oversee it) is not one of them. Although, since you are AC, you are probably just trying to make libertarians look bad.

Re:This is more proof

[bryan1945]

Or more to the point, New Jersey.

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

If this happened to a private company they would be dragged into court and sued to death, or at least be forced to drastically change policies.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're funny. Thinking that a company would actually be held responsible for their actions. Just like Sony was held responsible for their data breach this past summer?

Seriously, the private sector is no longer held accountable for almost anything these days.

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services.

Care to point out where you are forced to use the DMV's services? Remember, operating a motor vehicle on public infrastructure is a privilege and a choice, not a right. You are perfectly free to not have a driver's license.

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

It is required if you wish to participate in society, and not live in a shack in the middle of the woods.

Credit cards might not be needed, but credit itself definitely is, especially when renting an apartment or buying a house.

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

Any employer that refuses someone because they don't have a credit history is foolish.

Nice reply, full of idealism. Meanwhile, you're still out of a job.

Re:This is more proof

[Runaway1956]

Did I say that I trust Google? I said that Chrome can manage your passwords, I didn't say that I use Chrome to manage my passwords. Now, whether I trust Google or not, my browsers are configured according to my own preferences. I use addons, starting with Ghostery and NoScript. I also use a HOSTS file, to block connections to various advertising and tracking sites.

Why on earth would I trust anyone who is KNOWN to sell information on their users? Google, Facebook, it's pretty much the same. Perhaps I should have said in my original post that I don't sign in with Facebook OR Google? I thought I got the point across that I don't use the social sites to connect to the world.

Re:This is more proof

[Bigby]

In a free market, the roads would be private. Each road, in order to improve customer satisfaction, will have standards. They will only accept drivers with a certain certification demonstrating their ability to drive a car. If you don't get that certification or can't afford the toll, then you don't get on the road.

The more I think about it, I want it to be that way. :-)

Re:This is more proof

[bws111]

Both OR and WA state in their drivers manuals that both 'written' and 'drive' tests must be passed before getting a license. They both state that the applicant must provide the vehicle for the 'drive' portion of the test.

When I said 'road test', I did not mean a test on public roads, but a test where you must demonstrate at least some skill driving an actual vehicle.

I still maintain that there is no state which will give a new, unlicensed driver a license based solely on tests 'entirely on a computer'.

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

Driving is, in much of American a NECESSITY. To claim it is a privilege may be linguistically accurate, but it is not accurate at all. It is a necessity for most of us.

Nope. That's entirely a function of your choice on places to live. If you decide to live somewhere with a bad public transportation infrastructure, then you've made the choice to need to drive, and thus to use the DMV.

Yes, it should be difficult to have a license. People should be required to actually know what the fuck they're doing before they should be allowed on the public roads.

Re:This is more proof

[PRMan]

See? There are people that think that!

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

It might interest you that there used to be way fewer teachers, no administrators, no dept of education ... and the quality of education was way higher

And what percentage of the population was actually educated?

If you really think that the government doesn't do anything good, you need to think again.

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

So they should be doing exactly what they do today?

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

Your entire point falls apart when you fail to post which states actually allow a previously unlicensed driver to get a license without a road test. It fails even more when you fail to answer the parent's question.

Re:This is more proof

[Bucky24]

If a driver has a driver's permit do they consider that time spent driving to be a drive test, or does the test have to be with a licensed instructor?

Re:This is more proof

[PRMan]

But in California you are still required to have a DMV ID card.

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

You haven't answered his question. Further, you went on some bullshit rant about "what the free marked does," which is completely irrelevant, as it doesn't address the question.

If the manufacturer and/or seller of a gun is liable for what the new owner does with it, or a bartender is liable for what a patron does after purchasing booze, or I get in trouble for selling you a class 4 laser and you do something dumb, I see no reason why Ford can't be legally liable for handing over the keys to someone who didn't pass a vehicle test, or a parent can't be legally liable for loaning the keys to a teenager. Thats how it works in private aviation, anytime anyone crashes for any reason, the vehicle manufacturer gets sued, because that's where the money is.

This is a complete and utterly worthless idea that would have no chance of working whatsoever.

It doesn't mean no laws could ever exist, or no judicial system could ever exist, or no civil courts could ever exist.

It does mean that those things are far, far weaker, and have a far, far lower chance of actually protecting anyone.

Re:This is more proof

[bws111]

I don't think time spent with a permit is normally considered to be a driving test. However, if you take a drivers ed class with a state-certified instructor some states may waive the 'road test'. In those cases, the certification of the instructor no doubt includes requirements that he test the students the same as a state examiner would.

Re:This is more proof

[isorox]

Because a private company would never be caught doing something like this. Nope. They are all completely above any kind of corruption.

Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services. Nor can they push a unique identifier on you which is then used as an id by numerous different databases.

I wonder how many Americans have a driving license.
I wonder how many have a facebook account.

You don't need to have either.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had a Massachusetts driver's license since I was 16, a Massachusetts voter's roll entry since I was 18, and basically did nothing to avoid jury duty. Yet in my 15 years of adulthood I have never once been called to it. Which is too bad, because actually serving on a jury is something I want to do once.

Re:This is more proof

[trum4n]

I use firefox. I use ad-block+. I don't care that i am being tracked. I am not scared of the magic light that comes out of those glass orb things. There is nothing you can do about it, deal with it. Advertising is annoying, not a threat. Seriously, you tin-foil hat is clearly fucking up the logic circuits in your brain.

Re:This is more proof

[Imagix]

BC, Canada. Requires multiple road tests before you get an "unrestricted" licence. Learner's permit to begin with (written test). Road + written test at 1 year to get your class 7 license (has more restrictions that the normal class 5 license, such as: 0 alcohol tolerance, no handheld devices (even handsfree), only 1 passenger except for family, or if you have a supervising class 5 driver). Another road test 2 years later (or 1.5 if you've taken formal lessons) to get your normal class 5.

Re:This is more proof

[bws111]

A drivers license does not 'literally tell that you are over 18, and that is it'. A drivers license says that the state authorizes you to drive on public roads. Getting such authorization in the first place requires as least some demonstration of knowledge and skill. The more important function of the license is that it can be revoked once you demonstrate that you in fact do not belong on public roads, so that your driving on public roads now becomes a crime. That is regulation.

Re:This is more proof

[interval1066]

Seriously, the private sector is no longer held accountable for almost anything these days.

I'm sure Bernie Madoff will be disagreeing with you.

Re:This is more proof

[Coolhand2120]

They were held to account. Tens of thousands of people stopped using Sony's service and switched to a competitor because of the breach. There still may be litigation against Sony that you don't even know about. I'm sure just as many people are appalled at the DMV and would just love to stop using the DMV and start using a competing service. It's called the "invisible hand", maybe you should learn a little about economics.

Re:This is more proof

[Gilmoure]

Yup, same here; want to be on a jury. 'Course, I'm a veteran, NRA member, and a democrat. No one will ever allow me on one.

Re:This is more proof

[jmottram08]

Texas, among the others listed. Its not "crap", its true.

Re:This is more proof

[AngryDeuce]

In my experience, a learner's permit is simply a permit that allows you to operate a motor vehicle provided there is a licensed driver with you to supervise (the requirements obviously vary from state to state). Everywhere I've ever lived, if you don't have a learner's permit, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever you are allowed to be sitting in that driver's seat regardless of how many licensed driver's there are in the car. Also, there is an age requirement; a 12 year old is not allowed to get a learner's permit.

In some states you are even required to take a certified Driver's Ed course if you want to get a license under the age of 18 (usually given through school although ), and everywhere I've ever lived required a road test when you got your first license regardless. The learner's permit was necessary was to give you legal right to sit in the driver's seat and actually learn how to drive; other than that, it doesn't count for shit (well, except possibly for insurance purposes; I'm sure the second that someone in the household gets their permit the car insurance companies want to know about it so they can jack your rates up but I haven't experienced that yet.)

