Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Personal Info of 3.5 Million Texans Was Publicly Accessible

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the even-data-breaches-are-bigger-in-texas dept.

Privacy 146

SpaceGhost writes "The Houston Chronicle reports, 'Personal information of about 3.5 million Texans — including names, mailing addresses and Social Security numbers — was posted on a publicly accessible server at the state comptroller's office, much of it for more than a year.' Many of the records were for retired teachers and the unemployed, and they sometimes included DOB and drivers license numbers."

cancel ×

146 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Texas! (-1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786160)

All your base are belong to us!

unemployed (2, Funny)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786176)

Fortunately the unemployed are less desirable than average for identity theft, so that will limit the losses a little bit.

Re:unemployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786244)

Got references? I just won't believe this as is because it seems to be outright assumption.

Re:unemployed (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786294)

So your thesis would be that the unemployed have equal or higher credit scores compared to the employed?

Re:unemployed (2)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786376)

My wife was unemployed during that time, in Texas, and has a maximum credit rating. She didn't apply for unemployment though so she shouldn't be on any lists.

Re:unemployed (1, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786992)

If she didn't apply for unemployment, then she wasn't unemployed. She was just "not working."

Why the distinction? Because there are millions of "not working" people who the government chooses to exclude from the unemployment lists to help keep the appearance of unemployment low.

Re:unemployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786332)

I'm not Aighearach, but I can postulate.

Unemployed people probably have a lower credit limit, so obtaining credit cards in their name is less profitable than obtaining credit cards for "whales", or people who make tons of money.

Re:unemployed (1)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787150)

Your training is complete.

Re:unemployed (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787320)

I beg to differ.

To an identity thief, the credit status of an individual is arguably irrelevant. All that matters is whether a line of credit or a loan can be opened in that person's name. Details such as the interest rate, credit limit, etc. don't matter at all. If the difference between someone with a subprime score and someone with a good or excellent score is merely the type of account the thief can open, and a thief can easily open an account under a subprime identity with a credit shop that has ridiculous interest rates.

I mean, are we expecting the thief to pay this stuff back? Of course not, so why would the interest rate matter? Why would the credit limit matter when an account opening can still score a thief at least 1,000USD?

Re:unemployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786650)

If your arrogant assumption is true (it may be, what do I know?) it will make it all the harder for the affected people to be believed when they claim identity theft. I hope you get knocked off your ivory tower someday, jackass. And, no. I am not on any of the lists. I retired at 40 years old so I can look down on you. I just choose not to.

Re:unemployed (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786694)

Nah, they're equally desirable because they're less likely to be tech savvy so they won't notice suble abuses as fast.

Re:unemployed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786782)

Quite the assumption to make considering the economic crisis and the amount of ex-middle-class families living in tent cities in america now. Of course, your suburbanite neighborhood association wouldn't have you see any of that. And of course, it couldn't be remotely possible that members of out-of-work families are actually technologically proficient. This is all hypothetical, naturally, since there is no division of social classes in america. Everyone from harlem to detroit to compton has the same opportunities.

sedf (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786162)

FRIST!

Well, now I almost wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786182)

I were in Texas, then I would have an easy claim to having my identity stolen for a good long time.

Pity.

Re:Well, now I almost wish (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786386)

No no. Texas was *helping* you here. They were giving your info to potential employers. Yeah that's it.

Re:Well, now I almost wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786568)

I thought my identity was stolen once.. I found it in the fridge.. with my dentures..

Not a problem. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786228)

I'm sure those 3.5 million Texans believe God will protect their data from misuse. Except from Satanists.

So? (3, Funny)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786264)

Names and addresses I can get from a phone book. SSNs are "not to be used for identification purposes." Thus, BFD.

Place blame squarely where it belongs: lending providers and others who use the SSN as some sort of magic key to an individual's identity. All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786348)

All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

Yep, because laws stop people from doing stupid and illegal things.

