On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Dan Kaminsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Expand, please.
> > 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.