The time requirement I'm not really sure about. I'm sure that varies from state to state as well, but there's never been any time requirement in learning to drive that I've known of. It was up to the applicant to demonstrate that they knew how to drive on the road test, the instructor couldn't care less if you learned in a few days or a few years.

By the by, my road test was a complete joke. I literally pulled out of the parking lot at the DMV, made 4 right's around the block, pulled in, and backed into a parking spot. I didn't even have to wait at a light, I just had to demonstrate that I recognized that I was allowed to turn on red and that sometimes I would not be allowed to turn on red. Then again the written test is a joke, too. Maybe the problem is that the requirements aren't stringent enough?

Re:This is more proof

[icebraining]

How exactly is this worse than having an SSN?

Re:This is more proof

[Bucky24]

Oh I'm aware of what it's for. My post was in response to GP's saying that a driving test was required. I was wondering in if those states a permit is considered a driving test since as far as I had heard they didn't require one (though again this was something like 7 years ago so things may have changed).

Re:This is more proof

[Sulphur]

I know it is sarcastic, but a license is more than about driving. It doesn't even have to do with driving. In most States it is required to have identification, and that is handled by their DMV-like institution. You don't have to drive. You don't have to drink alcohol. You don't have to vote. But you still need an identification.

DMV also issues identification cards that do not include driving; at least in Louisiana.

Re:This is more proof

[interval1066]

I disagree. I've shed myself of all habits of buying on credit and quite happy with the descision. I also however disgree with the view above that not using credit means you don't have a credit history. You have a credit record, whether you use it or not. When I am asked by an employer (hasn't happened yet, but if it does) I will simply answer that I choose not to use credit. The last time I had to turn on a service (a DSL line through AT&T) they simply remarked that I didn't have enough of a credit history for them to overlook the $99 deposit. So I paid the $100. Big deal. Not having a tangible credit history is something I miss terribly. Nor does it mean I don't have one. Not exactly.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, you haven't had to renew your driver's license recently. Under the "Real ID" law, I recently had to present proof of identity (picture ID such as previous DL or passport); proof of right to be in the US (SS card and passport or birth certificate if born here; otherwise, naturalization certificate, green card or appropriate visa); and proof of residence (e.g., lease and bank or utility company statement sent to the address you want on the license). It's probably faster and easier for an illegal alien to buy a good faked or stolen DL than it is to get one for real.

Re:This is more proof

[interval1066]

Are these activities without credit? I haven't had a problem doing any of these things, I use an ATM card.

Re:This is more proof

[webdog314]

It should be noted that none of the licenses you cited (with the possible exception of the private pilot license, and maaaybe the temp driver's license) endanger other people beyond yourself. A driver's license isn't just to protect you, it's to protect *everyone else*, and in a way that crosses state boundaries. There are just too many "John Smith's" in your state (let alone in the whole U.S.) to not have some secondary means of identifying you are you, especially given that driver's licenses are used as a primary for of identification (whether they should be or not).

Re:This is more proof

[rickb928]

Some are also selling data on you to commercial outfits, charging more fees per legislation to help fund other government operations, and being forced into the role of maintaining the consolidated ID, merging voter registration, picture ID services, and even masquerading as immigration identity managers.

Securing your personal data would be a nice feature to have.

A few, very few, make a little money on the side by selling special access to data. That revenue is being retained by clerks, at least in New Jersey. This falls within the description of 'illicit access to data'. So I guess, in New Jersey, 'securing your data' wasn't part of the daepartment's mandate, or not done very well.

Ugh.

Re:This is more proof

[rickb928]

Well, since I used the qualifier 'much of American (sic)', you're missing my point.

Much of America doesn't have useful public transportation. If you think living in Montana, for instance is optional, and having to suffer the DMV to be able to travel there is a self-induced trauma, ok, you got me.

But even where there is some public transportation, certain jobs just need personal transport. I was a field tech for almost 35 years, and taking the bus would just not work.

You're sounding a little like someone who thinks private transport is a problem. Maybe so, but the complaints about DMVs that fail to serve their customers is not solved by eliminating cars. Do that, eliminate cars, and depopulate 40-60% of the US. In other words, stupid.

Or are actually defending government agencies that fail to serve their customers well?

Re:This is more proof

[cdrguru]

Read Revelations. You do not need to provide your SSN to buy something, but any sort of chip and pin system would indeed involve "having a number to buy stuff". I forget the exact phrasing in Revelations, but if you stop your average bible-thumper on the street he can clarify it for you.

That isn't to say that the introduction of the SSN wasn't met with "Mark of the Beast"!!! There are still people that refuse to even have an SSN because of what it implies to them.

Re:This is more proof

[cdrguru]

This is NOT corruption. This is enterprising people supplementing their low, low public salaries.

What? Do you not believe this is being done nationwide? Let's make it clear, if you pay people a pittance they will find ways to supplement their income. Waiters sell credit card numbers. DMV staff sell whole identity sets. IRS people probably sell tax information. If it isn't nailed down or otherwise secured and someone who feels they are underpaid is handling it, it is being sold.

This has nothing to do with corruption. This has everything to do with the perception of people that they have to do more to get money. Somehow.

Also, it may not have occurred to people that this is something all that bad. Where is the 30 page document they have to sign (and initial every page) that spells out exactly how they are the "guardians of private information" and must not disclose this to anyone. And, better yet, spells out the penalties for disclosing information. No such document? Well, maybe it isn't illegal at all then - at least in their minds. Most of the people that are doing things you might consider "evil" or "wrong" have never really considered what they are doing to be all that wrong in the first place. Perhaps not something they want to wear a sign saying they did, but nevertheless not really all that wrong.

Re:This is more proof

[alamandrax]

You are the 1%

Re:This is more proof

[Red Flayer]

In most States it is required to have identification, and that is handled by their DMV-like institution.

Citation, pls?

AFAIK, it is generally *not* required to have identification. It is, however, required that you present identification for certain functions (like getting a job, though it's federal regs that govern I9 verification).

Re:This is more proof

[Red Flayer]

Source, please. I can't find anything to support that claim.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a lot more choice of lube in the matter than with governmental agencies.

FTFY.

Re:This is more proof

[shutdown -p now]

I hope you do realize that most sniper rifles are in .50 BMG or similar calibers. Indeed, most NATO sniper rifles are .308.

Re:This is more proof

[icebraining]

(...) if you stop your average bible-thumper on the street he can clarify it for you.

Well, as I said, I live in Portugal, a place where the majority of Christians are pro-choice and 90% are in favor of contraception and sex before marriage. Finding a true bible-thumper on the street in a city is extremely improbable.

But I don't get what do you mean "to buy stuff". Buy what? It's not a credit/debit card, just ID.

Re:This is more proof

[bws111]

From the Texas Administrative Code: (a) The department administers a road test to determine an applicant's ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable control of a motor vehicle; such applicant must meet a predetermined score. The road test will be given in English or Spanish only and will consist of three separate standalone examinations, designated as the on-street test, the backing test, and parallel parking test, and will include the following maneuvers:

Looks like Texas requires a road test. Try again.

Re:This is more proof

[AEC216]

Missouri uses all privately contracted businesses for their DMV offices.

The main centers are still run by the state.

Basically, whatever private firm is handy out the most hookers and blow through lobbyists gets the contracts every year.

Re:This is more proof

[Belial6]

That is the funny part about people who claim that it is paranoia to worry about extending the use of the SSN. With SSNs we are at the bottom of the slippery slope. Not the top.

Re:This is more proof

[Belial6]

And whether you are right or wrong, the fact that you believe it is a self proving point. The previous posters can argue whether your position is rational or not, but they cannot argue that no one has your point of view. And, since getting a job happens because someone makes a decision based on their point of view, and not the accuracy of their point of view, your point is made.

Re:This is more proof

[jmottram08]

IDK if you are being purposefully stupid or not. . . but i got by licence about 10 years ago without taking a road test, and a friends son -just- got his a month ago without a road test as well.