Re:So? (4, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786404)

If you make the collection of social security numbers a felony I guarantee you the banks would stop doing it. To make doubly sure, make it a civil tort so that the individual who was asked for their SSN can sue the bank. Let everyone know they can do this. It would stop instantly.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786486)

Forbidding the collection of SSNs isn't really the answer. The banking industry will just devise some other unique key that people will need to provide so that credit checks and such can be run, and then that key will become the center of risk.

The real answer is to make this information worthless by requiring banks to actually follow up and ensure that a new credit line requestor is the person they claim to be before opening the new credit line. Currently, the banks do everything they can to prevent themselves from eating the loss, but they don't do much to prevent the loss in the first place. They push as much as possible onto merchants and individual consumers. It's worth more to them to open instant credit lines virtually anonymously than to eat the occasional loss, and until that changes, the rest of us will continue to suffer from financial predation by third-world organized criminals.

Re:So? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786622)

Stop the presses! I have a brilliant proposal!

They can use MD5 hashes of SSNs instead! Yeah!

For the security-conscious, all bank forms will now include a ten-page instructional booklet on how to perform an MD5 hash by hand. This will be superseded by a number of handy and free online tools provided by the Russian Business Network.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786638)

The banking industry will just devise some other unique key...

Yeah... That's the idea. The bank, insurance, and other industries and departments are supposed to use their own unique to them ID system. Now a thief would need to break into all those different databases. IT is up to all of us to resist allowing them to use the SSN. Just say no.. The law doesn't prohibit that.

Re:So? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787016)

You obviously must live in mom's basement. If you don't give up your SS# you'll have to pay cash for everything all the time. You know, storing all your money at home and carrying large amounts of cash have some pretty big downsides, too. Not to mention there are plenty of things many of us do every day that can't be done (or can be done but at much greater expense) without a credit card.

Re:So? (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787040)

You can't borrow, but that also means the banks can't lend. A bank that can't lend is a dead bank.

Re:So? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787120)

They cannot legally require you give up your SSN. They can only ask. The law is already on our side. Public acquiescence is the real problem.

Re:So? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787184)

So you have bank accounts, credit cards, a mortgage, a car, and no-one knows your SS#? I call bullshit. The law "protecting" you from divulging your SS# is like US income tax being "voluntary". It's fake. You cannot have a credit card, a home, or anything else without giving up your SS# unless you're filthy rich and can pay cash for everything all the time. And you cannot decline to pay your "voluntary" income tax unless you want to lose everything and go to prison.

Re:So? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787290)

Whatever you say..

So you have bank accounts, credit cards, a mortgage, a car...

Short answer: No.

Ah, one question.. Where did I mention anything about the IRS? Who doesn't already understand they can do what they damn well please? Sorry, two questions..

Re:So? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787422)

It was cited as an example of other things that you can supposedly do but in practical reality cannot. Of course you can live without banks, cards, a home, a vehicle but who would choose that for themselves? I think it's probably safe to say the only people who live without those things have little choice.

Re:So? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787552)

...but who would choose that for themselves?

Me.. If you prefer to live neck deep in red tape, by all means...

I think it's probably safe to say...

...that you're not a very good odds maker.

However, you can redeem yourself if you can call a triple crown winner this year. Place yer bets. Cash only

Re:So? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787616)

Sorry, I don't even know what a "triple crown winner" is. I'm guessing it isn't football or yahtzee.

Well, you're most likely either
(1)dependent on someone else for your survival, or
(2) totally down-and-out (lots of people are, it's nothing to be ashamed of), or
(3)you're a redneck hillbilly whose been training for the breakdown of society sonce the civil rights movement began.
How close am I? :D

Re:So? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787710)

Triple Crown - usually associated with thoroughbred horse racing. Google knows all..

