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!

Website Posts Partial SSNs of Politicians in Protest

CowboyNeal posted more than 11 years ago | from the alliteration-never-gets-old dept.

Privacy 257

John3 writes "The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights has posted partial Social Security numbers for several California politicians to protest their vote against pending privacy legislation. According to a San Francisco Chronicle story, the SSNs were purchased on the Internet for $26." Now there's an effective way of showing the problems of the status quo.

cancel ×

257 comments

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

Ha ha! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263259)

stupid fuckers.

"We don't need no stinking privacy!"

Change their minds? (5, Insightful)

Gr33nNight (679837) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263264)

This was done after the bill was passed....how could posting the SSN after the fact change anything?

Re:Change their minds? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263270)

They can rething things and change the law. Laws aren't set in stone.

Re:Change their minds? (5, Informative)

John3 (85454) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263294)

Exactly...in fact the article says that the legislation may be reconsidered on Monday.

Re:Change their minds? (2, Insightful)

quintessent (197518) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263306)

At the minimum...

It might make politians think twice next time.

Re:Change their minds? (5, Funny)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263330)

It might make politians think twice next time.

It would be nice if they'd think once.

Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]

Re:Change their minds? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263510)

This was done after the bill was passed....how could posting the SSN after the fact change anything?

Actually it was done after the bill was killed. If the bill had passed, what they posted may have been illegal, as it stands they were showing the politicians what exactly they could have prevented.

Troll posts useragent in protest (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263265)

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.1; Linux 2.4.20-norman-3; X11; i686; )

Why only partial? (5, Insightful)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263266)

Just post the whole thing. It's not like it matters. Bill Gates' social security number is 539-60-5125. So what?

So does that mean (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263313)

If I use his SS to get a credit card, I can run up $100 million in charges, and well, it'll still be a drop in the bucket for him.

Re:So does that mean (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263346)

1. Buy Bill Gate's SS for $26
2. Slam face into tree repeatedly until looking like Gates
3. Buy stupid glasses
4. Identity theft
5. Profit!

Re:So does that mean (1)

pyrote (151588) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263424)

wow, the 'slam face into tree...' section completed the equation... maybee every 1.2.3.4.Profit equation can be solved this way.

I think everyone who posts a 1.2.3.4.Profit equation should try.

Re:Why only partial? (5, Insightful)

TomGroves (622890) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263316)

If it doesn't matter, why don't you post yours instead of Gates's?

Re:Why only partial? (3, Interesting)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263335)

Well, the reason is because if I post my own SSN, then I could be considered to be implicitly allowing others to use it. I don't care if someone else posts my SSN, but I'm not going to do it myself.

Re:Why only partial? (3, Funny)

John3 (85454) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263353)

Email it to me privately and I'll post it for you.

John

Re:Why only partial? (2, Interesting)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263364)

See, I still think if I give it to you I'd be negligently guilty of its use. But hey, for $26 you can find it out, right? I'll give $26 to the first person who posts my SSN on slashdot.

Got it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263387)

123-45-6789

Re:Why only partial? (1)

John3 (85454) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263416)

Your SSN would be tougher to come up with as you're not quite as public a figure as the legislators. A lot of their basic info can be found easily (home address and DOB for example). Your info would be a bit more challenging without knowing where you live.

John

Re:Why only partial? (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263446)

Not quite, but I do own a domain name. Though, my domain name lists an old address. My birth date is 5/12/77.

Re:Why only partial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263418)

Okay, I'll help... It's ???-??-6457.

Re:Why only partial? (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263338)

Alas, I just used up my mod points.

Re:Why only partial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263340)

So true...

Re:Why only partial? (3, Informative)

rattler14 (459782) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263350)

Well, it actually does matter. Say you found Bill's first usa visa credit card on the ground. If you call their 1-800 number (written on the back of the card), they ask you for the last 4 digits of the primary card holders social security number for certain transactions. While this method is by no means fullproof (or even that effective at all) it is still a security check point to someones financial data. If one can easily access a person SSN (and thus their zip code, middle name, and various other trivia that could be used as a security check point) then it becomes much more difficult to authenticate financial transactions over the phone using an automated system.

I know this seems like a very picky example, but I'm sure stuff like this actually happens.

Re:Why only partial? (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263378)

No, absolutely not. The last 4 digits of a social security number is not a secure password. Any financial institution which uses it as such does so at their own risk.

There are way too many people who know my SSN for it to be used as a secure password. Hollywood Video and my physics professor are two examples. As for the last 4 digits of my SSN, let's put it this way. My email address is dipi6457 at rowan.edu.

Re:Why only partial? (5, Insightful)

violent.ed (656912) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263440)

Any financial institution which uses it as such does so at their own risk.

Incorrect, they do it at YOUR risk.

