[funsec] Colorado Supreme Court: Using a Stolen Social Security Number is Not Identity Theft

[Joel Esler]

And they showed up your house?  Boy, do we live in a police state. 

--
Sent from my iPad

On Nov 17, 2010, at 3:54 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb at byrneit.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: funsec-bounces at linuxbox.org [mailto:funsec-bounces at linuxbox.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Walton
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 6:26 PM
>>> To: FunSec
>>> Subject: [funsec] Colorado Supreme Court: Using a Stolen Social
>>> Security Number is Not Identity Theft
>>> 
>>> From the folks at the Dataloss Database....
>>> 
>>> The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled "that using someone else's Social
>>> Security number is not identity theft as long as you use your own name
>>> with it." ....
>>> 
>>> http://robertsiciliano.com/blog/2010/11/11/colorado-supreme-court-
>>> using-a-stolen-social-security-number-is-not-identity-theft/
>>> 
>> [Tomas L. Byrnes]
>> 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".
> Be careful with this one. I criticized a Federal Judge in similar
> fashion. The US Marshals showed up at my house in an effort to
> "silence through intimidation". The email is pasted below.
> 
>> After all, it is no big deal, according to them.
> Haha!
> 
> Jeff
> 
> ==========
> 
> [Sent to the Clerk of the Court]
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please pass on to Judge Buckles.
> 
> Judge Buckles: I would like to thank you for your recent assassination
> in Amburgy v. Express Scripts, Inc. Writing that Ambury did not
> demonstrate harm that is ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or
> hypothetical' was appalling.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that the danger is real. One of the first
> things those who are negligence do is offer computer and personal
> security services to the victims, such as antivirus and credit
> monitoring.
> 
> Your ruling is synonymous with, "There's no proof that the thief who
> broke into the safe and stole the money will spend the money." I can
> only hope that you and your family are the victims of a breach, so you
> can endure the mythical threat upon which you base your opinions.
> 
> You are clearly not qualified to preside over issues in the digital
> age. Next time, please do all of us a favor and recuse yourself.
> 
> Thanks jackass,
> 
> Jeffrey Walton
> Baltimore, MD, US
> 
> [Postscript]
> "After data loss, ID theft risk soars"
> http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/11/i-call-them-dear-john-data-letters-because-of-the-bad-news-they-bring-and-their-decidedly-warm-and-fuzzy-tone--dear-consume.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.