Man, you are ice cold.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786652)

Arguably, we should be much more worried about the financial predation of first-world organized criminals: The banks and the credit rating agencies and similar such institutions are the ones who make it trivially easy to act in other people's names, in order to move their product more easily and cheaply, and then attempt to sidestep the losses from fraud by hounding the people whose names were used.

The only predation by third-world organized criminals that occurs directly against the end user consists of 419 scams. The rest of it consists of various sorts of bank fraud that the banks aren't sufficiently motivated to take measures against; but are willing to put those whose names are used through the wringer.

It's very clever, really: "Identity theft" makes it your problem. Admitting that it is "bank fraud" would make it their problem.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35787658)

Currently, the banks do everything they can to prevent themselves from eating the loss, but they don't do much to prevent the loss in the first place.

Actually, banks have systems in place to prevent most identity frauds before they take place. They use various rules and scoring solutions (much like credit scores) to assess the risk of identity theft, and they investigate those applications that seem most risky. Since a large bank typically sees a volume of tens of thousands of applications per day, the banks investigate a few percent of their volume. A typical investigation involves querying various data sources (at around $0.25 per query) and several minutes of time of a skilled investigator, for a cost of just shy of $10 per investigation. The banks are almost always on the hook for the loss in the case of an identity theft (which is typically several thousand dollars); they thus do fairly in-depth cost-benefit analysis to determine how extensive their investigations should be. It is difficult to assess how common frauds are in the population that remains unbooked, but after all the investigations, about 1 in 200 booked applications results in a fraud. Many of these are very difficult to detect, such as family fraud, where someone uses the personal information of a (usually elderly) family member.

Re:So? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786618)

It's so cute how you think law makers would make laws against the interest of bankers.

Re:So? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786754)

It's so cute how you think law makers would make laws against the interest of bankers.

The complete failure of our system of government is an orthogonal problem to what we're discussing here.

If you compare the United States government to a computer program, it's basically a pile of hacks upon hacks sitting on top of a shitty core library. The hacks are there because the core is all fucked up, but just because you can make it work by adding even more hacks doesn't mean the whole thing won't fall down and collapse eventually. We need USA 2.0 at this point, written from the ground up.

Re:So? (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786868)

We need USA 2.0 at this point, written from the ground up.

From the ground up...like Netscape 5?

Re:So? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786950)

Sure, there's the second system effect to contend with, where you try to cram in all the crap you wish you'd had in version 1.0 and end up making an even bigger mess in version 2.0, but that's just an observation, not a law of nature.

Also, by "written from the ground up" I do not mean tossing out the Constitution and starting completely from scratch. To continue the computer analogy, let's treat the Constitution like the hardware. We know it works, it's just the pile of shit built on top of it that's wrong. Development is an iterative process for sure, but if you flat-out refuse to throw away your models which are clearly broken you'll eventually end up out of business.

Re:So? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787142)

It's an interesting idea, but the problem is most our troubles don't originate with ill-conceived or poorly-written laws -- those are just symptoms, not causes.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35787526)

let's treat the Constitution like the hardware. We know it works

Except for the F00F bug and that one floating point error, sure.

Sort of like how the Constitution declared itself the supreme law of the land but forgot to impose any penalties for breaking the supreme law of the land. And the bit where revenue bills originate in the house, but don't have to originate as revenue bills, leading to the Paul Wellstone Memorial Bank Bailout. It's mostly good, but it's time for some amendin'

Re:Felony (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786878)

What if Social Security Numbers + the Person's name were a Copyrighted Work? That would be the legal protection that would scare snarks!

Re:So? (2)

14erCleaner (745600) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787674)

Banks need SSNs so that they can report interest paid to the IRS. In fact, this is one of the few legitimate uses of the SSN.

Re:So? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787764)

If you make the collection of social security numbers a felony I guarantee you the banks would stop doing it.

No, they wouldn't.

Banks are REQUIRED [helpwithmybank.gov] to have an ssn on file these days.

Re:So? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786448)

They stop most people for situations like that. In fact I suspect the only people they wouldn't stop are those ignorant of the law in question.