If you actually had knowledge about how things happen in reality instead of your fantasy bubble where everything goes your way, you would know that -everyone- just uses this section . . . (2) The skills test will be waived for applicants that have completed the laboratory phase of driver education in Texas provided they are 16 years of age or 15 years of age if applying for a Minor's Restricted Driver License (MRDL). The skills test will not be waived when an applicant is 19 years of age or older. The applicant must present a properly completed DE-964 or DE-964E form. . . . to get a license.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Re:This is more proof

[Ramahan]

To be honest, the DMV doesn't force you to use their services. It's not mandatory for every citizen in the US to drive, or write checks. Yes, it's pretty damn useful, and a lot of jobs require it, but the DMV doesn't force anyone to get a license.

Nope the DMV doesn't force you to have a Drivers License but you bright bulbs do realize that the DMV also issues the State Non-Driver ID you need if you don't have a Drivers License. Want a job you better have an ID to show or you can explain to ICE that you're really a Citizen and they can ask your Mom! Want to leave Town for a bit of Vacation DHS says you need to have that State ID or your Drivers License to board a Bus, Train, or Plane! Want an Apartment, Electric, Phone Service, Insurance then you better have some piece of ID from your local DMV!

Re:This is more proof

[rednip]

Read Revelations.

Why? Just because some guy on the radio tries to scare you into buying gold or dispensation with such tales, that doesn't mean it's true.

Re:This is more proof

[qbast]

Great. So you need just one person to argue that not painting your ass blue is sign of stupidity to make it self proving point?

Re:This is more proof

[qbast]

If you have NO credit history whatsoever, then yes, I think it's a fair bet that you're the kind of person who's too attached to his fantasies of perfect autonomy, and who uses words like "sheeple". Such a person is someone I'd rather not hire, if an equally (or more) competent candidate is available; they're generally tiresome, pedantic, and childish, and see themselves as enlightened figures in a world of fools.

Just to check - 'no credit history' means 'never borrowed money from a bank or similar institution?'

It's a serious hassle to do without credit in this society, and you have to have some serious ideological baggage to make a lifelong point of doing so.

Maybe it is difference between US and Europe, but honestly I never had any need to put myself in debt. I don't understand why are you trying to make it into some kind of ideology.

More to the point, credit represents a willingness to take on obligations to other people and fulfill them over the long term. Going into long-term debt and repaying it in a timely manner is a sign (not 100% reliable, but still a sign) good judgment, fiscal discipline, and personal integrity.

Going into long-term debt as sign of fiscal discipline and personal integrity. Wow. So I guess living within your means is sign of financial laxness? Guess what was that housing bubble crash 3 years ago - everybody and their dog taking a mortgage no matter if they were able to repay it or not. How is that for crazy ideology? I feel like I am talking to an alien.

If someone isn't willing to do that -- if they go to great lengths to retain the fantasy that they can give it all up at any time and head off into the wilderness, perfectly autonomous and beholden to no one -- then it seems to me that they probably haven't come to terms with adulthood.

What great lengths, what are you talking about? Not spending more than you have is just a common sense. Of course, if you want to buy a flat then you probably will need a credit. On the other hand you don't need to buy one right after finishing college - there is this thing called 'renting'.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me like someone has his own delusions to deal with--like the notion that he has the ability to tell a prrson's life story, personal beliefs, and work ethic based on a lack of information. Funny how people who accuse others of immaturity constantly demonstrate it themselves. Grow up.

Re:This is more proof

[bws111]

So you are saying you can pass 'the laboratory phase of driver education in Texas' without being road tested? Bullshit. You already have been road tested by someone certified by the state in that case. Your point that no demonstration of driving skill is required is still 100% false.

Re:This is more proof

[WindBourne]

There is a reason for that. Basically, we saw what happened in Germany and have back lashed against it. I will say trhat I grew up with jews that had numbers on their forearms. Some told me what happened with great sadness or hate in their voice, while others, when I asked, just gave a look that said that they just died remembering what happened (I was guessing that they only recalled it in their dreams, which I am quite sure, haunt those that are still alive to this day).

Somewhere along the line, we have to figure out a way to provide a decent ID, while at the same time, stopping it from being use d negatively. In light of how easily that that W/neo-cons did so much damage in the USA and in the world, I doubt that we can ever get that to happen.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

He stole from rich people. Stealing from the poor/middle class is acceptable in the US. In fact, it's become the official position of one of the largest political parties.

Re:This is more proof

[thoromyr]

Somehow I don't think you have ever read "Revelations" so I'm not surprised that you have forgotten "the exact phrasing".

The book you meant was "Revelation" or "The Revelation of St. John". Don't worry, I'll bet you say "I'm going to Walmarts", too. For some reason English speakers often add an extraneous 's' to the end of words.

But in any case that book is a coded reference to people and governments long gone and is not prophetic. (Getting in trouble for speaking out against a government isn't a new problem.)

Re:This is more proof

[thoromyr]

Missouri tried using SSN (though they gave you the option to revert to the old number, which option I exercised), but have given up on it. The military has switched from SSN to a service number. Universities that once used the SSN for a student number have either converted to a different system or are looking at doing so.

Although the SSN is widely abused and I expect this abuse to continue (particularly with financial related tracking) the pendulum seems to be swinging back a little (or at least slowing in momentum).

Re:This is more proof

[thoromyr]

If you never used credit, then you simply won't have a credit history.

Oh, sweet naivete. You so obviously do not practice what you preach. My younger sister had a credit history pre-dating her birth.

Your potential employer will ask why. You will say that you don't believe one should rely on debt. Any employer that refuses someone because they don't have a credit history is foolish.

And the potential employer will most likely not ask you. Will consider you suspect for assiduously avoiding something as normal as having *some* sort of credit history. They will simply determine that you are suspicious and go to the next potential employee. What, you thought you were a special, unique flower that was going to get special attention?

Remember, it isn't a bad credit history; it is NO credit history.

Right. This is again how I know you are talking out of your ass. In terms of credit checks, yes it *is* bad. Nothing is more terrifying for someone checking up on you than to not find information.

You can get a phone and Internet without credit. It is just month-by-month and requires a large deposit.

All these examples can do all the credit checking they want. They will just find no history with a lot of inquiries. Most places understand the difference.

Right. So I take it you live out of a cardbox box? Enjoy being detained by the police for public vagrancy?

The only problem will be around purchasing online, booking a flight, or getting a hotel room.

Sure, those are the only problems...

Re:This is more proof

[Belial6]

Nope. You seem to be confused between opinion, facts, and the fact that there are opinions. Don't feel bad though. A lot of people can't tell the difference. If you tried real hard, you might be able to figure it out.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

they *all* involve providing credit...at least in the traditional model. That Cell phone bill isn't for this month, its last month...

Re:This is more proof

[s73v3r]

If you think living in Montana, for instance is optional

It is. The government isn't putting a gun to your head and saying, "Live in Montana, dammit!" (with the exception being the military, but then you've already made a choice to allow that in the first place). Are you trying to say it's not?

But even where there is some public transportation, certain jobs just need personal transport. I was a field tech for almost 35 years, and taking the bus would just not work.

Again, that's your choice to take that job. Nobody forced you to.

Furthermore, nobody is talking about "eliminating cars". We're saying that it is YOUR CHOICE and COMPLETELY OPTIONAL to have a driver's license. That's all.

Re:This is more proof

[silverspell]

Perhaps the US vs. EU perspective is relevant here. Unless they come from a rich family, most US residents need to take out loans to pay for college. Similarly, most people also need financing for their cars, a mortgage for any real estate they might buy, and so on. If you start a business with a physical presence, you'll almost certainly need a loan to cover startup costs and acquire capital. Remember, I said "going into long-term debt and repaying it in a timely manner" is a sign of good character. These are all legitimate reasons to do that.

There are damn good reasons to have a credit card other than living beyond one's means. They're safer than debit cards for many situations (better fraud protection), and they offer decent incentives to people who can pay their bills on time every month. Here, again, they provide evidence of a person's ability to manage his/her money. People also lose their jobs, have unexpected medical bills, or go through messy divorces, and credit cards can be a lifesaver in those situations.