Re:Why only partial? (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263453)

No, you are the one who is incorrect. Any charges which are made to my credit card without my permission are not my responsibility, so long as I myself did not negligently provide anyone else with access to my account.

Re:Why only partial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263470)

No, you're really quite wrong. Yes, you don't have to pay the charges, but that's not the only risk. After identify theft, many people have a very hard time getting credit (long delays, etc). Maybe you can buy a house without credit, or are homeless, but for most people this would be a big problem. Yes, it's not fair. Yes, it's not in the "rules", but it's still a big problem.

Re:Why only partial? (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263491)

After identify theft, many people have a very hard time getting credit (long delays, etc).

After identity theft people have to verify their identity using something other than their SSN. That usually is as simple as visiting a notary public and/or having something sent to your physical address. Yes, it takes longer. But the only solution to this would be to make it take longer for everyone, regardless of whether or not they had their identity stolen!

Maybe you can buy a house without credit, or are homeless, but for most people this would be a big problem.

Having your identity stolen does not prevent you from buying a house with credit.

Why is SSN such a big deal? (4, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263493)

The root of the problem is that any system relying on keeping your social security number secret is broken. An SSN is an identifier for a person, it is like a name. You don't keep your name secret (Wizard of Earthsea aside) so why should the number be different?

Not that you'd necessarily want people to be able to find out and disclose your number whenever they felt like it - there are still privacy considerations even with 'useless' information - but if disclosing the number exposes you to fraud then the fault is with the systems that rely on SSN to authenticate (rather than identify) an individual.

Every cheque you write has your bank account number on it. Disclosing the number doesn't automatically expose you fraud (unless you also supply headed notepaper and do other stupid things). If the banks can do it, why not social security?

Re:Why is SSN such a big deal? (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263515)

I don't see the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying.

Every cheque you write has your bank account number on it. Disclosing the number doesn't automatically expose you fraud (unless you also supply headed notepaper and do other stupid things).

Umm, have you ever heard of ACH? The number on the bottom of your check is just as dangerous as your social security number. Dangerous to the banks, that is. Unless you're doing something negligent, you're not responsible.

If the banks can do it, why not social security?

Who is "social security?" Are you saying that the government should use some better system to send you your social security checks?

Re:Why is SSN such a big deal? (1)

John3 (85454) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263523)

You're right, it is the systems that are broken (How else to explain the increasing frequency of identity theft?). The posting of their numbers is not a real big deal even though it's a great PR ploy.

Re:Why only partial? (1)

Igmuth (146229) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263535)

Well sir, you are a fool then.Holywood video has no need of your SSN. You can, and infact should refuse to give to give it out to such companies.

While your point that it actually isn't sercure is true, that doesn't mean that actively distributing such information is a good idea...

Re:Why only partial? (2, Interesting)

ChadN (21033) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263359)

If Bill ever collects on Social Security, it might make front page news (well, front Slashdot page news, anyway).

Re:Why only partial? (1)

f97tosc (578893) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263537)

Post partial -> They know that you have it

Post whole -> What is the remaining incentive to change anything?

Tor

i say... (3, Insightful)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263271)

good for them. This isn't an extorion of a threat, as some claim. As they have stated in their defence, it is a demonstration of the vulnerablity of ones information. Had they released the entire SSN, or threatened to do so, then I would not support them. But as it stands, they have provided a strong demonstration of a need for increased legislation toward the protection of privacy.

Glorious (3, Insightful)

The Tyro (247333) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263351)

The man published the partial SSN's after the vote, so he wasn't trying to extort the legislators to vote for the bill. I'd say the extortion/threatening charges are a bit out of line for this.

Heheh... what a great poke-in-the-eye to the legislators, and a great demonstration of what the issue was really about.

No full SSN's were given out, so no harm was really done here... just some angry lawmakers... Let's hope they have the introspection to learn from this jab.

Bravo.

Re:Glorious (4, Interesting)

miu (626917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263497)

Heheh... what a great poke-in-the-eye to the legislators, and a great demonstration of what the issue was really about.

The problem is that civil servants (such as these politicians) often believe that they are our superiors. So most of them are incapable of realizing that privacy laws are for everyone. Instead they will look at creating a law or applying an existing law in such a way as to protect just themselves. That was exactly the reaction of the civil servants involved in the garbage search incident in Oregon.

Total Cost of World Domination Continues to Fall (1)

w3weasel (656289) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263273)

So for $26 a pop... Will the real Mr. President please stand up? Uh, ok, can you show me your proof of ID?

HELLO, I LIKE TO SUCK COCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263275)

Please email me (tomstdenis@iahu.ca [mailto] ) if you would like to get together.

Boys under twelve only, please.

Re:HELLO, I LIKE TO SUCK COCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263307)

Hey, none of that here. Slashdot is my territory.

