Website Posts Partial SSNs of Politicians in Protest 257
John3 writes "The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights has posted partial Social Security numbers for several California politicians to protest their vote against pending privacy legislation. According to a San Francisco Chronicle story, the SSNs were purchased on the Internet for $26." Now there's an effective way of showing the problems of the status quo.
Re:Change their minds? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Change their minds? (Score:5, Informative)
SSN Hacking (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why only partial? (Score:4, Informative)
I know this seems like a very picky example, but I'm sure stuff like this actually happens.
SS doesn't always mean your birth location ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:SB1386 tie in (Score:5, Informative)
Under SB 1386 (which goes into effect on July 1), any entity covered by the law has a duty to notify California residents âoein the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delayâ when it is known, or reasonably believed, that âoepersonal informationâ stored on the entityâ(TM)s computer systems has been disclosed to unauthorized persons as a result of a security breach. An entity is only exempt from the notification requirement when: (a) the âoepersonal informationâ disclosed was already publicly available through the federal, state, or local governments; (b) the âoepersonal informationâ was stored in an encrypted form; or (c) the unauthorized person would be unable to link the California residentâ(TM)s name with other sensitive data (e.g., Social Security number, credit card number, etc.). Entities that fail to comply with SB 1386 can be sued by individuals whose personal information was disclosed for damages suffered due to the disclosure (i.e., damages resulting from identity theft).
But, SB 1386 does not cover information legitimately sold, such as the SSN information acquired by the lobbying group. (I'm assuming that they weren't receiving stolen information.)
John
You are correct (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Change their minds? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it was done after the bill was killed. If the bill had passed, what they posted may have been illegal, as it stands they were showing the politicians what exactly they could have prevented.
Re:SSN Hacking (Score:2, Informative)
Depends on when you were assigned your card:
"Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country, and the area number represented the state in which the card was issued. Since 1972, when the SSA began assigning numbers and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number is assigned based on the zip code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. A word of warning: the applicant's mailing address may not be the same as his or her place of residence. Therefore, the area number does not necessarily represent the applicant's state of residence either prior to 1972, or since."
Source: Genealogy.com [genealogy.com]
Re:Semi O/T Rant... (Score:3, Informative)
By the way, your bank does need your SSN because it needs to send tax information to the Feds. But your doctor, dentist, or insurance company certainly do not.
Big Deal (Score:2, Informative)
"We just posted the partial addresses of all lawmakers in protest"
George Bush Washington DC
Howard Dean Vermont
Just post the whole thing. How is this news? I agree with their stance but they should either be forceful or do nothing at all.
Re:Semi O/T Rant... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.epic.org/privacy/ssn/testimony_0500.
It is up to the US Congress to recognize and restrict the use of the SSN as a Global Identifier, but the financial industry has a vested interest as their data is all keyed to it.
As far as I am concerned, I think posting public servant's SSN's is extreme, but they have ignored the issue for almost 30 years. Maybe a little civil disobedience is in order.