Quoting Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 04:59 PM 5/22/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
> >If some fed thought it would be a "fine public service" to post all of
> OUR
> >social security numbers online (truly easier than you know) would you
> still
> >think this was anything to be glad about? The fact that such a powerful
> ID
> >number exists on anyone at all is the real outrage, why not focus on
> that.
> >Promoting the idea of "no expectation of privacy for anyone, especially
>
> >people
> >I don't like" hardly seems like a good idea.
> >
> >Publish away, but realize only thing keeping our social security
> numbers from
> >going up en masse tomorrow is common decency and/or fear of a backlash.
> And
> >while the fear of retaliation can be a wonderful deterrent, that's a
> really lousy set of things to have to rely on.
>
> It might have interesting social and privacy implications if someone
> anonymously published all of the SSA's SSN data base.
>
> steve
True--and as nightmarish as that might be, at least it gets away from the
personal vendetta/targeting angle that makes this whole thing smell so rotten.
And what's even worse is that it wasn't targeted enough: can anyone really say
that they're certain everyone on the list deserved it? My guess is that most
didn't deserve it at all. Not to mention the fact that it created this sick
sort of downward spiral (as evidenced by the countersite etc.) that contributes
to the perception that anyone who cares about SSNs and the first amendment is
some kind of dangerous vindictive cop-hating privacy-invading paranoid freak. I
know that wasnt the intention, but why give ammunition to people who are just
itching to be able to portray you that way? Totally counterproductive. And
anyway, I sure don't think "thug vs. thug" is the kind of direction to take the
debate about the dangers of the SSN that'll get us anywhere we want to be.
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