M. Jackson
Neverland Ranch, CA

Trading Card (5, Insightful)

Jad LaFields (607990) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263276)

Gray Davis trading card, "Privacy Series". Mint condition. Best offer.

I love it when political groups pull off silly stunts to make a point. Politics grows more and more entertaining and less helpful everyday.

Once again I feel compelled to ask... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263277)

who the fuck cares what happens in or to America?

Re:Once again I feel compelled to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263290)

Clearly not americans...

Re:Once again I feel compelled to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263292)

who the fuck cares what happens in or to America?

Americans. Occasionally.

Re:Once again I feel compelled to ask... (1)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263389)

SUV drivers with American flags on the side.

Conservatives are such stereotypes.

America... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263519)

Truly an American icon. We hardly knew her.

Transparency vs secrecy (4, Insightful)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263285)

Either transparency or secrecy is acceptable -- as long as both the citizenry and the government have the same thing.

Re:Transparency vs secrecy (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263369)

Sounds very much like what David Brinn says in his book, the Transparent Society [amazon.com] . Brinn discusses a concept called the "Accountability Matrix", in which there are four types of technologies: Those that help me spy on others, those that prevent me from spying on others, those that help others spy on me, and those that prevent others from spying on me (In no particular order). To sum it up, he argues that the technologies that prevent spying only hurt society, whereas the other two help it. I'd agree, particularly after wading through difficult-to-identify spam messages.

Both are impossible (1)

Perianwyr Stormcrow (157913) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263371)

You're talking about two absolutes here, both of which are unachievable. "Total transparency" means no privacy for the proles, and false fronts for the powerful. Sound familiar? "Total secrecy" means false fronts for everyone, and no recourse when the people justifiably try to find out what the hell is influencing their lives.

The answer is, as always, in the middle.

Re:Transparency vs secrecy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263438)

Why? It might be easier to conceptualize the issue by reducing it to two extremes, but at the cost of ignoring an infinity of alternatives and inviting, naturally, extremism. Both solutions are wrong.

Re:Transparency vs secrecy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263512)

Your statement is vague and generic to the point of uselessness.

Valid Point, but.. (4, Insightful)

johnnick (188363) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263293)

Had they done it before the vote, or gone to each Assembly-person and demonstrated the capability before the vote, that would've been legitimate lobbying. This is just petty and serves to make the Assembly-people less likely to listen to this group in the future.

John

Re:Valid Point, but.. (5, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263363)

Had they done it before the vote, or gone to each Assembly-person and demonstrated the capability before the vote, that would've been legitimate lobbying. This is just petty and serves to make the Assembly-people less likely to listen to this group in the future.

I respectfully disagree. This is a perfectly valid way to express dissatisfaction with the decision of these lawmakers.

"Really assemblyman? This privacy measure isn't needed? Will your position be the same when it's YOUR information instead of ours?"

I agree 100% with these guys.

Re:Valid Point, but.. (1)

johnnick (188363) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263433)

I agree with you that this is a valid way to express dissatisfaction. However, I think it also serves to anger the legislators who voted against the bill, and will make those legislators less willing to listen to or cooperate with this group in the future.

My point is that by performing the same exercise before the vote, they might have influenced the vote to go the way they wanted. By doing this after the vote, at best, they require the process to start over again with a new bill to achieve what they want.

John

Re:Valid Point, but.. (1)

leandrod (17766) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263372)

>
gone to each Assembly-person

What do you mean? Something like elected representative to the State Assembly?

>
This is just petty and serves to make the Assembly-people less likely to listen to this group in the future.

Why petty? When you aren't big or rich enough, the Net may be a good way to get one's attention -- assuming your are /.ted or better yet locally publicised, like getting a reference at the regional and local news channels and papers.

Re:Valid Point, but.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263399)

> legitimate lobbying...

They assembly people are elected and sworn to uphold the public good.

They failed to do so.

The entire point of a representative democrocy is that the whole of the population need not be routinely engaged in governmental matters. Your assumption suggests we do, in fact, need to because our "representatives" will not act appropriately (or with even slight common sense) otherwise.

Again, they failed in doing their jobs.

I see NO point why they shouldn't pay the price for the ignorance and arrogance they displayed in failing to protect their citezens. I'd have posted their full SSN, and been MOST happy if any of them were to actually suffer id theft because of it.

Good for us, good for them. Period.

