Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.Please.
(AP via Raw Story)
If you're old enough to remember.... OK. You're not. Let me begin again. Once upon a time, boys and girls, when Social Security was a new thing, the Feds insisted no one - that would be no one, not a single soul - would ever know what your social security number was except you (that would be you) and the Social Security Administration (meaning them). It's printed right there on my Social Security card (maybe not yours, but then mine was issued more than half a century ago), plain as day, NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION.
These days, you can't even get a haircut without coughing up your SSN.
So pay attention here. They will not properly safeguard blah blah blah nothing. In fact they're already not properly safeguarding (why do you think they want to retroactively immunize the Telcos?) and they ain't about to begin.
No point worrying about "privacy" - you haven't had any of that for a good long while (if ever). Just don't think anything's getting "properly safeguarded" because it isn't. And you can take that, along with your SSN, to the bank.
2 comments:
Years ago my wife worked for Social Security. It was absolutely verboten for them to give out anyone's SSN.
However, that doesn't mean individual stupid people can't do it.
Ah, but now we have the government doing it for us. So nice when you think about it. (snark!)
I don't think I was particularly clear in my last comment.
The people at Social Security were forbidden to give SSNs to other government agencies.
The numbers were sacrosanct.
Post a Comment