Obviously age is a factor and I wouldn't judge a 20-year-old by the same standards as a 40-year-old. But certainly if you reach middle adulthood (30-45) and have never had any of the experiences I describe above, I'd be suspicious and expect that either

(a) you were a Dale Gribble-esque figure with a paranoid, black-helicopters political ideology and a habit of pontificating about it, or

(b) you were unable to accept the idea that being an adult means owing debts to other people -- financial debts, professional obligations, personal relationships -- and sticking around, no matter what, to repay the people who trust and depend on you.

The perfect is the enemy of the good, as the famous aphorism says. People who try to be perfect -- who refuse to accept that life is complicated, and that you can't do anything worthwhile without making compromises and incurring debts -- are generally unambitious at best, and toxic at worst.

Re:This is more proof

[mcgrew]

A debit card is even riskier than a credit card.

Re:This is more proof

[interval1066]

Perhaps, I suspect they actually have about the same risk.

Re:This is more proof

[BranMan]

Driving is a necessity - agree with you there. Is the Gov. supposed to license it, in order to 'keep us safe' from unqualified drivers? I'm not sure it does that now, to be frank. And, there is the argument, going all the way back to the Magna Carta, that all citizens must have freedom of movement - to use the roads and highways of the land without restriction. If you follow that view, then we really do not legally need a drivers license at all to drive on the roads.

Re:This is more proof

[rickb928]

They ' keep us safe' not with licenses, but with enforcement. Licensing becomes record keeping.

Re:This is more proof

[DanTheStone]

I believe the concern is that it will be required for every transaction to prove it's authorized by you and as an internet "driver's license" so that you can't do anything without being tracked by the government and various industry groups. We like our anonymity.

Re:This is more proof

[icebraining]

Well, one thing isn't necessarily tied to the other. We definitively don't have anything like that.

Re:This is more proof

[jmottram08]

If you really think that any person with a drivers licence is certified by the state to be adequate to measure driving then you are a fool.

Everyone has a drivers licence, and all you need is a signature that isnt even checked to not have to pass a road test.

Re:This is more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you get so upset over the fact that he cares more about privacy than you do shows that you have much deeper "issues" than you claim he does.

And yes, you ARE upset, and yes, it IS solely because he is more proactive about his privacy than you are.

You are now raging impotently at me for pointing out these facts. Your efforts to pretend you are "amused" will fail to convince even yourself.

Re:This is more proof

[Thing 1]

Well said.

Wow

[DWMorse]

I bet there are a whole SLEW of Psychiatrists that would just LOVE to learn their methodology for making identities!

Not surprised

[Lyrata]

I wouldn't pay more than $200 to be from New Jersey, either!

Re:Not surprised

[Moheeheeko]

I would pay a hellova lot more, however, to have a fake ID saying im NOT from New Jersey.

Re:Not surprised

[TheGratefulNet]

it would really depend on 'which exit'.

(some will get this; and some will not.)

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

i saw that movie, too!

(true non exclusive or false)

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Only those who actually live off of the turnpike - many of do not (and you can understand us when we speak).

Re:Not surprised

[Bucky24]

many of do not (and you can understand us when we speak)

Barely... Or was that sarcasm? (Hard to tell)

Re:Not surprised

[blair1q]

Those who do who aren't from any exit will answer: Nah, really, it don't.

Re:Not surprised

[Sulphur]

I wouldn't pay more than $200 to be from New Jersey, either!

You can't hire a Coyote for that anyway.

SSNs?

[Manip]

Why can normal day to day employees even view plain text social security numbers? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to hide that information like banks do with credit card numbers?

Also, I find it ironic that these two relatively low level criminals will get the book thrown at them, but when the DMV legally sells that information to marketing companies everyone is happy. I guess they don't sell SSNs but still, thin line.

Re:SSNs?

[Moheeheeko]

You would be suprised. At the local Community college, thats like a student ID number.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would make a lot more sense is for banks and credit agencies to stop using the SSN as a master password. That's not what it was ever designed for.

Re:SSNs?

[the_fat_kid]

normal day to day employees can probably read them because we have become lax about where we use our SSN.
Want a phone? SSN
want a rental? SSN
want credit? SSN
talk to someone at support? SSN

Once upon a time these were supposed to be a Secret number that you only shared with the government and an employer.
Now it's how you prove your citizenship and credit worth.

Re:SSNs?

[vlm]

What would make a lot more sense is for banks and credit agencies to stop using the SSN as a master password. That's not what it was ever designed for.

They "need" it to tell the IRS who made interest income so they can cross check automatically against tax returns. You'd need an alternative solution, such as possibly, stop charging income tax on interest.

Re:SSNs?

[flaming error]

Social Security Numbers were never really meant to be all that secret.

Every organization that decided to use them as a secret was stupid, and if they were intended to secure anything important, irresponsible/criminal.

SSNs, like biometrics, have all the right characteristics for account ids, and all the wrong characteristics for a password.

Re:SSNs?

[saleenS281]

None of those employees need to be able to read existing entries though. All they need is a field where the rep asks you for your SSN, they type it in and hit a button, and it matches it against the database. If for some reason it wasn't matching, and they needed to actually view the entry, they would request a manager to unlock the one record for them temporarily.

This would severely limit the amount of information they had access to.

Re:SSNs?

[Jeng]

Drivers licenses aren't national so they don't work well as identifying information and passports aren't common enough to work either.

The one piece of identifying document everyone has in the US is a social security number, until a national ID is standard the SS# will be used out of necessity.

Re:SSNs?

[Narcocide]

I've seen employers use it as the employee ID too. One place I worked at you had to type your SSN in to a physical console twice a shift (to punch in and out.)

Re:SSNs?

[tripleevenfall]

I haven't had my SSN on my driver's license for a long time. I'm not sure why anyone ever would.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same, when I worked at Circuit City. Oddly enough at the time I thought it was helpful, as that how I finally got around to memorizing it...

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

We needed a universally unique personal identifier. Only the feds could actually create one, and the SSN is the only one they ever got political consensus to create.
The real problem is treating it as both identification and authentication.

Re:SSNs?

[jmottram08]

Lets be clear here, it was criminal to use them for anything other than social security for anyone, private or government.

Now it is illegal for any government agency to require you to give your SS#, apart from the social security office.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Receive call
Step 2: Type in SSN
Step 3: Ctrl-C to Notepad

Am I the only one that doesn't see the deterrent in your system? The only change that would exist would be you have to call/visit the DMV to get screwed.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it is illegal for any government agency to require you to give your SS#, apart from the social security office.

It would be interesting to see the source for that claim.
If true, it's a huge Catch-22, since other laws make it illegal for many government agencies to provide services without a SSN.

Re:SSNs?

[ColdWetDog]

We needed a universally unique personal identifier. Only the feds could actually create one, and the SSN is the only one they ever got political consensus to create.
The real problem is treating it as both identification and authentication.

Three ID's for Credit Reporting Agencies under the sky,
Seven ID's for Three Letter Agencies in their halls of stone,
Nine ID's for each system you log on to.

One ID for the DHS on it's dark throne,
In the Land called DC, where the shadows lie.

One ID to rule them, One ID to find them
One ID to normalize the database and in the darkness bind them.
In the land called DC where the shadows lie.

(Apologies to just about everyone)

Re:SSNs?

[jpapon]

such as possibly, stop charging income tax on interest

lol, if that's a "solution" it's to a completely different problem.

Re:SSNs?

[Serious Callers Only]

It's an identifier, not a password. Anyone expecting it to be secret or treating it as a password is wrong. SSNs should be public identifiers as they are in other nations, not some secret code.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would make a lot more sense is for banks and credit agencies to stop using the SSN as a master password. That's not what it was ever designed for.

This is exactly right. At least according to The Federal Government.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, I don't get what the big deal is with this SSN thing. Where I live we have them too, but if you want a phone/rental/credit you MUST show an id and then sign for it. Also you'll need to make copies for them, it takes only one or two minutes more.
If the person with the id doesn't match the picture, then the bank is responsible, if the id is fake, again, they're responsible. That SSN is NOT a password.