Whoop deedoo (5, Insightful)

KingArthur10 (679328) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263297)

If you really want to find someone's social security number, you can do it a million ways. Every business they work for has it on record, the credit beuru has it, your D/L has it tied in for police. All anyone really has to do is do a credit check on you, claiming to be a possible employer and such. I am not afraid of my SSN being released. Yeah, someone could really screw with my life, but then, I could sue the heck out of whatever company released it. Anything in life either has to have a SSN or a Birth Cirtificate anymore. Why not just implant babies with chips and call it a day? ;-)

Re:Whoop deedoo (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263325)

oh, yeah. sue the company. That's really going to help. probably won't even work. and is it worth the risk of someone fucking with up your life? Most people have enough to do without worrying about people getting their SSN

Re:Whoop deedoo (5, Interesting)

KingArthur10 (679328) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263354)

Actually, the credit beuru once accidently typed in the wrong SSN of a convicted felon. After that, the man's SSN that they typed in was suddenly not able to find a job or get credit for anything. After at least 10 years in the gutter, one of the people he looked to employment said to him "we don't hire people with your history". The man began inquiring what that must mean and found out that the credit bearu screwed up his account by saying he was a convicted felon. He then sued the bearu for a good 20-50million dollars and is now living on easy street. All I was really trying to say is that if someone wants to get your SSN, all they have to do is act like an employer and do a credit check. There are a million other ways, too. When I worked at CVS, our login code was our SSN. All someone had to do would be watch closely a few times, and wham, they've got it.

Re:Whoop deedoo (1)

DustMagnet (453493) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263516)

It's bothered me for years that the credit bureaus are protected from liability for wrong data, so I find your story hard to believe. I'm not saying I know it's wrong, but it doesn't agree with what I know about the industry. According to the fair creadit reporting act, they only have to make a good faith effort to report data given to them and they can't be sued.

I tried really hard to find a link that supported or contradicted your story, but I failed.

Re:Whoop deedoo (0)

aexandria (443460) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263341)

You spelled Bureau wrong.

Re:Whoop deedoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263347)

Why not just implant babies with chips and call it a day?

Me: *faint*....
Dude: Dude get up?!? What's wrong?!?!
Me: I just heard they are going to use our child implants to track us via satellite, due to increased terrorist activity....
Dude: *faint*....
Me: Dude! Are you ok!?!?

Any other suggestions?

Re:Whoop deedoo (1)

pi_rules (123171) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263459)

your D/L has it tied in for police.


I'm almost positive my Driver's License doesn't have my SSN tied to it. In fact I would presume that to be illegal. The SSN is supposed to be used only for social security. Granted, private industry has abused this and tied to all sorts of things for conveinence, but when the -STATE- government starts demanding it for licensing purposes I'll get worried.

I honestly can't rember if I had to give my SSN when I got my driver's license. I'm almost positive that I've never given it out when renewing plates or adding certifications to it.

I'm not horribly afraid of my SSN being released, but there is one thing I refuse to have it tied to: Firearms purchases. I bought my first two fiarms with a check, but they were pistols which had to be registered with the government anyway. That registration does -not- have my SSN on it either. In fact it doesn't even have my driver's license number on it. I'm in Michigan, YYMV.

When filling out the ATF required form for a background check there is a section where you can put your SSN in to "speed up your background check and insure accurate responses". I've never filled that darned thing in and there's no way I will. Assuming I'm not buying a pistol, which has to be reigstered anyway, I'll always pay cash for a rifle. You get a little bit of a weird look pulling out $1100 cash when buying an AR-15 but sure as shit there's somebody in that store that understands why you're doing it.

I don't care if my SSN is tied to my checking account, credit card accounts, employment history, etc. But I'll make damned sure it's not tied to my firearms. And yes, I smile inside whenever I see a video clip of Charleton Heston holding a flintlock rifle above is head shouting "from my cold dead hands!"

I gotta go, my AK-47 is telling me it's time for its cleaning.

Re:Whoop deedoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263517)

Well, here in the state of Virginia, my driver license number IS my social security number.

Re:Whoop deedoo (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263469)

All anyone really has to do is do a credit check on you, claiming to be a possible employer and such.
Not in California. A potential employer must have signed permission from the prospective employee to run a credit check. The one time the form was included in the employment package I tossed it. I was hired anyway.

SB1386 tie in (5, Interesting)

eericson (103272) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263298)

What I find amusing about this situation is that these are the same leglislators (scuse the spelling) that unanimously voted for SB1386 [strongauth.com] when their bank/credit info was compromised, yet don't want to take that last step now to protect everyone's privacy.

The more time I spend in CA the more I realize our state legislators are like ill trained puppies: They're cute to look at, but occassionally you need to whack them with a magazine to keep them from crapping on the carpet.

-E2

Re:SB1386 tie in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263344)

Someone PLEASE mod this up.

With A Magazine? (1)

GnarlyNome (660878) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263373)

Depends on what caliber rounds in the magazine .50 BMG now that would hurt.

Re:SB1386 tie in (5, Informative)

johnnick (188363) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263400)

This actually exposes an interesting gap in SB 1386.