Example law:

* Using a SSN for *anything* except other than the adminstration of social security and the collection of taxes shall be punishable by a $42 billion fine.

You really a bank is going to use your SSN for anything when that is law? OK then, do you really think after all the banks that did so have filed for bankruptcy due to a trillions of dollars in liability (fine is per SSN after all) that suddenly appeared on their books that the rest are going to?

Re:So? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786492)

But the government will pay the fine to itself because the banks are too big to fail...

Re:So? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786670)

All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

Yep, because laws stop people from doing stupid and illegal things.

This is Texas. Laws don't stop people from doing stupid and illegal things, guns do. ergo:
"All it takes is a simple six shooter and this shit could stop next week."

Re:So? (1)

jackspenn (682188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787542)

All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

From your comment I can assume that you have never actually spoken with the average state employee?

Re:So? (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786388)

Now that you mention it, why don't we use some sort of web-of-trust/public key infrastructure/certificate authority-based system for establishing identity and trust?

Or would that just have the same inconvenience and fraud that an SSN-based system has?

Re:So? really? (1)

reasterling (1942300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786766)

That is just what we need.

Joe Public: What do you mean I have to pay verisign a $100 a year just to file my taxes?
IRS Operative: You have to have your signature signed to prove who you are to us.
JP: You don't know who I am? Can you tax me if you can't identify me?
IRS: We can not tax you but you will be charged with tax evasion.
JP: How can you charge me if you don't know who I am?
IRS: Well first you will have to have your signature signed by verisign.
JP: Where did you get such a messed up idea like this?
IRS: From a slashdot poster.

seriously man this is a terrible idea.

I call your bluff... (2)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786478)

BFD? Then by all means, let's see your name, address, and SSN. ;)

Re:So? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786556)

SSNs are "not to be used for identification purposes."

You actually believe that is still the case?

Re:So? (1)

Solandri (704621) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786578)

Place blame squarely where it belongs: lending providers and others who use the SSN as some sort of magic key to an individual's identity. All it takes is a simple law and this shit could stop next week.

No it won't. Like it or not, there's a need for a unique individual identifier in the credit industry. If you can prove you pay your bills, you're less of a risk, and can get lower rates from them. A lender does not need a SSN to lend you money. It's just that all of them choose to require it and a credit check to minimize their risk. If you feel this is wrong, feel free to start your own lending company which does not require SSNs nor credit checks, and tell us how that works out for you.

If it became illegal to use SSNs for this purpose, then everyone would get lumped in the same risk pool. People who are good about paying their bills on time would see their rates and fees go up. People who are deadbeats and delinquents would see their rates and fees go down. Pretty obviously, that'd be bad for the economy as a whole. So what would happen is a different unique identifier would come into being to fill this need, and we'd be right back where we are now. Only instead of some state comptroller accidentally releasing the unique numbers, it would be some credit bureau accidentally releasing the numbers.

The problem is not with them using the SSN. The problem is that except for a few new state laws regarding personal info loss and theft, there's very little incentive for them to protect your SSN. When they lose your personal (or a few million of them), they suffer no harm, but you do. So although having your SSN become public is a big deal for you, it's not a big deal for them, and so they don't really go out of their way to prevent it from happening. What's needed is to jack up the penalties for losing an SSN so that it's as expensive for them as it is for you (or better yet, for them to just pay your expenses for getting any identity theft cleared up). Then they'll take seriously the need to protect their customers' private info.

Re:So? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786662)

No it won't. Like it or not, there's a need for a unique individual identifier in the credit industry. If you can prove you pay your bills, you're less of a risk, and can get lower rates from them. A lender does not need a SSN to lend you money. It's just that all of them choose to require it and a credit check to minimize their risk. If you feel this is wrong, feel free to start your own lending company which does not require SSNs nor credit checks, and tell us how that works out for you.

"Being a lender is tough! Whaa!"

