Well, up to a point in time, the SSN was not to be used for identification purposes. My father's Social Security card actually says that. Mine doesn't.
But let's look at what you need versus what you get. From my experience, you need, at a minimum, a person's first and last name, their DOB, their SSN, and a primary address. Okay, sure, depending on which service you use, the DOB or the address might be optional.
What you get back (assuming the credit report request was successful), are credit scores (ranging from, IIRC, 300-900), a list of liabilities, both current and historical (going back... I think seven years), and payment history on those liabilities.
So, you might get something like "Here's Joe Example's credit card debt, and payment history on that. He had a medical debt two years ago that's paid off." and so on.
You may also get public records on tax liens, bankruptcies, and judgments against them, if there are any, and if they're recent enough. (Again, I believe the records fall off after seven years have passed.)
But you just can't walk into one of these businesses that process credit report requests and say "Hey, I know I just walked in off the street, I want to pull a credit report on this guy." For every one of the businesses that I know that do this sort of thing, you have to have an account with them. So that they at least have some record of who is asking for this. And for billing purposes, because this is not a free service.
Now, you could argue that it's relatively simple to set up such an account, so you could start pulling credit reports on people, and maybe it is. But if you have nefarious purposes in mind, like identify theft, well... if you already have their name, address, DOB, and SSN, what the hell do you need their credit report for?
They typically use a number of 'attributes' to positively identify someone. SSN is one. But they also use first name, last name, DOB, etc.
Now, if SSN is unique, then why do they need all that other information? To protect against a fraudulent credit request or a request without enough information.
So, you send the credit request to whatever company.... odds are you're not directly asking the three majors (Experian, Equifax, TransUnion), for the information. But regardless, you send the request off. Let's say you have the right name, and the right SSN, but whoever handled the data entry on the DOB had a typo in there.
It _should_ come back with a response that your identifying information doesn't match anyone. But that all depends on which service you're using. Some are much more on the ball about this sort of thing. Hell, some of the services won't let you pull a credit report UNLESS you have all that info and more, just to cut down on requests.
Lots of companies can pull credit reports on their customers (usually with customer permission). I mean, if you've ever tried to get a major loan, it's happened. Or even applying for certain jobs, the company could request a credit report from the three majors (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion).
If you read the article (heresy, I know), you'd see that some of the safety standards that would be "relaxed" are things like brake pedals, steering wheels and the like. Which, if it's a self-driving car that is not intended to have a human driver ever (as is, it's not an option at all), that makes sense.
I tend to think that's going to be a harder sell to the typical American, though.
I mean, it's one thing for a car to have the options for both human driving AND autopilot. Some people will be leery of that, but then they just won't use the autopilot. But a car that only has a self-driving option? A lot of people won't buy cars like that, for a variety of reasons.
So, slightly on topic story. I got a new car a little over three years ago. When it got to 3000 or so miles on the odometer, I took it to a service station to get the oil changed. They told me that it really only needs it every 4000-5000 miles depending on the car. That the old "every three months or 3000 miles" adage really doesn't apply any more.
Except that if it didn't stand a chance, then why bother having former Keebler Elf and current Trial-size AG Jeff Sessions come out and announce it was ending?
I mean, they could have let those 10 states take it to the Supreme Court, and if it didn't stand a chance, then SCOTUS would have handled that.
As it stands now, Trump has done nothing but thrown a bone to his base, and shuffled the decision off to Congress. I mean, yes, it kicks the problem immediately away from him, but there's actually more of a chance that Congress, between the Democrats and moderate Republicans might actually bring back DACA. (I say more of a chance, because, again, by your reasoning, if DACA stood no chance, then any chance it has in Congress is greater. I mean, there are already a few Republicans coming out and saying what Trump did was cruel and pointless.)
I mean, look at the damn thing. Clearly, this was designed to piggyback on the market that Kuerig is exploiting. The difference is, the Kuerigs (or at least the older models) don't have DRM, don't require Kuerig branded cups, and can do more than coffee. I've seen tea and cocoa K-cups, because basically, the operation is the same - run hot water over contents of K-cup.
This damn thing had a much more limited run of choices, there were no outside brands you could use with it, and the stupid thing wasn't even that efficient. I mean, I'm sure people with more money than sense bought some, but given the price point and the problems it had, there was no way this thing was going to take off.
And now they're looking for a buyer? Good luck with that. I'd say that I doubt any investor is quite that stupid, but it's possible that Juicero has some patents that are worth something.
Yes, there are certain checks on the freedom of assembly.
Generally speaking, if your assembly gets violent, you can expect the police to get involved, and you really can't claim that as a violation of your freedom to assemble. (Well, you can claim it, but whether the judge buys it is a different matter.)
