Not trying to scare anyone here...but...my wife works in this field (no not stealing identities, helping people resolve issues arising from stolen identities!) and unfortunately it is not just about your credit. If someone gets hold of your SSN together with your name they can 'become you' in many different ways.
One of the scariest things is when your number gets used for reporting income by many people. Even if income tax is withheld on the wages of these imposters guess what happens when you work 20 different $20,000 per year jobs...you end up in the top tax bracket, and of course it looks like you've take the standard deduction 20 times. Guess who the IRS comes after to get all those extra taxes...the actual owner of the SSN of course.
Oh and imagine what happens when someone gets your SSN and other info then applies for a driver's license in your name. Maybe 6 months later you get pulled over for a routine stop and dragged to jail for non-payment of speeding fines or even worse crimes.
Are any of these likely, no...but as with all matters of probability unlikely does not mean never...it does happen to somebody.
And on the topic of companies using SSNs for non-essential situations...someone in that organization needs to look at a few recent laws regarding the correct handling of NPI (non-public information) such as:
FACTA (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act) (which applies to more than just credit transactions) under that act the loss of unsecured customer OR employee NPI can result in federal and state fines, civil liability and responsibility for any actual losses.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FACTA/ or http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/11/041118disposalfrn.pd f)
If you are a medical organization take a look at HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), this one is a doozie as it can result in jailtime for executives.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIPAA/ or http://www.hipaa.org/)
Interesting...at no point during my post did I raise the issue of my children's exposure to the games, yet that is the point you chose to focus on. I also at no point expressed support for Mr. Thompson and in fact find his approach abhorrent especially since the tactics used by slime like him reduce the ability of the rest of us to have a reasoned discussion.
My concern is the lack of parental responsibility exhibited by OTHER parents. I cannot control that and so felt that some reasoned discussion of how to reduce the risk generated by those irresponsible members of society might be appropriate.
Look we already know there are limits to the rights mentioned (not granted, since they are inalienable) in the bill of rights. You cannot yell fire in a crowded cinema...Child and some other forms of pornography are rightly banned and not covered by the first amendment...So I am guessing we are already in agreement that some forms of speech are not acceptable, the debate is over where the line should be drawn. I am not proposing that all violent video games should be banned but there should be a reasonable debate over the level of violence that constitutes obscenity (in its wider definition, not restricted to sexuality) in all media, not just games.
I home school my children and what they play and watch is pretty tightly controlled, but I am not a rabid censor, they see many shows and play many games that are rated above their current age; with plenty of parental commentary, open discussions about ethics and morality and the right framework to ensure they understand the difference between reality and fantasy this is not a problem. Actually, as an aside, what really disturbs me is that even when I try to control my kids media intake I am constantly stymied. My 5 and 6 year olds love to watch the Discovery/Science/History channel but are bombarded with images not during the programs but during commercials and trailers that are not appropriate for their age, even on the Disney Channel during G-rated toddler shows I have seen unedited trailers for shows such as CSI. I wish people would focus on reducing the potential for incidental exposure of children to unsolicited violent and disturbing images rather than obsessing over irrelevancies such as Janet Jackson's Superbowl exploits. Oh and with the current trends in DRM, and the desire of media companies to remove my ability to capture and edit TV shows to remove those commercials/trailers, my options for removing that undesireable content will be reduced even further, as far as I know current and future versions of the V-chip will not help with this.
I do not subscribe to the view that either violent or pornographic images will spontaneously create dangerous predators, but when combined with a lack of moral guidance and responsible involved parenting there is at least circumstancial evidence that this can happen in children.
Again, this is not about my kids getting access to this stuff, and I would hope that if you read my first post objectively you would understand that. The discussion is about the absentee and downright irresponsible parents and their poor kids...how we might take steps to protect society from their poor parenting, whether such steps are currently necessary and if not, at what point they might become necessary. Since mandating good parenting is unlikely to work:) reducing exposure to poor role models including ones that are virtual is, in my opinion, a reasonable alternative to discuss.
I am a big fan of the free market (and have flirted on occasion with libertarianism) but whilst I agree 100% that responsibility begins at home it does not, unfortunately, stop there.