Under SB 1386 (which goes into effect on July 1), any entity covered by the law has a duty to notify California residents âoein the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delayâ when it is known, or reasonably believed, that âoepersonal informationâ stored on the entityâ(TM)s computer systems has been disclosed to unauthorized persons as a result of a security breach. An entity is only exempt from the notification requirement when: (a) the âoepersonal informationâ disclosed was already publicly available through the federal, state, or local governments; (b) the âoepersonal informationâ was stored in an encrypted form; or (c) the unauthorized person would be unable to link the California residentâ(TM)s name with other sensitive data (e.g., Social Security number, credit card number, etc.). Entities that fail to comply with SB 1386 can be sued by individuals whose personal information was disclosed for damages suffered due to the disclosure (i.e., damages resulting from identity theft).

But, SB 1386 does not cover information legitimately sold, such as the SSN information acquired by the lobbying group. (I'm assuming that they weren't receiving stolen information.)

John

Re:SB1386 tie in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263488)

Anyone want to spend another $26 and tell us the complete numbers for our lovely public servants? After all, if they didn't mind these sleezebag merchants of personal info to peddling their info, they can't possibly object to their constituents helping to sustain that business by purchasing a few credit reports, now can they? I wonder if any of those politicians have bounced a check, or have made late payments...

Hell employers do credit checks on employees - these politicians are supposed to be public servants, let's do credit checks on them!

can anyone... (1)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263299)

tell me why banks, credit card companies and other corporations lobbied against the legislation?

Re:can anyone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263324)

Because they all use SS# as a primary key in their databases.

Linux ported to slashcode (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263301)

