Re: Colorado Supreme Court: Using a Stolen Social Security Number is Not Identity Theft

[Joel Esler <joel.esler () me com>]

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 () gmail com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb () byrneit net> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () 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.

_______________________________________________
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.