No matter how good a parent I am, how good I am at protecting my children from exposure to the evils of the world ( until they suddenly recieve their package full of maturity on their 18th birthday that turns them into responsible adults, followed of course by their responsible drinking skills 3 years later...subjects for another rant, but I mustn't get distracted ), I cannot as an individual protect them from the offspring of irresponsible parents who think nothing of letting their kids run riot, playing GTA at age 8, immersing themselves in unhealthy fantasies with no parental help, researching bomb building on the internet, etc... etc... (Warning the preceding sentence contains deliberate hyperbole!)
Too often as a society we think in terms of punishment rather than prevention. Making the parents responsible for their actions and the actions of their children would not bring my children back from the grave. Taking personal responsibility only goes so far...it is necessary but not sufficient...at some point we must stop and take responsibility for society as a whole or it will rise up and bite us.
It is not to protect your kids from you that these rules are necessary, but to protect you and your kids from those other out of control kids and adults.
(General comment not aimed at parent ->> We are told that giving up our liberties is not an option, unfortunately too often luxuries are presented as liberties. By all means lets draw a line in the sand around our inalienable rights but restricting luxuries is not the same thing as denying inalienable rights. My right to the pursuit of happiness does not extend to the joy I would get from wringing the neck of the that annoying git on the next block so why is questioning the potential for actual physical harm that may or may not result from the broad availability of certain entertainment materials shouted down so vehemently. )
Surely the price of living in a civilized society is accepting that some rules are necessary to ensure that the majority are not terrorized (I can't believe I used that word) by those minorities that include the irresponsible, the lazy, the greedy, the jealous and the downright evil.
I really relate to this comment. When I was in school (late 70s/early 80s in the UK) video games weren't quite the option they are now and TV was fairly limited, but we had the dice out pretty much every every night playing AD&D, Star Fleet Battles or similar and my grades held up fine (12 'O' Levels with 6As and 5 A Levels with 3As), even though I did the minimum necessary on homework...normally during school hours. Of course homework was nothing like the gargantuan task I see today in the US, it was a few hours a week at most.
Now I am older, and living in the US with two children of my own...one 5, the other 6. We home school both of them, and we let them both watch television and play video games every day, the amount varies but 2-3 hours total is not unusual.
Of course the video games are Civilization style strategy games on the PC or games that involve puzzle solving, such as Pikmin, on the gamecube (that one really taught my youngest good mental arithmetic skills when she was 4!). I do agree that most educational games are very poor, but the kids still play them and seem to enjoy them. We set our time rules such that 'fun' games are limited but there are no limits for the educational games.
As to TV...they watch PBSKids and Disney of course but, given a choice, their favourite shows are on the Discovery/Science Channel or Animal Planet, they particularly like 'How Its Made'. My biggest problem with TV is actually the commercials and (even worse) the trailers for adult shows that are shown even on these educational channels, they see more violence and mayhem in those than in any of the programs they watch!
When we see our kids together with others in their age group the difference in maturity level is staggering. I cannot stress enough the importance of engaging children in conversation at every opportunity and the right blend of TV and video games can provide great topics for those conversations. Our meal times are never dull, and we always eat together as a family. I remember one last week that started with how Montezuma always attacks you in Civilization IV, and ended up with the ecological effects of the Hoover Dam project!
I'll be sure to let everyone know how this works out in 15-20 years.
I have, and there are waiting lists in both countries that can of course be skipped if you are wealthy.
Yes, for non-urgent care you may wait slightly longer in the UK but everybody gets treated with no questions, no paperwork and no insurance companies second guessing doctors!
For urgent cases the care is outstanding. Let me give you an example, my father recently recovered from cancer surgery. For the 3 months following the surgery (he was in the hospital for 2 weeks, not rushed out before prudent as happens in the US) he had home visits from doctors once a week, and nurses twice weekly. Everything (medication, supplies etc) was top quality and delivered at no cost. When he mentioned that his son lives in the US several of the nurses were scathing in their condemnation of the mercenary US healthcare system and pointed out that many of the supplies he was getting would not even be offered to equivalent patients there as the cost was unacceptable to the insurance companies.
To bring this back on topic, one of the advantages companies in the US have over their employees is the chains that health insurance bind them with. It is a lot harder to quit your job when treated badly if you know that would lose you your healthcare, especially if you or one of your dependents have a chronic illness.
My sister-in-law has a serious heart condition, here in the land of the free she is shackled to her corporate job and denied the opportunity to start her own business because she would not be able to afford the health insurance premiums.