Linux version 2.4.21-slashdot.org (Jamie@macarthy.vg) (gcc version 3.4.0) #1 Sun Jun 22 22:00:06 EST 2003
BIOS-provided physical RAM map:
BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 00000000000a0000 (usable)
BIOS-e820: 00000000000f0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 000000000fff0000 (usable)
BIOS-e820: 000000000fff0000 - 000000000fff3000 (ACPI NVS)
BIOS-e820: 000000000fff3000 - 0000000010000000 (ACPI data)
BIOS-e820: 00000000fec00000 - 00000000fec01000 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: 00000000fee00000 - 00000000fee01000 (reserved)
BIOS-e820: 00000000ffff0000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
255MB LOWMEM available.
On node 0 totalpages: 65520
zone(0): 4096 pages.
zone(1): 61424 pages.
zone(2): 0 pages.
Kernel command line: root=/dev/hda6 vga=0x31A
Initializing CPU#0
Detected 1256.934 MHz processor.
Console: colour dummy device 80x25
Calibrating delay loop... 2510.02 BogoMIPS
Memory: 256424k/262080k available (1498k kernel code, 5272k reserved, 589k data, 116k init, 0k highmem)
Dentry cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
Inode cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 5, 131072 bytes)
Mount-cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 3, 32768 bytes)
Buffer-cache hash table entries: 16384 (order: 4, 65536 bytes)
Page-cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes)
CPU: L1 I Cache: 64K (64 bytes/line), D cache 64K (64 bytes/line)
CPU: L2 Cache: 256K (64 bytes/line)
Intel machine check architecture supported.
Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#0.
CPU: After generic, caps: 0383fbff c1c3fbff 00000000 00000000
CPU: Common caps: 0383fbff c1c3fbff 00000000 00000000
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) stepping 02
Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done.
Enabling unmasked SIMD FPU exception support... done.
Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK.
POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
PCI: PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xfb3d0, last bus=1
PCI: Using configuration type 1
PCI: Probing PCI hardware
PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00)
PCI: Using IRQ router VIA [1106/3177] at 00:11.0
Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4
Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
Initializing RT netlink socket
Starting kswapd
devfs: v1.12c (20020818) Richard Gooch (rgooch@atnf.csiro.au)
devfs: boot_options: 0x1
Installing knfsd (copyright (C) 1996 okir@monad.swb.de).
parport0: PC-style at 0x378 [PCSPP(,...)]
aty128fb: Rage128 BIOS located at segment C00C0000
aty128fb: Rage128 Pro TF (AGP) [chip rev 0x4] 32M 128-bit SDR SGRAM (1:1)
Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 80x30
fb0: ATY Rage128 frame buffer device on PCI
vesafb: abort, cannot reserve video memory at 0xd8000000
vesafb: framebuffer at 0xd8000000, mapped to 0xd2804000, size 32768k
vesafb: mode is 1280x1024x16, linelength=2560, pages=11
vesafb: protected mode interface info at c000:442b
vesafb: scrolling: redraw
vesafb: directcolor: size=0:5:6:5, shift=0:11:5:0
fb1: VESA VGA frame buffer device
Detected PS/2 Mouse Port.
pty: 256 Unix98 ptys configured
Serial driver version 5.05c (2001-07-08) with MANY_PORTS SHARE_IRQ SERIAL_PCI enabled
ttyS00 at 0x03f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A
ttyS01 at 0x02f8 (irq = 3) is a 16550A
Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 6.31
ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with idebus=xx
VP_IDE: IDE controller on PCI bus 00 dev 89
VP_IDE: detected chipset, but driver not compiled in!
PCI: No IRQ known for interrupt pin A of device 00:11.1. Please try using pci=biosirq.
VP_IDE: chipset revision 6
VP_IDE: not 100% native mode: will probe irqs later
ide0: BM-DMA at 0xc000-0xc007, BIOS settings: hda:DMA, hdb:pio
ide1: BM-DMA at 0xc008-0xc00f, BIOS settings: hdc:DMA, hdd:pio
hda: Maxtor 6Y060L0, ATA DISK drive
hdc: HL-DT-ST CD-RW GCE-8240B, ATAPI CD/DVD-ROM drive
ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14
ide1 at 0x170-0x177,0x376 on irq 15
hda: 120103200 sectors (61493 MB) w/2048KiB Cache, CHS=7476/255/63
hdc: ATAPI 40X CD-ROM CD-R/RW drive, 8192kB Cache
Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.12
Partition check:
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0: p1 p2 < p5 p6 p7 p8 p9 >
FDC 0 is a post-1991 82077
RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 4096K size 1024 blocksize
loop: loaded (max 8 devices)
via-rhine.c:v1.10-LK1.1.14 May-3-2002 Written by Donald Becker
http://www.scyld.com/network/via-rhine.html
PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 00:12.0
PCI: Sharing IRQ 11 with 00:10.0
eth0: VIA VT6102 Rhine-II at 0xc800, 00:04:61:43:50:1e, IRQ 11.
eth0: MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x786d advertising 05e1 Link 45e1.
Linux agpgart interface v0.99 (c) Jeff Hartmann
agpgart: Maximum main memory to use for agp memory: 203M
agpgart: Detected Via Apollo Pro KT266 chipset
agpgart: AGP aperture is 128M @ 0xd0000000
[drm] AGP 0.99 on VIA Apollo KT133 @ 0xd0000000 128MB
[drm] Initialized r128 2.2.0 20010917 on minor 0
SCSI subsystem driver Revision: 1.00
kmod: failed to exec /sbin/modprobe -s -k scsi_hostadapter, errno = 2
Linux Kernel Card Services 3.1.22
options: [pci] [cardbus] [pm]
usb.c: registered new driver hub
uhci.c: USB Universal Host Controller Interface driver v1.1
PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 00:10.0
PCI: Sharing IRQ 11 with 00:12.0
uhci.c: USB UHCI at I/O 0xb400, IRQ 11
usb.c: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1
hub.c: USB hub found
hub.c: 2 ports detected
PCI: Found IRQ 10 for device 00:10.1
uhci.c: USB UHCI at I/O 0xb800, IRQ 10
usb.c: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 2
hub.c: USB hub found
hub.c: 2 ports detected
PCI: Found IRQ 12 for device 00:10.2
PCI: Sharing IRQ 12 with 00:11.5
uhci.c: USB UHCI at I/O 0xbc00, IRQ 12
usb.c: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 3
hub.c: USB hub found
hub.c: 2 ports detected
usb.c: registered new driver hid
hid-core.c: v1.8.1 Andreas Gal, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
hid-core.c: USB HID support drivers
mice: PS/2 mouse device common for all mice
NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP, IGMP
IP: routing cache hash table of 2048 buckets, 16Kbytes
TCP: Hash tables configured (established 16384 bind 32768)
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0.
ds: no socket drivers loaded!
reiserfs: checking transaction log (device 03:06) ...
Using r5 hash to sort names
ReiserFS version 3.6.25
VFS: Mounted root (reiserfs filesystem) readonly.
Mounted devfs on /dev
Freeing unused kernel memory: 116k freed
hub.c: new USB device 00:10.0-1, assigned address 2
input0: USB HID v1.10 Mouse [Logitech USB Mouse] on usb1:2.0
hub.c: new USB device 00:10.0-2, assigned address 3
hub.c: USB hub found
hub.c: 4 ports detected
Adding Swap: 795208k swap-space (priority -1)
reiserfs: checking transaction log (device 03:07) ...
Using r5 hash to sort names
ReiserFS version 3.6.25
reiserfs: checking transaction log (device 03:08) ...
Using r5 hash to sort names
ReiserFS version 3.6.25
reiserfs: checking transaction log (device 03:09) ...
Using r5 hash to sort names
ReiserFS version 3.6.25
PCI: Found IRQ 12 for device 00:11.5
PCI: Sharing IRQ 12 with 00:10.2
PCI: Setting latency timer of device 00:11.5 to 64
eth0: Setting full-duplex based on MII #1 link partner capability of 45e1.