Boo hoo, cry me a river. There's enough profit incentive in lending that they'll figure something out.

Re:So? (1)

barrtender (1930830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787652)

Boo hoo, cry me a river. There's enough profit incentive in lending that they'll figure something out.

That was the next paragraph.

If it became illegal to use SSNs for this purpose, then everyone would get lumped in the same risk pool. People who are good about paying their bills on time would see their rates and fees go up. People who are deadbeats and delinquents would see their rates and fees go down. Pretty obviously, that'd be bad for the economy as a whole.

I agree with what he said, and really REALLY don't want to be an anonymous lender (lendee?).

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786912)

Names and addresses I can get from a phone book. SSNs are "not to be used for identification purposes." Thus, BFD.

Sounds like the exact same line of reasoning used to justify harassing Sony executives.
 
Except it was modded +5 Insightful.

Everything is bigger in texas.... (2)

CTU (1844100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786274)

....even their screw ups.

How could that mistake have gone on for a year without somebody seeing it?

Re:Everything is bigger in texas.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786340)

....even their screw ups.

By Wikipedia's numbers, the screwup covered 1/8 of the population.

Re:Everything is bigger in texas.... (2)

Thing I am (761900) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786354)

We are too busy doing our "Hold my beer and watch this" antics to be bothered with paying attention to stuff like this. /burp I live in Dallas. Hold my beer. Watch this ...

Re:Everything is bigger in texas.... (1, Flamebait)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787162)

Comptroller Susan Combs was too busy massaging reports about the financial state of Texas to help re-elect republicans based on "The Texas Miracle" (the supposed superiority of Texas financial management). Now that the election is over and the reality of a $27 billion shortfall for the next budget sinks in, I guess her office has time to look into these basic things.

Texas: where 12 years of absolute republican rule is propelling us into Mississippi territory in state rankings for services, health care, education, and now IT security.

duck and cover (1, Funny)

bakamorgan (1854434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786290)

Better duck and cover. Typical person from Texas shoot first then ask questions later.

Re:duck and cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786382)

Wait... Texans ask questions?

Re:duck and cover (2)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786488)

Wait... Texans ask questions?

Sure. Questions like, "What the fuck are you lookin' at"

Re:duck and cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786614)

That's a perfectly valid question.

Re:duck and cover (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786502)

We hit what we shoot. There are no questions later.

Re:duck and cover (1)

bakamorgan (1854434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787536)

The questions I was referring too are: Whos going to hold the camera to take my picture with my kill? You see that shot it was from 400 yards away? and Think I got room to mount anothet on my wall?

Phew! (-1, Troll)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786356)

I'm Texan, and I was worried for a second that my data would be compromised. Then I saw who was affected and said "Phew! This is only the unproductive people!"

And before you flame me, if a Mr. Khan is even capable of making that much improvement to elementary+ education, when all the PhD educators in the US couldn't, yes, that means you were unproductive and students were generally excelling in spite of you, not because of you.

Re:Phew! (2)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786464)

Then I saw who was affected and said "Phew! This is only the unproductive people!"

I love it when jackasses speak from their rear.

You oughta meet my wife. She took unemployment for two months while she was looking for a job. Other than that, she's had a steady job since before I knew her, 7 years ago... and outperforms kids half her age.

Unproductive, my foot.

Let me guess: you're a conservative.

Re:Phew! (0)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786538)

Wow, and she didn't find it shameful at all to go on unemployment just for a two month gap?

Gosh, I wish my morals let me quit my job to take a two month vacation while drawing unemployment to supplement my savings. (Of course, I'd probably have to engineer my firing from the job the way UI works.)

Re:Phew! (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786564)

Wow, and she didn't find it shameful at all to go on unemployment just for a two month gap?

Actually, she was fired for something she didn't do, and the state of Texas backed her on it when her former employer decided to appeal.

Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

Re:Phew! (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786628)

Then that's not "taking unemployment", that's "taking payments from a court victory/legal settlement", and thus loses its objectionability.