I have worked in both the US and the UK and I paid more in direct taxes (Federal+State+fica+casdi) and tax related expenses in California than I ever did in the UK. Admittedly the indirect taxes go some way to balancing this out BUT in CA I then had to pay extra for inferior health care and way more to educate my children.
Slashdot Mirror
Not trying to scare anyone here...but...my wife works in this field (no not stealing identities, helping people resolve issues arising from stolen identities!) and unfortunately it is not just about your credit. If someone gets hold of your SSN together with your name they can 'become you' in many different ways.
One of the scariest things is when your number gets used for reporting income by many people. Even if income tax is withheld on the wages of these imposters guess what happens when you work 20 different $20,000 per year jobs...you end up in the top tax bracket, and of course it looks like you've take the standard deduction 20 times. Guess who the IRS comes after to get all those extra taxes...the actual owner of the SSN of course.
Oh and imagine what happens when someone gets your SSN and other info then applies for a driver's license in your name. Maybe 6 months later you get pulled over for a routine stop and dragged to jail for non-payment of speeding fines or even worse crimes.
Are any of these likely, no...but as with all matters of probability unlikely does not mean never...it does happen to somebody.
And on the topic of companies using SSNs for non-essential situations...someone in that organization needs to look at a few recent laws regarding the correct handling of NPI (non-public information) such as:
Interesting...at no point during my post did I raise the issue of my children's exposure to the games, yet that is the point you chose to focus on. I also at no point expressed support for Mr. Thompson and in fact find his approach abhorrent especially since the tactics used by slime like him reduce the ability of the rest of us to have a reasoned discussion.
:) reducing exposure to poor role models including ones that are virtual is, in my opinion, a reasonable alternative to discuss.
My concern is the lack of parental responsibility exhibited by OTHER parents. I cannot control that and so felt that some reasoned discussion of how to reduce the risk generated by those irresponsible members of society might be appropriate.
Look we already know there are limits to the rights mentioned (not granted, since they are inalienable) in the bill of rights. You cannot yell fire in a crowded cinema...Child and some other forms of pornography are rightly banned and not covered by the first amendment...So I am guessing we are already in agreement that some forms of speech are not acceptable, the debate is over where the line should be drawn. I am not proposing that all violent video games should be banned but there should be a reasonable debate over the level of violence that constitutes obscenity (in its wider definition, not restricted to sexuality) in all media, not just games.
I home school my children and what they play and watch is pretty tightly controlled, but I am not a rabid censor, they see many shows and play many games that are rated above their current age; with plenty of parental commentary, open discussions about ethics and morality and the right framework to ensure they understand the difference between reality and fantasy this is not a problem. Actually, as an aside, what really disturbs me is that even when I try to control my kids media intake I am constantly stymied. My 5 and 6 year olds love to watch the Discovery/Science/History channel but are bombarded with images not during the programs but during commercials and trailers that are not appropriate for their age, even on the Disney Channel during G-rated toddler shows I have seen unedited trailers for shows such as CSI. I wish people would focus on reducing the potential for incidental exposure of children to unsolicited violent and disturbing images rather than obsessing over irrelevancies such as Janet Jackson's Superbowl exploits. Oh and with the current trends in DRM, and the desire of media companies to remove my ability to capture and edit TV shows to remove those commercials/trailers, my options for removing that undesireable content will be reduced even further, as far as I know current and future versions of the V-chip will not help with this.
I do not subscribe to the view that either violent or pornographic images will spontaneously create dangerous predators, but when combined with a lack of moral guidance and responsible involved parenting there is at least circumstancial evidence that this can happen in children.
Again, this is not about my kids getting access to this stuff, and I would hope that if you read my first post objectively you would understand that. The discussion is about the absentee and downright irresponsible parents and their poor kids...how we might take steps to protect society from their poor parenting, whether such steps are currently necessary and if not, at what point they might become necessary. Since mandating good parenting is unlikely to work
I am a big fan of the free market (and have flirted on occasion with libertarianism) but whilst I agree 100% that responsibility begins at home it does not, unfortunately, stop there.
No matter how good a parent I am, how good I am at protecting my children from exposure to the evils of the world ( until they suddenly recieve their package full of maturity on their 18th birthday that turns them into responsible adults, followed of course by their responsible drinking skills 3 years later...subjects for another rant, but I mustn't get distracted ), I cannot as an individual protect them from the offspring of irresponsible parents who think nothing of letting their kids run riot, playing GTA at age 8, immersing themselves in unhealthy fantasies with no parental help, researching bomb building on the internet, etc... etc... (Warning the preceding sentence contains deliberate hyperbole!)