This just seems like the effects of some idiot in charge cutting corners to "streamline" stuff.

Re:SSNs?

[sexconker]

None of those employees need to be able to read existing entries though. All they need is a field where the rep asks you for your SSN, they type it in and hit a button, and it matches it against the database. If for some reason it wasn't matching, and they needed to actually view the entry, they would request a manager to unlock the one record for them temporarily.

This would severely limit the amount of information they had access to.

1) Please note what time it is.
2) Read your post again.
3) When you realize your folly, note the time again.
4) Please reply with the amount of time it took you to realize that if the employee KEYS IN the SSN YOU PROVIDE to match against, THEY KNOW the one you gave during account setup and the one you gave during the support call when they match. If they don't match, they know the one you gave during the support call and your solution is to UNLOCK THAT SINGLE ENTRY for them to view, so they know both anyway.

The proper thing to do is to NOT FUCKING STORE SSNs. But that would make selling the information and doing credit checks much more troublesome. So they don't give a shit. At lot of places at least let you set up a PIN number that you can use when talking to a customer support peon (as opposed to the last 4 of your social), at least.

Re:SSNs?

[saleenS281]

Again, SEVERELY LIMITING. If an employee is writing down every SSN that comes in, it will be extremely easy to figure out which employee is the one stealing ID's. Not to mention it'll be pretty obvious to supervisors walking around the office when they see someone writing down the SSN's. Furthermore, the number of ID's they can steal in a given month is minuscule in comparison.

Re:SSNs?

[saleenS281]

Obviously, because there's no possible way to lockdown a computer to prevent data from leaving it.

Re:SSNs?

[Bigby]

There is no incentive for the DMV to hide that information.

There is a lot of incentive for a bank to hide a credit card number...they are the ones ultimately liable for all the purchases.

Re:SSNs?

[DRBivens]

Lets be clear here, it was criminal to use them for anything other than social security for anyone, private or government.

Now it is illegal for any government agency to require you to give your SS#, apart from the social security office.

{{Citation Needed}}

I don't believe you're correct. A person's SSN is also their TIN, so the IRS requires it. Also, HHS requires it for Medicare (and--I think but am not sure--Medicaid), FEMA requires it on disaster aid loan applications, and every employer is required to collect (and report) it for tax purposes, not just for FICA. Have you ever tried to open a back account without one?

I suspect there are others examples.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets be clear here, it was criminal to use them for anything other than social security for anyone, private or government.

Now it is illegal for any government agency to require you to give your SS#, apart from the social security office.

Not true. cf. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78/~/legal-requirements-to-provide-your-ssn

Re:SSNs?

[Urza9814]

Once upon a time these were supposed to be a Secret number that you only shared with the government and an employer.

No. SSNs were NEVER supposed to be private. It's a freakin account number. The problem isn't them being used publicly, the problem is them being assumed private.

Re:SSNs?

[Cro Magnon]

It used to be required, at least in my state.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of incentive for a bank to hide a credit card number...they are the ones ultimately liable for all the purchases.

So cute! People still believe that banks bear all the costs of credit card fraud.

Newsflash: The loser in a credit card case is the merchant (they get hit with a chargeback, meaning they lose the money AND get $100 (fee varies) taken out of their account just because). They also run the risk of the bank getting angry enough to raise their required reserves. This isn't hypothetical, see http://www.frontierairlines.com/restructure/

The tender loving care banks promise their cardholders isn't altruism. It comes from the horrible bloody buttfucking of merchants.

Re:SSNs?

[PatDev]

I'm assuming this is sarcasm. If it is not, my apologies.

But no, there is no possible way to lockdown a computer to prevent data from leaving it. You can mitigate by limiting the amount of data that can leave it, but you can't prevent data from coming off it (at least not while being used for its intended purpose at the DMV).

Sure, you can install filtering software to DPI everything leaving the machine and uninstall all text editors and remove the ability to install additional software. But at some point, the operator has to read information off the screen, and that's the analog hole you've hit right there. Even if sufficient surveillance is employed to prevent employees writing SSNs down on paper, there is still the possibility of the employee just remembering them. Given that a 9-digit SSN doesn't really have 9 bits of entropy and names are generally easy to remember, I'm guessing an employee using mnemonics could still easily recall 3 identities per shift. At $200 or more per identity, an extra $600 per shift is enough of a payday to motivate someone to try.

Re:SSNs?

[space_jake]

Last 4 of SSN

Re:SSNs?

[sexconker]

Again, SEVERELY LIMITING. If an employee is writing down every SSN that comes in, it will be extremely easy to figure out which employee is the one stealing ID's. Not to mention it'll be pretty obvious to supervisors walking around the office when they see someone writing down the SSN's. Furthermore, the number of ID's they can steal in a given month is minuscule in comparison.

Not limiting at all, because the way it is right now every account lookup is logged already.

Re:SSNs?

[mcgrew]

Are you kidding, or are you young? Keeping SS#s secret is a new thing. Hell, they used to print your SS# on your driver's license. ID theft didn't become a big problem until the internet.

Re:SSNs?

[bws111]

Be sure to let us know how your tax case works out when you refuse to provide your SSN to the IRS.

Re:SSNs?

[saleenS281]

Of course! Someone having full access to every SSN in a database is the exact same as only having access to SSN's given to you over the phone by customers. It's not limited at all!

Re:SSNs?

[zzsmirkzz]

Social Security Numbers were never really meant to be used for identification

There, fixed that for ya. It even says so, right on the card.

Re:SSNs?

[Qzukk]

until a national ID is standard the SS# will be used out of necessity

And at that point, the national ID will be used for everything and we're exactly back where we are now, where everyone knows your ID and yet everyone expects you to be the only one who knows it.

Re:SSNs?

[phorest]

Too bad my mod points went away or you'd get an insightful from me.
I think where even old-timers like me get confused with the big warning that said:
"Not to be used for identification purposes"

Re:SSNs?

[Jeng]

Yes, but if they go for an ID then personal information can be used to verify the identity of the person presenting the ID.

Such as Race, Age, Height, Gender, and a picture of what you personally look like. That information is not available to confirm a SS, but is for a drivers license.

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is when I started reading the first stanza, I didn't immediately get the reference. My first thought was "How does he know it took seven ID's to get this job, and nine ID's/Passwords every time I want to log in..."

Re:SSNs?

[mcgrew]

Thanks, but I wouldn't need it anyway. And someone gave it an "informative", I'm guessing that most young people today don't realize that SS was never intended to be an ID number, and in fact one of the reasons for being against SS when it was first enacted was that it would become a "national ID card", and were assured that "oh, no, we'll gurantee it isn't ID". Now they don't even bother printing that "Not to be used for identification purposes" on it.

Re:SSNs?

[Bucky24]

Aye, the one where I went had this policy too. We had to type it in to login to the timesharing computer in the labs. The timesharing computer which ran Windows. Someone could have easily popped a flash-drive with a keylogger onto it for a few hours and no one would have known. JCs have terrible technical security.

Re:SSNs?

[Bucky24]

Don't be sorry, that was really good :D

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it wrong that my initial interpretation of "where the shadows lie" involves telling falsehoods, rather than just laying down / existing?

Re:SSNs?

[s73v3r]

And obviously there's no way to take a picture of the list with my phone, or barring that, write down the list on a piece of paper.

Re:SSNs?

[jmottram08]

"apart from the SS office"

Re:SSNs?

[blair1q]

The problem is them being assumed to be useful as identifiers anywhere other than the SSA itself.

The IRS should be issuing tax IDs to everyone and having no interest in your SSN.

The police and department of motor vehicles should likewise be identifying you uniquely and not even asking for your SSN.

Also, the SSN, even if it were a unique identifier, which it is not, should be coupled to another, positive form of ID, like fingerprints.

The problem is the laziness and ignorance of anyone other than the SSA who thinks they can just draft off the SSN system for their identification system.