And again, generally speaking, the law can restrict when you gather. For example, you can't expect to be holding a loud (albeit peaceful) rally in the wee hours of the morning without being cited for disturbing the peace.
I got on Facebook because, one day, in the mail, I received someone else's W4 form. I figured, "Hey, they may want this.", so I asked around. The apartment building manager was no help (I don't mean this in a negative way, though... she genuinely did not have a followup address for this person.), but I figured, what the hell, I'll check Facebook.
Only I didn't have an account. And you couldn't search Facebook (at the time, it may have changed) unless you had an account. So, I created one, with the intent of deleting it shortly afterwards.
Only, no luck on the search. Oh well. As a last shot, I went to a business around the corner, where I knew the owner. I asked (not expecting a positive answer), if she knew the person. She did. Shocking. Anyway, I passed on the W4, and went back to delete my (at this point) 20 minute old Facebook account.
I already had a dozen friend requests from friends and relatives. In 20 minutes. The hell?
But yeah, Facebook is creepy efficient about that sort of thing.
At the University I went to, there were roughly 30,000 students at the main campus. I may have actually interacted with a couple hundred, tops. And that's over eight years (two degrees).
If you're running a business of public accommodation (that is, a business open to the public), then you cannot legally refuse service to a customer solely because that customer is in a protected class.
Federally, there are several protected classes. Gender, nation of origin, age, race, etc. Each state is free to _add_ to that list (and several have), but they can't take any of those classes off of the federal list.
So, a bakery cannot refuse service to someone solely because, for example, they are black, or from France, or old.
In the case of the bakery in Colorado, sexual orientation is a protected class. (Colorado added it to their list in 1990.)
Therefore, the bakery in question cannot legally discriminate against the same-sex couple wanting a cake solely for the reason for their sexual orientation.
If the bakery in question had been booked solid and been unable to produce the cake in time for the event, and told the customers that, there wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
If the bakery in question didn't even have the ability/facilities to produce wedding cakes (say they were a bakery that only did cupcakes and other pastries), and told the customers that, there wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
The bakery owner made the very dumb (legally) statement of telling the couple that he was denying them service based on their sexual orientation.
Now, why is it apples and oranges?
Because being a racist isn't a protected class. But wait, I hear you cry, they're all white racists! Isn't race a protected class?
Yes, it is.
But they're not being refused service because they're white. They're being refused service because they're racists. And Cloudflare can almost certainly find something in their ToS that will legally let them go "You violated this term. Buh-bye."
Vanguard America has been trying to distance themselves.
"Yeah, I know the guy was photographed with us earlier in the day, and he was carrying one of our shields in the picture, but he's not with us really."
As a wild guess, I'm betting that the app requires all kinds of access to your phone/personal data that it probably doesn't need in order to tell you which theaters nearby are "in network".
They're seeking the visitor logs. Did everyone who visited the site commit a crime? We're not talking about a site that is, in and of itself, hosting illegal content (such as child porn). We're not talking about a search warrant that is limited to finding information about the people who were arrested in D.C.
The search warrant is overly broad. Any sensible judge should either disallow the search warrant or order it to be limited to those who were arrested for rioting/vandalism during Trump's inauguration.
Colorado doesn't allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is, in Colorado, sexual orientation is a protected class.
The bakery was not the one being discriminated against.
When you have a business of public accommodation, as the bakery was, you cannot discriminate/refuse service to a customer based on their inclusion in a protected class.
If the bakery in question didn't even offer wedding cakes as one of their services (like they didn't do cakes at all, for instance), then it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
If the bakery in question had been solidly booked and there was no way that they could produce the cake in time for the event, then it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
But when they flat out told the customers that they were refusing service to them because of their sexual orientation, it became a discrimination case.
The driver of the car (James Fields Jr.) was hanging out with one of the white-nationalist/neo-nazi groups earlier in the day (something vanguard, I think). That group has already claimed "Uh, he's not with us.". Now, whether that's because he's really not with them, or they just realized how much shit is about to drop on them is an open question.
That wooshing noise was the point you just missed.
Wootery is using an alias. Wootery is not anonymous. There is a slight difference.
You can search slashdot and find other posts by Wootery. However, it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to tell one AC from another. Are you the same AC who posted above? Or the one with the post full of spelling errors? We can't know.
Hell, it might not even be something a site administrator can tell.
But we can look at posts by Wootery and go "Hey, this is the same Wootery who posted on that article about Threadripper, or that article on the latest idiocy by Microsoft."
Slashdot Mirror
I assume that you cannot sue in small claims court if Equifax says your data/credit report/personal information wasn't affected in the hack?
Well, up to a point in time, the SSN was not to be used for identification purposes. My father's Social Security card actually says that. Mine doesn't.
But let's look at what you need versus what you get. From my experience, you need, at a minimum, a person's first and last name, their DOB, their SSN, and a primary address. Okay, sure, depending on which service you use, the DOB or the address might be optional.