Too often as a society we think in terms of punishment rather than prevention. Making the parents responsible for their actions and the actions of their children would not bring my children back from the grave. Taking personal responsibility only goes so far...it is necessary but not sufficient...at some point we must stop and take responsibility for society as a whole or it will rise up and bite us.
It is not to protect your kids from you that these rules are necessary, but to protect you and your kids from those other out of control kids and adults.
(General comment not aimed at parent ->> We are told that giving up our liberties is not an option, unfortunately too often luxuries are presented as liberties. By all means lets draw a line in the sand around our inalienable rights but restricting luxuries is not the same thing as denying inalienable rights. My right to the pursuit of happiness does not extend to the joy I would get from wringing the neck of the that annoying git on the next block so why is questioning the potential for actual physical harm that may or may not result from the broad availability of certain entertainment materials shouted down so vehemently. )
Surely the price of living in a civilized society is accepting that some rules are necessary to ensure that the majority are not terrorized (I can't believe I used that word) by those minorities that include the irresponsible, the lazy, the greedy, the jealous and the downright evil.
I really relate to this comment. When I was in school (late 70s/early 80s in the UK) video games weren't quite the option they are now and TV was fairly limited, but we had the dice out pretty much every every night playing AD&D, Star Fleet Battles or similar and my grades held up fine (12 'O' Levels with 6As and 5 A Levels with 3As), even though I did the minimum necessary on homework...normally during school hours. Of course homework was nothing like the gargantuan task I see today in the US, it was a few hours a week at most.
Now I am older, and living in the US with two children of my own...one 5, the other 6. We home school both of them, and we let them both watch television and play video games every day, the amount varies but 2-3 hours total is not unusual.
Of course the video games are Civilization style strategy games on the PC or games that involve puzzle solving, such as Pikmin, on the gamecube (that one really taught my youngest good mental arithmetic skills when she was 4!). I do agree that most educational games are very poor, but the kids still play them and seem to enjoy them. We set our time rules such that 'fun' games are limited but there are no limits for the educational games.
As to TV...they watch PBSKids and Disney of course but, given a choice, their favourite shows are on the Discovery/Science Channel or Animal Planet, they particularly like 'How Its Made'. My biggest problem with TV is actually the commercials and (even worse) the trailers for adult shows that are shown even on these educational channels, they see more violence and mayhem in those than in any of the programs they watch!
When we see our kids together with others in their age group the difference in maturity level is staggering. I cannot stress enough the importance of engaging children in conversation at every opportunity and the right blend of TV and video games can provide great topics for those conversations. Our meal times are never dull, and we always eat together as a family. I remember one last week that started with how Montezuma always attacks you in Civilization IV, and ended up with the ecological effects of the Hoover Dam project!
I'll be sure to let everyone know how this works out in 15-20 years.
Have you experienced both systems?
I have, and there are waiting lists in both countries that can of course be skipped if you are wealthy.
Yes, for non-urgent care you may wait slightly longer in the UK but everybody gets treated with no questions, no paperwork and no insurance companies second guessing doctors!
For urgent cases the care is outstanding.
Let me give you an example, my father recently recovered from cancer surgery. For the 3 months following the surgery (he was in the hospital for 2 weeks, not rushed out before prudent as happens in the US) he had home visits from doctors once a week, and nurses twice weekly. Everything (medication, supplies etc) was top quality and delivered at no cost. When he mentioned that his son lives in the US several of the nurses were scathing in their condemnation of the mercenary US healthcare system and pointed out that many of the supplies he was getting would not even be offered to equivalent patients there as the cost was unacceptable to the insurance companies.
To bring this back on topic, one of the advantages companies in the US have over their employees is the chains that health insurance bind them with. It is a lot harder to quit your job when treated badly if you know that would lose you your healthcare, especially if you or one of your dependents have a chronic illness.
My sister-in-law has a serious heart condition, here in the land of the free she is shackled to her corporate job and denied the opportunity to start her own business because she would not be able to afford the health insurance premiums.
I have worked in both the US and the UK and I paid more in direct taxes (Federal+State+fica+casdi) and tax related expenses in California than I ever did in the UK. Admittedly the indirect taxes go some way to balancing this out BUT in CA I then had to pay extra for inferior health care and way more to educate my children.