The bigger problem is the number of total ass-heads who think that a proper national ID system is somehow a violation of their rights. I'd like to see them point to where in the Constitution it says you shouldn't be ennumerable and identifiable. I can show them parts where it says the government is responsible for counting you once and only once, which any person familiar with counting (much less computing) means you have to be distinguishable from everyone else.

Re:SSNs?

[blair1q]

So, uh, who gives a shit if we have national ID, cards or no cards?

Not having them is a much slipperier slope than having them.

Re:SSNs?

[the_fat_kid]

Sorry, sir.
I'll get the hell off of your lawn, now.

Re:SSNs?

[choongiri]

One ID to rule them all, One ID to find them
One ID to SELECT them all and in the darkness LEFT JOIN them.

FTFY

Re:SSNs?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't SSNs being assumed private, the problem is that they are used for anything besides managing Social Security benefits and tracking your payments into SS.

Re:SSNs?

[bws111]

The SS office is not the IRS.

Re:SSNs?

[bell.colin]

Don't give it, you would be surprised how many of those won't push you when you refuse.

I have done this at govt. facilities and they usually will skip it or not even notice you put nothing down, Most places/forms simply have a field and ask you to fill them all out.

Most people will simply fill out all fields that are asked on the forms, just because it is there does not mean it is necessary.

I don't fill it out for for govt. entry passes or medical forms. (no one has ever noticed or asked 99% of the time and those that do i remind them that number/info has nothing to to with the form I'm filling out and they drop it)

Re:SSNs?

[Thing 1]

Have you ever tried to open a back account without one?

I'd ask Dr. Bob.

Re:SSNs?

[AmiMoJo]

Sounds like you need a law banning that kind of thing. Remember that the law is to protect you, not corporations profits. Okay, it doesn't always work that way, but that doesn't mean you should stop trying.

Re:SSNs?

[thoromyr]

In my experience at an emergency room (regardless of the theoretical legal realities) you will be denied care unless you provide proof of insurance or an SSN (and are willing to argue). Generally speaking you are right, the spot on the form is just there for looks, but at the ER they ask for SSN (among other things) before they will provide service. It is hard to argue that you need a lawyer to explain to them why they don't need your SSN when you need immediate medical attention.

Also got into a big fight with an ob/gyn office over providing my ssn for my wife's care when we were already providing proof of insurance. Under the circumstances we had the time and will to fight it. Their final decision was that we could not provide SSN if we completely paid for *everything* (the entire term of care including delivery) up front and in full, for them to file against the insurance company they *had* to have my SSN. They did that because ob/gyn services (especially for delivery) are ridiculously expensive putting that option out of the reach of most people. They didn't get my SSN and we didn't have ob/gyn care or a hospital delivery. (Funny how that worked out...)

So while many forms have it and some places won't complain about it not being provided there *are* cases where they will complain *and* will refuse to provide service without it, either by simple denial of service or through refusing any reasonable, sane (even when legally required) alternative. If you don't hit those cases, great. But you live long enough you are likely to encounter them.

Re:SSNs?

[mcgrew]

Slippier slope? To where and from where? There was no such thing as as even a driver's license before about 100 years ago, and everything worked out.

Re:SSNs?

[bell.colin]

An SSN is only for use as by the SSA for retirement benefits, says so on the card (i even have that specifically says no to be used as ID and i am keeping it since some of the new ones don't)

They shouldn't be using it for these purposes and that "Is" the problem.

And sold the identities to Nigerians?

[Squidlips]

A few years back, some Nigerians openned their own credit agency and captured thousands of SSNs which they sold to other Nigerians for about $100 each.

Re:And sold the identities to Nigerians?

[Bucky24]

And then the owner died, leaving all that money to his widow who needs your help to retrieve it.

You're Going To See More and More of This.

[smpoole7]

It's not a government vs. private sector thing, either. The simple fact is, you will always be able to find some corruptible person who's will to sell (or "leak," if he/she is just trying to harm a rival) information.

I'm a geek and I loves me some technology, but still, I'm not blind to the dangers of giant databases filled with sensitive data And to be honest, I itch at the thought that anyone -- be it the federal government (with the Affordable Health Care Act) or private business (think of some large, national hospital group) has access to all of my medical records -- including prescriptions, diagnoses, and all the rest of it.

But I don't know what the answer is. Someone smarter than me will have to come up with that.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Sir_Sri]

The answer is government run healthcare with a government run database. Then if your medical records leak out it is *only* a privacy violation, and cannot effect further access to employment or medical care.

The advantages of a functioning single database are enormous. Depending on where you live, you may have to carry all of your relevant records between specialists as you get sent through the system when something is wrong with you. Each of those steps risks you losing something important, and puts undue pressure on the doctor you are seeing to assess whatever you bring them right there in front of you, while you're waiting. Assuming everything you bring is in a format they can use, and if not, well then there's a lot of time spent faxing/phoning etc. back and forth. The risk that your privacy can be invaded is well outweighed by the fact that your allergy to some random medication, or obscure but potentially serious condition is going to show up in a record somewhere when you get into a car accident on holiday out of province/state.

I'm in canada, so the only people who particularly care about my medical records but wouldn't be granted access to them are, my 'spouse' my kids (which I don't have but you get the idea), and well, that's it. And it doesn't matter who runs the healthcare system, if there's something in there I'm trying to hide, it's equally likely they'll be told regardless of who runs the database. But in a system where that information matters to insurance companies and employers, well then you have a problem.

The DMV thing having SSN's is unfortunate, but I guess it makes sense. Criminal activity (which I guess would be tied to your SSN?) is going to impact your ability to interact with the DMV, and as a government agency they're authorized to collect that data. Unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do to secure information they have legal access to under normal circumstances, it doesn't matter if it's paper or electronic.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[tripleevenfall]

The answer is government run healthcare with a government run database. Then if your medical records leak out it is *only* a privacy violation, and cannot effect further access to employment or medical care.

Well, we'll just chop off your nose, that way if you cut yourself shaving it's really no big deal.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[dkleinsc]

The solution that someone much smarter than me (Bruce Schneier) has repeatedly proposed is this: When doing something that involves sensitive data, you don't verify identity, you verify transactions. For instance, if you want to transfer money from your bank account, the question is not "Are you smpoole7?", it's "Does smpoole7 really want $150,000 to go to an account in Pakistan?". A smart bank will use alternate ways of contacting you (if they're really worried, they might even ask that you do this in person) to confirm that it is in fact your intent.

This has a lot of ancillary benefits that probably make it worth the expense. For instance, it helps catch errors by the actual owner of the account.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are, punishment for the breach isn't stiff enough.

They're essentially 'breaching the public trust', which all things being equally, really damages perception for the entire system. Punishment should be massive fines and long-term probation. Jail just doesn't seem beneficial here, since jail isn't about rehabilitation. Is it!

Do this sorta enough, and to extremes, and people are going to take their ball and go home. When basic services in 'the system' can't even be trusted (and let's face it, you really can't trust banks, the market, or insurance companies anymore, can you?), full fledged social break down isn't far off.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[smpoole7]

> you don't verify identity, you verify transactions.

I'll Google Schneier's proposal. I was thinking about something like that this morning, only for online transactions. I mean, it can't be all THAT deep, can it? I know it'll cost and it'll slow down the speed of transactions, but ... well, the way I look at it, 100 years ago, you either paid in person and/or signed a contract, or you didn't get what you wanted. I know we can't go back to that now, not unless we want to wreck e-commerce and online records in general.

But honestly ... why couldn't someone at least send me a quick email or text that says, "Joe Schmo wants to withdraw $500 from your bank account," or "Dr. Whazzup is looking at your medical records?"

We have the technology to do it.

Thanks for that. I'll take a look at Schneier's idea.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[TheGratefulNet]

every now and then, I see pushes (by someone) to have me put health records online or to have exchanges with doctors be online.