What you get back (assuming the credit report request was successful), are credit scores (ranging from, IIRC, 300-900), a list of liabilities, both current and historical (going back ... I think seven years), and payment history on those liabilities.
So, you might get something like "Here's Joe Example's credit card debt, and payment history on that. He had a medical debt two years ago that's paid off." and so on.
You may also get public records on tax liens, bankruptcies, and judgments against them, if there are any, and if they're recent enough. (Again, I believe the records fall off after seven years have passed.)
But you just can't walk into one of these businesses that process credit report requests and say "Hey, I know I just walked in off the street, I want to pull a credit report on this guy." For every one of the businesses that I know that do this sort of thing, you have to have an account with them. So that they at least have some record of who is asking for this. And for billing purposes, because this is not a free service.
Now, you could argue that it's relatively simple to set up such an account, so you could start pulling credit reports on people, and maybe it is. But if you have nefarious purposes in mind, like identify theft, well... if you already have their name, address, DOB, and SSN, what the hell do you need their credit report for?
They typically use a number of 'attributes' to positively identify someone. SSN is one. But they also use first name, last name, DOB, etc.
Now, if SSN is unique, then why do they need all that other information? To protect against a fraudulent credit request or a request without enough information.
So, you send the credit request to whatever company.... odds are you're not directly asking the three majors (Experian, Equifax, TransUnion), for the information. But regardless, you send the request off. Let's say you have the right name, and the right SSN, but whoever handled the data entry on the DOB had a typo in there.
It _should_ come back with a response that your identifying information doesn't match anyone. But that all depends on which service you're using. Some are much more on the ball about this sort of thing. Hell, some of the services won't let you pull a credit report UNLESS you have all that info and more, just to cut down on requests.
Lots of companies can pull credit reports on their customers (usually with customer permission). I mean, if you've ever tried to get a major loan, it's happened. Or even applying for certain jobs, the company could request a credit report from the three majors (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion).
Here's some stats:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...
If you read the article (heresy, I know), you'd see that some of the safety standards that would be "relaxed" are things like brake pedals, steering wheels and the like. Which, if it's a self-driving car that is not intended to have a human driver ever (as is, it's not an option at all), that makes sense.
I tend to think that's going to be a harder sell to the typical American, though.
I mean, it's one thing for a car to have the options for both human driving AND autopilot. Some people will be leery of that, but then they just won't use the autopilot. But a car that only has a self-driving option? A lot of people won't buy cars like that, for a variety of reasons.
So, slightly on topic story. I got a new car a little over three years ago. When it got to 3000 or so miles on the odometer, I took it to a service station to get the oil changed. They told me that it really only needs it every 4000-5000 miles depending on the car. That the old "every three months or 3000 miles" adage really doesn't apply any more.
Except that if it didn't stand a chance, then why bother having former Keebler Elf and current Trial-size AG Jeff Sessions come out and announce it was ending?
I mean, they could have let those 10 states take it to the Supreme Court, and if it didn't stand a chance, then SCOTUS would have handled that.
As it stands now, Trump has done nothing but thrown a bone to his base, and shuffled the decision off to Congress. I mean, yes, it kicks the problem immediately away from him, but there's actually more of a chance that Congress, between the Democrats and moderate Republicans might actually bring back DACA. (I say more of a chance, because, again, by your reasoning, if DACA stood no chance, then any chance it has in Congress is greater. I mean, there are already a few Republicans coming out and saying what Trump did was cruel and pointless.)
And nothing of value was lost.
I mean, look at the damn thing. Clearly, this was designed to piggyback on the market that Kuerig is exploiting. The difference is, the Kuerigs (or at least the older models) don't have DRM, don't require Kuerig branded cups, and can do more than coffee. I've seen tea and cocoa K-cups, because basically, the operation is the same - run hot water over contents of K-cup.
This damn thing had a much more limited run of choices, there were no outside brands you could use with it, and the stupid thing wasn't even that efficient. I mean, I'm sure people with more money than sense bought some, but given the price point and the problems it had, there was no way this thing was going to take off.
And now they're looking for a buyer? Good luck with that. I'd say that I doubt any investor is quite that stupid, but it's possible that Juicero has some patents that are worth something.
Yes, there are certain checks on the freedom of assembly.
Generally speaking, if your assembly gets violent, you can expect the police to get involved, and you really can't claim that as a violation of your freedom to assemble. (Well, you can claim it, but whether the judge buys it is a different matter.)
And again, generally speaking, the law can restrict when you gather. For example, you can't expect to be holding a loud (albeit peaceful) rally in the wee hours of the morning without being cited for disturbing the peace.