Re:Phew! (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786788)

Then that's not "taking unemployment", that's "taking payments from a court victory/legal settlement", and thus loses its objectionability.

You really have NO idea how unemployment claims work, do you?

They canned her, saying money was missing, even though the manager that was in charge of the cash at that time was later let go due to embezzlement. They had no proof, no documentation, etc., and I can guarantee you that she'd not taken a dime. Y'know, that whole "moral structure" riff. She decided to get unemployment and started looking for a job. She found one in short order and IMMEDIATELY dropped the UI.

About a week later, we get a letter that stated that her former client didn't like her getting UI, so they appealed. Denied. They appealed AGAIN, and showed up armed with only a bunch of accusations, telling the mediator that it was "good enough".

The state disagreed, allowed one last appeal that they didn't even respond to on time, and closed the case.

BTW, what twisted chain of logic leads you to believe that going on UI temporarily is sign of moral turpitude?!?

Re:Phew! (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787052)

So y'all couldn't wait until you actually needed the money? It was just, "Fired ... WHOO HOO! First unemployment check, here I come!"?

Re:Phew! (3, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787086)

Why should we pay for the unemployment program from our own taxes and then altruistically choose not to benefit from it? I guess you enjoy paying into the system and having leeches collect on it. Sorry dude, I've been paying taxes into this program since I got out of high school and you're fucking crazy if you think I won't take the benefit if and when I'm eligible for it.

Re:Phew! (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787668)

So when you donate to a church/non-religious charity, do you apply for their aid to the needy when you're not needy, on the grounds that "well I done paid my f'r share, so I's gonna git it right back!"?

Re:Phew! (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787730)

A donation to charity is made with the express purpose of helping OTHER PEOPLE. When you pay taxes into the unemployment program, do you feel as if you are doing it to help others or to help yourself? If you feel that it's to help yourself, why would you not take the payout? If you feel it is to help other people, why do you call those people leeches? Furthermore, I am in no way legally compelled to donate to charity. Your comparison is ridiculous and your viewpoint paradoxical.

Re:Phew! (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787558)

Unemployment is insurance - you pay the premiums, no shame in collecting the payout when the insured event occurs. I'm not sure you're even eligible if you wait.

Re:Phew! (1, Flamebait)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786590)

she didn't find it shameful at all to go on unemployment just for a two month gap?

Not nearly as shameful as your assumption that everyone has psychic powers and knows how long it will take to find a job.

Re:Phew! (0)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786666)

Not nearly as shameful as your assumption that everyone has psychic powers and knows how long it will take to find a job.

The point was that (in the original story before he clarified that his wife was actually receiving a legal settlement, not "unemployment") she *didn't even wait* those two months before deciding she had to resort to being a leech. No psychic powers necessary.

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786772)

Why the heck is taking unemployment leach behavior? It's called unemployment insurance for a reason you dipstick. Do people who make claims on their homeowners insurance when their house gets robbed count as leaches too, in your book?

Just because the insurance is public doesn't make it bad, or do you hate socialized fire protective services too?

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786908)

Conservatives seem to detest civilization in general.

Re:Phew! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787330)

"It's called unemployment insurance for a reason..."

Save your breath. It's clear from the language "deciding she had to resort to being a leech" that all unemployed for however long or whatever reason are immoral people getting what they deserve because they chose their circumstances. Nothing you say will penetrate DriedClexler's Calvinist glee at the suffering of the unelect or endless search for Obama's birth certificate.

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786636)

Wow, and she didn't find it shameful at all to go on unemployment just for a two month gap?

Why would you be ashamed when you don't know how long it'll take to get another job? It's not like there is a magic pony who tells you how long you'll be looking for another job.

Gosh, I wish my morals let me quit my job to take a two month vacation while drawing unemployment to supplement my savings.

I wish your morals included walking in people's shoes for a mile or so before you thought you knew them.