I have to explain to them - out of force of habit - that as a computer professional, and one who has a tiny bit of experience in security, I can't recommend this. I'm not sure if they are being pushed (the doctors) to advise their clients to 'go online' but I have to point out that I don't recommend it. I take advice *from* the doctor about bodily matters; but I would like them to take some advice from *me* when the subject is my expertise. they know nothing about how vulnerable computers and networks are; and its foolish to encourage their patients to 'go online'. nothing good will come of this and lots of bad surely will. we all know this.

health and private matters should NOT be encouraged to 'go online'. we are not good enough (overall) in security and until we have perfected it, personal and private things should not be encouranged to be publically networked. its just too soon, it really is. we have done a lot with computers but we still can't seem to secure them well enough for this kind of matter. lets hold off 'moving forward', ok?

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[jpapon]

Yes, because a privacy violation is "chopping of your nose", while not being able to access medical care is "cutting yourself shaving". I think you have your analogy backwards, buddy.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Anonymous Coward]

what? how the heck does that fit into context? Or are you suggesting public is worse by default? In fact that if you are American then both our health care services are worse than the Canadian system by any normal measure of success. Your system is more expensive than theirs while also being worse than mine (which is also public but costs more than a third less per person than the Canadian system) feel cheated yet?

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Zironic]

What are you on about? We don't 'all know' that 'nothing good will come from this'.

There's massive HEALTH benefits in having better communication with and between your doctors, it's those benefits you have to weight against the potential privacy issues and for most people personal health will win over privacy risks any day of the week.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Em Adespoton]

I'm sorry you feel that way. To many of us around the world, the US War on Public Healthcare looks an awful lot like the US War on Drugs. The information is only valuable because of how it can be (mis)used. Give everyone equal access to what the private information grants a select few, and the problem goes away. Of course, there *are* other problems created, but not of the "chop off your nose" variety.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Bigby]

Very true. It happens in all systems with similar ideas. The different here is that with the DMV, you don't have a choice. In a way it is like being forced into military service. You can disagree with the idea all you want, you would be forced into it. Hence the moral issue with government. It is giant trade-off between freedom and services.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[swb]

The health benefits only occur if you're actually sick or regularly need treatment from multiple providers, but the privacy and security risks are continuous and ongoing.

Plus, in my experience, the benefits of EHRs are kind of limited -- Doctor B probably won't bother to read the chart from Doctor A unless he wants to, in which case he'll ask for it, and most of the time they will otherwise run their own tests. Duplicated effort, but unless you force Doctor A to share risk with Doctor B, Doctor B will always be on the hook and want his own tests, and Doctor A will never accept the risk from Doctor's B's treatments based solely on the tests Doctor A provided.

And if you find yourself dealing with multiple, unrelated providers, you're probably screwed anyway unless these doctors know each other and have a good working relationship.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Zironic]

That's not an argument against sharing information better, that's an argument for beating Doctors over the head until they see sense and reform parts of the healthcare system.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[tripleevenfall]

GP was saying that because a couple of privacy violations were found, the entire health care system should be demolished to rectify that. I think you are the one who's confused.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see from your public health care records that you elected for such and such an elective proctological procedure that your doctor said wasn't necessary. Remember signing that employment contract that said no pervs? I'm not firing you for your health record, I'm firing you because you're a perv.
There was also that bit about no drugs of any kind. This is a strict (insert whackjob religion) outfit and I see you were taking codeine. You're double fired.

Still OK with this?

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[interkin3tic]

I guess it's time for "make a caricature of the opposing side of the healthcare debate." I'll return with this "Healthco has found that you had a nose before you purchased insurance with us, therefore this was a pre-existing health condition and we are not going to cover your pneumonia. Please pay the full amount of 4 million dollars for your hospitalization."

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[swb]

It's an argument against simpleminded justifications for information sharing.

Information sharing in a vacuum makes sense, but the context is not a vacuum, the context is healthcare and there's a lot more going on there, including reasons why more or less information isn't being shared now.

So you can advocate for information sharing among doctors, but you'll also have to advocate for a compatible overhaul of malpractice and probably tort reform as a whole so that it makes sense.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[blair1q]

I'm not sure how it's different.

The question "are you smpoole7" is asked in the context of a transaction in progress or about to be initiated. The bank doesn't just walk up to me every once in awhile and ask for my credentials. It asks for my credentials only when I want access to private information and transaction buttons. It asks for them once and I can do many accesses and transactions and then I can tell it I'm done, so next time I want access or a transaction it will ask me for credentials again.

The intent is innate in the fact that the request was made. You still need to ask the simple question "are you the person authorized to do this with the account you're trying to do it from?"

So either you're under-describing what Schneier said, or Schneier has schrewed the poeocsch on the paradigm.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Anonymous Coward]

You become the leader of a popular movement law enforcement feels is dangerous (or you take a stance on things ). They look for anything & everything in your life they can use to discredit you & smear you with. If you think that's unlikely, look at what the FBI has done in the past and continues to do to this day.

Now of course it's true that it won't affect the majority of people.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[dkleinsc]

Here's Schneier's essay describing this approach much better than I did.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I send money to an account that I've never sent money to before (using online banking), my bank (the biggest bank in Australia, Commonwealth Bank) sends me an sms with a security code to enter into the website. I don't think they write in the sms the details of the transaction though.

Re:You're Going To See More and More of This.

[Anonymous Coward]

we already have this in a third world country like india and all the banks follow this.

Sigh

[Aerorae]

I didn't realize that our identities were so worthless. Whether it is attributed to evil, or a lack of humanity on the part of the two employees, this represents a fundamental problem among people today: "Doesn't affect me, so I don't care."
I believe that will destroy us even faster than bank collapses or political corruption, in a sense because those maladies are results of the "I don't care" problem. "I can buy these horrible securities, if it goes bad, it doesn't affect me, so I don't care", "My constituents want this, sure it'll put 100,000 people out of work, but it doesn't affect me, so I don't care", "Hell I'll sell peoples identities, sure they'll be plagued by this for a matter of decades to come, but it doesn't affect me, so I don't care."
People need to care about things that don't affect them or else this world is very very doomed.

Re:Sigh

[Jeng]

If the person cared about others they wouldn't be working at the DMV.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the repercussions of the "Me" generation. It all started with shifting focus from the outside and how to fit into society and live with others to the inside. People don't know how to empathize with others any more. If it feels good to them, do it. Thanks hippies.

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

While you DO bring up a good point, the problem is that, as a society, we can't possibly care about absolutely every problem that doesn't affect us. We would simply grind to a halt trying to keep track of and solve everybody else's problems, and things would STILL slip through the cracks and we'd STILL get complaints.

Really, "Doesn't affect me, so I don't care" is the only way human beings can possibly cope as a society of individuals. Maybe a bit LESS of it would help, but your attitude seems to imply it's always a bad thing in all cases, and that just plain and simply can't work.

Re:Sigh

[blair1q]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but your life isn't worth much to a lot of people, either.

It depends on how distant they are from being/knowing you, and whether distance has any bearing on how much they care about someone, and whether they're bought into the concept that money can be more important than people.

There's quite a large number of people who'd sell you for $200. Especially if they think you're fighting in Iraq to get bin Laden.

Re:Sigh

[xenobyte]

If the person cared about others they wouldn't be working at the DMV.

Kinda sad, isn't it?

It should be a service institution helping people to get a license, but has turned into place too evil for Hell; the staff is rude, obnoxious, uncooperative and thrives on making people miserable through long queues, horrible service and a bureaucracy second to none. Why do we accept this?

Social security numbers?

[schwit1]

How does providing a SSN verify that the DL requester is who they say they are?

Re:Social security numbers?

[JJJJust]

It doesn't directly.

But, through SSOLV (Social Security Online Verification), DMVs match name and date of birth in SS record to name and date of birth on driver license/ID. If they don't match, no license is issued until the social security or license record is updated.

Re:Social security numbers?

[vlm]

How does providing a SSN verify that the DL requester is who they say they are?