I got on Facebook because, one day, in the mail, I received someone else's W4 form. I figured, "Hey, they may want this.", so I asked around. The apartment building manager was no help (I don't mean this in a negative way, though... she genuinely did not have a followup address for this person.), but I figured, what the hell, I'll check Facebook.
Only I didn't have an account. And you couldn't search Facebook (at the time, it may have changed) unless you had an account. So, I created one, with the intent of deleting it shortly afterwards.
Only, no luck on the search. Oh well. As a last shot, I went to a business around the corner, where I knew the owner. I asked (not expecting a positive answer), if she knew the person. She did. Shocking. Anyway, I passed on the W4, and went back to delete my (at this point) 20 minute old Facebook account.
I already had a dozen friend requests from friends and relatives. In 20 minutes. The hell?
But yeah, Facebook is creepy efficient about that sort of thing.
At the University I went to, there were roughly 30,000 students at the main campus. I may have actually interacted with a couple hundred, tops. And that's over eight years (two degrees).
Uh, they've sold grocery items for a while now.
Okay, it's been years since I was last in a Whole Foods, but did they actually sell blue jeans?
Na na na na,
na na na na,
hey hey hey,
goodbye.
Apples and oranges.
If you're running a business of public accommodation (that is, a business open to the public), then you cannot legally refuse service to a customer solely because that customer is in a protected class.
Federally, there are several protected classes. Gender, nation of origin, age, race, etc. Each state is free to _add_ to that list (and several have), but they can't take any of those classes off of the federal list.
So, a bakery cannot refuse service to someone solely because, for example, they are black, or from France, or old.
In the case of the bakery in Colorado, sexual orientation is a protected class. (Colorado added it to their list in 1990.)
Therefore, the bakery in question cannot legally discriminate against the same-sex couple wanting a cake solely for the reason for their sexual orientation.
If the bakery in question had been booked solid and been unable to produce the cake in time for the event, and told the customers that, there wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
If the bakery in question didn't even have the ability/facilities to produce wedding cakes (say they were a bakery that only did cupcakes and other pastries), and told the customers that, there wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
The bakery owner made the very dumb (legally) statement of telling the couple that he was denying them service based on their sexual orientation.
Now, why is it apples and oranges?
Because being a racist isn't a protected class. But wait, I hear you cry, they're all white racists! Isn't race a protected class?
Yes, it is.
But they're not being refused service because they're white. They're being refused service because they're racists. And Cloudflare can almost certainly find something in their ToS that will legally let them go "You violated this term. Buh-bye."
Vanguard America has been trying to distance themselves.
"Yeah, I know the guy was photographed with us earlier in the day, and he was carrying one of our shields in the picture, but he's not with us really."
I'm pretty sure it's heavily weighted towards PR.
Look, Wordpress is here to make money. You can't make as much money if everyone is boycotting your services because you "support" hate groups.
As a wild guess, I'm betting that the app requires all kinds of access to your phone/personal data that it probably doesn't need in order to tell you which theaters nearby are "in network".
They're seeking the visitor logs. Did everyone who visited the site commit a crime? We're not talking about a site that is, in and of itself, hosting illegal content (such as child porn). We're not talking about a search warrant that is limited to finding information about the people who were arrested in D.C.
The search warrant is overly broad. Any sensible judge should either disallow the search warrant or order it to be limited to those who were arrested for rioting/vandalism during Trump's inauguration.
Were there 1.3 million rioters?
This clearly isn't an incredibly broad overreach by an administration that shows that it hates being questioned or criticized at all.
Oh shit, did I have sarcasm enabled?
Colorado doesn't allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is, in Colorado, sexual orientation is a protected class.
The bakery was not the one being discriminated against.
When you have a business of public accommodation, as the bakery was, you cannot discriminate/refuse service to a customer based on their inclusion in a protected class.
If the bakery in question didn't even offer wedding cakes as one of their services (like they didn't do cakes at all, for instance), then it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
If the bakery in question had been solidly booked and there was no way that they could produce the cake in time for the event, then it wouldn't have been a discrimination case.
But when they flat out told the customers that they were refusing service to them because of their sexual orientation, it became a discrimination case.
The driver of the car (James Fields Jr.) was hanging out with one of the white-nationalist/neo-nazi groups earlier in the day (something vanguard, I think). That group has already claimed "Uh, he's not with us.". Now, whether that's because he's really not with them, or they just realized how much shit is about to drop on them is an open question.
That wooshing noise was the point you just missed.
Wootery is using an alias. Wootery is not anonymous. There is a slight difference.
You can search slashdot and find other posts by Wootery. However, it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to tell one AC from another. Are you the same AC who posted above? Or the one with the post full of spelling errors? We can't know.
Hell, it might not even be something a site administrator can tell.
But we can look at posts by Wootery and go "Hey, this is the same Wootery who posted on that article about Threadripper, or that article on the latest idiocy by Microsoft."