Re:Linux ported to slashcode (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263452)

Athlon 1.2Ghz, 256M ram, ATI128 video card, IDE 60G hdd, (probably) d-link nic, nameless cdwriter ? Sounds like your typical poor-man filesharing rig to me. Mommy couldn't pony up enough money to pay you the latest and greatest at CompUSA, eh ?

Man, your computer sucks and you post your dmesg on Slashdot : I bet your girlfriend left your dorm room to go spend the night with someone who doesn't have pimples ...

Reminds me of that time.... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263320)

This reminds me of that time that reporters in Washington St. decided to rumage through the garbage of all the goverment officials who supported the police in removing garbage as evidence from the outside of suspects homes.

That didnt end up well for the officials then, sort of a double standard.

SSN Hacking (4, Informative)

blanktek (177640) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263322)

Useful information derived from SSN can be found here [cpsr.org] . You can see everyone was born in CA by the first three numbers. Group numbers can be verified, but isn't the serial numbers the important information?

Not exactly... (2)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263419)

The first three numbers don't represent where you were born, but where you lived when you social security number was assigned.

Re:SSN Hacking (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263439)

hmm...wth? According to that page, I was born / applied to my SSN in Maryland...I've never been to Maryland.

I think that info is faulty

Still don't get it. (2, Insightful)

FosterKanig (645454) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263328)

The thing that astounds me is that the people who voted no STILL don't get it.
The tactics do not show how out of control lobbying is a bad thing (even if it is), they show that those in dissent don't have a clue about what information they are allowing to be broadcast.

I just finished my dinner, so this must be "just desserts!"

"vote our conscience" hahahaha (5, Insightful)

konichiwa (216809) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263329)

from the sfgate article:

"We should be free to vote our conscience and not be threatened or harassed if we choose to vote contrary to people who are lobbying for special legislation," said Assemblyman Ed Chavez, D-La Puente, one of the lawmakers whose partial number was published.

What a crock. I wonder how much money he takes from special interest and lobby groups that pay him to "vote his conscience."

Politicians = soul merchants

Re:"vote our conscience" hahahaha (1)

visualight (468005) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263540)

Isn't there some way to "fire" legislators? Like a recall vote or something? Maybe legislators should be threatened when they give too much preference to the "monied interests". Especially in CA.

politicians should stop complaining (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263343)

You dont give us privacy and then you demand privacy . Well that doesnt sound like a good *explitive deleted* deal?
If you dont like having your SSN number spread around the internet then perhaps you should pass legislation to protect everyone (of course instead will end up with legislation that only protects politions and those who have a lot more than $26 to line there pockets).

Release more than just the first 4 numbers. (4, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263348)

Thousands of people who were born in the same part of the country as me the same year I was have the same first 4 numbers.

All that can be deduced from that info is an approximate region of birth and possibly age.

Perhaps these guys should release one extra number per week until they get the privacy laws corrected.

LK

I found Kevin Mitnik's SSN (3, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263355)

Here it is (partially) :
xxx-xx-1337

And of course, Bill Gates (again, only partially) :
666-xx-xxxx

nice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263365)

nice way to run week old news, slashdot .. do you
guys actually get paid? .. i hope the fuck not

SS doesn't always mean your birth location ... (2, Informative)

jasonhamilton (673330) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263377)

I was born in Egypt. I picked up my father's geographic location in my SSN.

Re:SS doesn't always mean your birth location ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6263396)

I think terrorists get their own prefix

I kid, I kid!!

You are correct (3, Informative)

DudemanX (44606) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263477)

It only determines where you were registered for the number. I was born in New Jersey, but have a California prefix of 572. We moved out here whan I was about 3.

the worst number ever (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263404)


first we are given a number rather than our names, like dogs with tags

then we are tracked, and can't make a buck without it

then it is easy to forge, and everybody misuses it

then it's required for all sorts of services it should have nothing to do with - like why the hell do I need one to get medical insurance

and finally, worst of all, it is attached to one of the largest, most fraudlent ponzi, pyramid, investment aleged retirement schemes in the history of human existence.

we would really do better getting rid of it, I'm glad they posted these numbers, it really hits the point home

Re:the worst number ever (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263505)

first we are given a number rather than our names, like dogs with tags

Ask your parents, I bet they chose your name before getting your SSN. As for dog tags, they usually bear doggy's name on it.

then it's required for all sorts of services it should have nothing to do with - like why the hell do I need one to get medical insurance

Thank your fellow countrymen for lobbying against a national ID card : after all, don't you use your driver's license to write checks too ? Driving cars and writing checks don't have much in common either.

and finally, worst of all, it is attached to one of the largest, most fraudlent ponzi, pyramid, investment aleged retirement schemes in the history of human existence.

I've always said and will always say that people who are credulous enough to be taken in Ponzi or MLM scams deserve what happens to them.