Too bad that won't happen.

BTW, if you want to fix the education system, you should consider that there is NOBODY with any control or authority over it across the nation. True story, it's much more local responsibility and thus more local failure.

We'll see if Khan has any results worth writing home about.

Re:Phew! (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786558)

Let me guess: you're a conservative.

In Texas, that ain't exactly a reach... And there is also a very strong thread of personal responsibility and self reliance. Hence, people are much less likely to try for unemployment then in traditional "entitlement" states. That said, I do consider teachers (even if retired) to be productive people.

Re:Phew! (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786606)

Actually, it only skews conservative outside the urban areas and the valley....

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/texas.html [nytimes.com]

Re:Phew! (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787242)

Bad example... Many Texans liked neither choice... Conservative voter turnout was the lowest for a presidential election in years.

Re:Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786778)

Also racism, sexism, violence and bitter poverty, leaving many fewer people eligible for unemployment.

Re:Phew! (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786508)

As a resident of this state, I had my last paycheck from my previous employer go to the state. I never knew about it until many years later. Apparently my pervious employer tried locating me, and gave up. So now that the state was given it, they contacted a collectors agency whom hunted me down. The basic idea is that they collect a small percentage of the finders-fee. It sucks, but I never would have known about it otherwise. Anyways, I had to contact the Comptroller office in Austin, TX to make my claim. Makes me wonder if I was on that list...

I forsee a large increase in junk mail (1)

rjejr (921275) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786370)

for propane and propane accessories. Maybe this will help the USPS.

private parts of all americans pubicly accessible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786418)

=+300 million of us unchosens, not including the genuine native americans who are not inclined to expose themselves, having sovereignty in this territory.

what with searching for more terror, religious initiations, love etc..., do we really need clothes, or so-called 'private parts''? open society?

Re:private parts of all americans pubicly accessib (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786714)

many people would object to giving up their "private parts".

Everything is bigger in Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786540)

even private information disclosure :-)

If my identity is stolen by this act of NEGLIGENCE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786560)

Can I sue the state of Tex-ASS for damages?

As they say, things are always bigger in Texas, including STUPIDITY

( from using MICROCRAP [microsoft.com] )

Yours In Ashgabat,
Kilgore Trout

Re:If my identity is stolen by this act of NEGLIGE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786728)

Are you a grown up? I'm just asking because you don't represent yourself as one.

Are you a moron ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786816)

Can't you read my question: Can I sue the state of Tex-ASS for damages?

Thanks for you (il)literacy.

Re:Are you a moron ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786978)

Can't you read his question: Are you a grown up?

Thanks for you (il)literacy.

Makes it easier (1)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786660)

to get the info for illegal immigration.

Depressingly Common (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786774)

A few years ago, I found a publicly accessible server that belonged to the local K-12 school system in a medium sized city. By using the username "test," and password "test", any one could access all of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that the school system kept for each and every one of its special education students. Probably, most of these documents were for "Gifted and Talented" children, and were standardized forms that had contact information. However, some of them almost certainly contained details about the learning disabilities that various children had.

Re:Depressingly Common (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786914)

A few years ago, I found a publicly accessible server that belonged to the local K-12 school system in a medium sized city. By using the username "test," and password "test", any one could access all of the Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that the school system kept for each and every one of its special education students. Probably, most of these documents were for "Gifted and Talented" children, and were standardized forms that had contact information. However, some of them almost certainly contained details about the learning disabilities that various children had.

Dear citizen: thank you very much for your confession. A federal agent will be contacting you shortly. We will notify your relatives and loved ones that you will be unavailable until further notice. Please be sure to have a change of clothes at the ready.

Yours,

Big Brother

Texans (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786896)

... nothing to hide, nothing to worry? 1 2 3 That's how long it takes to be modded flamebait!

This's what happens when politicians keep promises (2)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35787224)

Dang. They *are* running the government like a business down there.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>