My father did occasional DB consulting work for a collections agency in the 90s, so this is at best hearsay, non the less:

Places that accept personal checks, like to take either the DL number directly or a pointer to the DL such as a grocery store loyalty card.
The DL number points to a theoretically valid SS number.

So, if a guy bounces a check, standard procedure if he completely fell off the face of the earth, with the assistance of the judge, was to ask the bank for money from other accounts owned by the same SS number (presumably the guys savings acct or a CD), garnish the wages based on SS number, etc. Traditionally this was the step where they discovered identity theft (WTF you mean, I live in WI but I bought a used truck in AZ with a personal check that bounced etc etc).

I guess, depending on the state, its possible for a judge to put a hold on a drivers license renewal if a rubber stamped court judgment isn't paid. Also if criminal charges are filed, it can follow the DL number.

Re:Social security numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess, depending on the state, its possible for a judge to put a hold on a drivers license renewal if a rubber stamped court judgment isn't paid. Also if criminal charges are filed, it can follow the DL number.

Indeed, and NJ is a state that does this. I received a parking ticket, supposedly in 1999. I had moved from NJ to Florida in 1992. The podunk township said I didn't pay it (even though I wasn't even in the state for at least 7 years before or after the parking ticket and had never been to that town) and a Judge suspended my license, which I had already turned in when I got my Florida license in 1992. Fast forward to now: I try to transfer my FL license to NH, no go as my non-existent license in NJ was suspended. Either I had to travel down to this podunk town where the judge only came in once a week to argue my case or pay the fine PLUS the 100.00 NJ reinstatement fee for a license that didn't exist. They were even kind enough to send me stickers to update my license and registration with my NH address. Fuckers.

Re:Social security numbers?

[Bucky24]

If by DL you mean driver's license, I know that in CA you need a birth cert as well as an SSN to obtain one. Though those are pretty easy to obtain as well I imagine.

$200 is not cheap

[argmanah]

If you work in computer security and have dealt with the black market for stolen identities, you'll find out that $200 an identity is really pricey. It's a little scary, but the market rate for this kind of information is more like $5 a pop.

Re:$200 is not cheap

[Synerg1y]

$200 is what the DA says to make the defendant look like an undeniable monster, they do it ALL the time, it's called dramatization. Less people would care if all they were making was $5 a pop, but to sell an identity and get rich off it, whether they did or not, is how the DA is looking to pitch it.

P.S. I agree, $200 is way way over priced, these things come in lists of hundreds and thousands. I guess there is some data integrity guarantee, but not in that big of a price gap.

Re:$200 is not cheap

[jmottram08]

But you get to choose who you want it on. 5$ for some random identity from a shady seller that may or may not be real or be abused already vs having a specific persons identity on request from your state.

This is a specific target kinda thing, not a dragnet of identity thieves.

Re:$200 is not cheap

[Jason Levine]

And, what's worse, it means that the real identity thieves rarely get caught. Someone can use their place of employment to steal personal information and quietly sell it on the black mark for $5 a pop. They can even sell the same identity more than once. Those buyers, then, turn around and commit the fraud that is usually associated with ID theft. (Buying electronics under another person's name, opening and maxing out new credit cards, buying homes, committing crimes and giving another person's name/DOB/SSN when arrested, etc.) The buyer might be caught, but the seller can slip through to steal and sell more identities.

Re:$200 is not cheap

[Jeng]

If the cheapest you can get them is $200 it doesn't matter that someone else can get it for $5.

When dealing with illegal substances or information the markets are rather fragmented and you work with what is available to you.

Re:$200 is not cheap

[argmanah]

If the cheapest you can get them is $200 it doesn't matter that someone else can get it for $5.

When dealing with illegal substances or information the markets are rather fragmented and you work with what is available to you.

Hi, you've missed the point of my post entirely. The point is not that the people involved were charging too much. The point is that, ultimately, someone could very likely have paid as little as $5 in order to commit fraud and totally destroy your financial stability, at least for a time. The fact that the market price for such data is so low shows just how saturated the market is for people who want to buy this kind of stuff.

Re:$200 is not cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, but the beauty of it coming through the DMV is that you then get yourself printed up a nice shiny new DL. Without all those DUIs on the record, and/or as proof of everything from lawful residency to ability to operate (perhaps) a truck...

AC

Re:$200 is not cheap

[Jeng]

How much is a verified NJ identity?

You may be able to get unverified ID's for $5 each in bulk, but not verified ID's with all the information that was being given by the DMV.

Corruption in New Jersey?! Never.

[jellomizer]

New Jersey isn't know for corruption, what is next the quaint little city of Chicago?

No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what the answer is. Someone smarter than me will have to come up with that.

There isn't a politician or bureaucrat alive who isn't smarter than you -- and with hundreds of ideas on how to make the business of government bigger and more lucrative.

At Least We Know Who They Are

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't post them here, but their names, ages, and the street and city of their home addresses are printed here (http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/11/22/news/doc4ecc4666f2fd8820324874.txt?viewmode=default) along with ready made drivers license quality photos!

Ironic, no?

I'm guessing they won't have the greatest credit scores though.

downside to buying IDs from DMV

[corbettw]

You have to stand in line for hours just waiting to get the CD with the data on it. And don't get me started on all the forms you have to fill out!

time to make an example...

[drew_92123]

And give these greedy assholes a decade or two in prison with no chance of parole.

Re:time to make an example...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Time to fix the broken system which requires the use of a number which you have to give to everyone and keep private.

If anyone has prison time, it should be the DMV management who thought using the SSN everywhere and making it easily accessible to every dope on staff is acceptable.
That's the only way to get this behavior to stop - when management has their ass on the line for these types of failures.

Re:time to make an example...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, the punishment for such actions must be severe enough to ward off a lot of these Criminals.

I'm really not worried...

[Oswald McWeany]

I'm really not worried; at the speed the DMV moves, we'll have already lost to China in WWIII and have a Chinese ID card (and number) long before they manage to actually sell my American SSN.

NJ MVC

[Anonymous Coward]

NJ Motor Vehicle Commission is the MVC and not DMV because it was privatized several years ago.

Most normal/typical requests at a NJ MVC office can be handled in less than 15 minutes since they were privatized. I'm sure identities are being stolen at DMV's all over the US.

I hate going to any government-run bureaucracy for some needed service, but I have to admit that the NJ MVC experience is light years better than the stereotype.

Re:NJ MVC

[s73v3r]

So you're saying that it wasn't a government agency that had employees stealing sensitive data, but a private company?

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are NJ prosecutors investigating state employees? From where did NJ law enforcement acquire the ambition to file charges on these people? The answer to this question is left as a exercise to the reader. Hint: it comes from the top, as it always must.

Meanwhile; here are some photos of these lovely people.

This is just the way it's done.

[cvtan]

Why trouble yourself making fake licenses when you can get a real one!

Our benevolent overlords!

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one can't wait until our benevolent overlords have full access and care of our medical records! Surely the solution to data breaches like this is not less access, but more regulation!
If your identity has been compromised, please see these forms and provide this other formerly confidential information to this new department, and petition the appropriate functionaries at the end of the queue...

$200 per identity

[slapout]

"as little as $200 per identity"

Must have been the identities of the cast of 'Jersey Shore'

Too bad we allowed the lobyists...

[forkfail]

... to bribe the legislature to weaken the laws concerning social security numbers. Used to be that it was actually illegal to use a SS number for any purpose other than tracking your social security. Now it's basically the key into all your private accounts.

911 operators

[p51d007]

Have access to the same information, BUT, they audit everything you run, so, if you run someone that you had no business accessing...they will call you on the carpet for it. Sounds like the DMV in New Jersey needs to beef up its way of doing business.

Not new...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something similar has happened at least twice in Ohio in the recent decade. In both cases the deputy registrar offices were involved in making fake IDs. So it wasn't about stealing identity, but instead about making one up.

For what it's worth...

[gillbates]

The Illinois DMV sells this sort of information. For the cost of registering a corporation (about $100), the IL DMV will sell you as much info as you're willing to buy. Had this guy worked at the IL DMV, no one would have noticed.