Did anyone actually read the ruling? They're basically saying a SSN# isn't an identity.
Given that SSN#'s aren't actually unique in the population, they're, you know, right. On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:52:03 PST, "Tomas L. Byrnes" said: > > > >> While I would never advocate criminality, it would be poetic justice if > >> the SSIDs of all the justices who voted in favor of this SSIDs were > >> posted on some website used to sell such data to those looking for > >> "clean credit". > >> > >> After all, it is no big deal, according to them. > > > > My reading of it is that they didn't think it was "no big deal", it was > > that the law *as written* didn't make it actually *illegal*. In cases > like > > that, don't complain about the judge, complain about the legislative body > > that wrote the flawed law. > Its funny how Judges will "legislate from the bench" when it suits > them or their keepers (or fraternity brothers, or college buddies, or > former law partners, or those making campaign contributions, etc).... > > Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. >
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