Only the first 3 digits (2, Insightful)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263422)

He only posted the first 3 digits of Gray Davis's SSN, that's nothing. IIRC that part tells you where you registered. That can be figured out. If you really wanted to worry them, do something like 5x6-x3-x7x0.

That way they'd have a pretty good idea that you have the info.

Semi O/T Rant... (3, Interesting)

curunir (98273) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263428)

The problem isn't that we need privacy laws to protect user's SSNs...those can be publicly available. The problem is that the SSN has been overloaded by businesses and other organizations.

A SSN is a number granted to an individual by the government for the purposes of identifying that person to the government. It shouldn't be a means of identifying someone to a credit card company, bank or other institution (my university used SSN as our student ID numbers). If one of these institutions wants to identify me by a number, they can assign me their own damn number.

What we need is legislation preventing private institutions from assigning extra significance to any government issued piece of identification. Just because SSN is a handy primary key for their db tables doesn't mean that they should be allowed to use it.
</rant>

Re:Semi O/T Rant... (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263481)

A SSN is a number granted to an individual by the government for the purposes of identifying that person to the government.
You almost got it right. You should have said, "A SSN is a number granted by the government for the purposes of identifying that person the the Social Security Administration." By law, the SSN can not be used for any other purpose. Of course, when has a mere law stopped the government or businesses for doing whatever they want?

Funniest Thing To Me (2, Interesting)

Babbster (107076) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263431)

The only reason not to vote for increased privacy for financial data would be the cost of said legislation to business, government or both. Yet their response is to call for increased lobbying restrictions that presumably will cost the government more money.

Like most here, I think this is an effective demonstration of the ease with which personal information can be obtained, whether on the Interweb or elsewhere. The mere fact that these legislators are reacting so badly to release of fairly benign personal information is probably an indicator that they made a mistake in their voting. If they truly believed in their position they would have looked at this release and shrugged, or even been amused.

Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights (2, Insightful)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263436)

Good to know they think of others as nothing but consumers and taxpayers. Imagine actually thinking of someone else as a PERSON... THE HORROR!

SSN: Public or Confidential Information? (5, Interesting)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263455)

Social Security numbers were originally intended to be used only by the social security program and were supposed to make record keeping easier. They were never meant to function as an authentication mechanism.

The problem arose when the mapping between a person's name (or identity) and the SSN was considered confidential information, and a number of government and non government organizations started treating the knowledge of a person's SSN as an authentication mechanism.

Many companies treat the fact that you know (the last 4 digits of) a social security number combined with some additional information like the last name and street address as proof that you are indeed who the record states you are.

This is absurd. Either each individual should be assigned a secret id, which when used in conjunction with the SSN proves one's identity, or some other mechanism to verify identity should be developed. As long as the SSN continues to be (ab)used as a supposedly public index into a database, as well as a piece of confidential information, privacy will remain a farce.

Reminds me of... (1)

lnoble (471291) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263457)

.... when I worked on a privacy initiative in washington state 3 years ago. One of our ideas for getting money was to mail possible contributers information about themselves which we bought in bulk. The line was something like - "do you think we should have this information? We don't. If you value your privacy please consider .......blablabla"

It ultimately panned out to be way too time consuming personalizing individual letters, but if we thought of it earlier we probably could have rounded up enough money=signatures to take it to the polls.

by the way what do you think those safeway cards are really for?

Presume negligence (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263461)

The easy way to fix this is to legislate that any person or institution who uses a social security number, or part thereof, for authentication purposes is presumptively negligent. Any person or institution that uses a SSN for identification purposes assumes all risk thereby, including liability to other parties, and cannot disclaim, offset, or shift said liability.

This allows the use of SSNs as an identifier, but not as an authentication token. Lawyers have a hard problem with that distinction, but they understand negligence.

Re:Presume negligence (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263478)

That's already pretty much the case. The only problem is that most people are lazy and/or unknowledgable, so they allow marks to remain on their credit report which could easily be taken away.

By the way, if you'd like to stop many people from using your SSN as authentication, you can call your credit reporting agency and tell them that your SSN might have been stolen. They'll put a flag on your credit report, and you won't be able to sign up for things as easily any more.

SSN makes you life easier. (4, Interesting)

Simon Lyngshede (623138) | more than 11 years ago | (#6263484)

I would hate not having my CPR number (Danish Social Security Number). It make identification so much easier, I only wish I could use it for more things.

I never hear of anyone having their CPR number misused. Try to remember that it's just a easier way of identification and NOT a tracking device inserted up your ass. Your more like to be tracked when you use your VISA card than by having a SSN. I'm sure Wal-Mart knows more about most Americans than the US government does.

Why are Americans so much more paranoid than other people? Have your government really screwed over that many times? If you can't trust your government you have a problem. Please do something about it.
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>