--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:49 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Aug 22, 2006, at 5:45 PM, authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> I had to supply it to my lawyer when I purchased a > >>> condo recently; the town requires it to transfer the > >>> deed. And as I noted, a physician I went to for a > >>> flu shot asked for it as well. It's still fairly > >>> common. > > And those are routine occurrences?
Of course. What would *you* call them?? Do you think I was somehow singled out for special treatment? > >> Only in your world, Judy. > > > > Uh, no, Sal. It's still fairly common, as I said > > (and the AARP confirms). > > > >> Last time I got a flu shot I paid them 10 > >> bucks and they gave me the shot. I could have been a Martian for > >> all they cared. > > > > And that proves...what, exactly? > > > > My health insurance card, with TEIGIT, has my SS# > > on it. I complained to them, because I can't carry > > the card in my wallet. They said they were working > > on a new system, but it wouldn't be ready for some > > time yet. > > Well, neither my health insurance card or that for my kids has any > SS #s on it. My driver's license used to, but they stopped that > years ago. I don't remember whether or not I had to give it to > apply for any of the credit cards I've had over the years. Since the advent of identity theft, there is a growing movement to stop using SS#s for routine identification. But by no means everyone is on board with it yet. Some institutions stopped using it earlier than others. > > I had to give my SS# to open a bank account six > > five years ago. You have to give it on most > > credit card applications. My landlord wanted it > > when I first rented the condo I just bought, also > > five years ago. > > And these relate to the TMO how, exactly? I don't understand the question. I'm responding to your assertion that asking for SS#s has never been routine and is hardly done at all any more, and *therefore* that the TMO's request for it is somehow sinister. > Would you describe any of the above situations as routine? Again, what would *you* call them? Do you think I was being singled out for special treatment, or is everyone who opens a bank account at that bank required to give their SS#? > I thought SS #s were used when security issues were at stake, like > with savings accounts and deeds, or when dealing with large amounts > of people. Neither of those situations applies to the TMO courses, > especially nowadays. A lot of people learned the TM-Sidhis and were, as I recall, asked to give their SS#s, as they were when they learned plain-vanilla TM, and when they applied for other courses. The SS# is therefore an easy way to track a person's TM career, as it were, in this case to make sure they had actually taken the TM-Sidhis course. > > You didn't answer my question, Sal. I don't think you > > have any actual threat in mind. You just thought it > > sounded good to use the word "intimidation." > > And you've proven my point for me, by admitting you wouldn't give > it to them. Good GRIEF. You claimed they were asking for it to *intimidate* people. Is the TMO trying to intimidate people by making them think their SS#s won't be secure? That makes no *sense*, Sal. Intimidation and concerns about security are two entirely different issues. > I think they know perfectly well that people, in general, > don't like to give them out and probably never have. One more time: Asking for SS#s as a means of identification *used* to be routine, and still is in many cases. I seriously doubt they even thought about it. That's certainly typical TMO *incompetence*, but it's not meant as a *threat*, i.e., if you give us your SS#, we'll make it available to identity thieves. > I doubt they'd use them for anything (since to my knowledge they > never actually have) How would you know if they had? I'd be surprised if they hadn't used them to correlate records of all kinds. The SS# is a unique national identifier, which is why it was used routinely for so long as a means of identifying people, including distinguishing individuals who have the same names, for example. > -- It's a power trip. And I don't think getting involved > in that kind of game is healthy. That's just paranoid, Sal. The TMO has always been on a power trip, but SS#s aren't an example, *except* to verify that one is qualified to go on particular courses and so on, and they could certainly check that just by using names and dates, although with more difficulty and more possibility of error. I haven't gone on a course in a while, so I don't know if they're still doing this, but they also used to ask for the name of your initiator when you applied for a course. That was another way of checking to make sure you had actually learned TM. In other words, unless they were to ask for no personal information at all, the "intimidation" you're imagining would still be a factor. The only thing about SS#s is that they're a very efficient means of identification. > And another point--usually when an organization asks you for one, > that's it. They don't keep asking you every single time. Sure they do, in many circumstances, as a way of verifying you're who you say you are. An SS# is sort of like a password. These idiots > just want you to know they've got something on you--again and again. Got WHAT on you?? > > And again, see the AARP link, which explains why > > SS#s are routinely used for identification. > > I didn't see any link. There's been a lot of posting delays these days. I made the AARP post before I made the one saying to see the AARP link, but it just appeared this morning. > >>> For the record, if I had to give them my SS# to > >>> go on a course these days, I wouldn't do it, even > >>> if it meant I couldn't go. I don't trust them to > >>> keep those records secure from people who might > >>> use them for identity theft. > >> > >> So then you *do* think they could be used for nefarious purposes- - > > > > Of course. But that's not why the TMO is asking for > > them, obviously. > > OK, why are they asking for them then? AS A MEANS OF IDENTIFICATION. Sheesh! Same reason so many other institutions have used them. > >> who else besides people in the TMO would ever have access to that > >> info? > > > > Not everyone in the TMO is necessarily an upstanding > > citizen, first of all. Some lower-level administrative > > person with financial needs and no scruples might have > > access to a list of SS#s and get ideas. Lists of SS#s > > are worth big bucks in the identity theft market. You > > can sell them to brokers, who then sell them to > > individuals who commit the actual identity theft. > > > > Second, there are any number of ways the numbers could > > get to non-TMO people. Someone could walk in a door > > left unlocked and steal the records; some nitwit TMer > > could throw a batch of unneeded printouts in the trash; > > a janitor could find the records sitting on someone's > > desk; a hacker could break into the computer system if > > it weren't secured properly, etc., etc., etc. > > > > This is why you don't want to have to give out your > > SS# if you can possibly avoid it--because they're > > *worth lots of money*, and even an organization > > with the most spotless motives can be careless about > > how they're handled. > > > > Knowing the level of disorganization and general > > incompetence in the TMO, I simply wouldn't trust them > > to keep the numbers secure. > > That's my point exactly. Whether it's directly by someone with > some nefarious intent, or simply because some idiot gets careless, > you would not trust the TMO with potentially sensitive > information. Once again: So they're trying to intimidate people by suggesting that people with nefarious intent will get hold of your SS# and commit identity theft because the TMO is riddled with careless idiots? Sal, that was *not* your original point. If it were, I'd have agreed with you instantly. You claimed they are asking for it to *intimidate* people. And you still haven't come up with what you think the actual *threat* is that they're supposedly intimidating people *with*. Fill in the blank: "We're asking for your SS# so that if you don't toe the line, we can __________________________." To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
