 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> Maybe there, but not here...not everyone in the US has one. Many people
> who live in the US don't, even though they're legal.
I can't understand how that can work. The most prominent problem which
comes to mind is: How do they collect taxes if they don't know who is who?
How can employers inform the government who is working for them if the
employees have no ID? (At least here employers have a rather strict duty
to have very accurate paperwork on who is working and every single cent
is accounted for and notified, mostly for taxing and insurance purposes
but also for other things, such as ensuring employee rights and such.)
> > as it's an unambiguous unique identifier (and the government has your
> > data associated with it).
> Over here we tend to be suspicious (some would say "overly suspicious")
> of the idea of a national identity database. Governments around the
> world have demonstrated that they're not terribly good at keeping data
> that should secure secured. Though the most recent examples I can think
> of are from he UK....
One can be suspicious of a government that wants to keep accurate
information on every single citizen of the country, but I really can't
understand how a country can work without that. The Finnish government
(and I'm sure it's the same for many other countries) knows the exact
number of Finnish citizens, and their basic info (date of birth, etc.)
That might sound a bit draconian when said like that, but I have yet
to feel that being abused. It seems to work quite well. One situation
where the government knowing who you are works pretty well is in, as
the name implies, social security. For example if you break a leg, you
just go to the hospital, tell your social security number, and they fix
you up for free. No hassle.
To somewhat compensate, Finland has very strict privacy laws (probably
much stricter than in most other countries). For example, it's strictly
prohibited to publish lists of information about people, such as for
example people's names and their SSNs. This goes sometimes to rather
extremes: For example, at schools it's prohibited to put lists of
student names and their student numbers in public view (eg. in test
scores) because it's interpreted to break the privacy laws. (You can
publish lists which have only the numbers or only the names along with
the test scores, but not both. Most choose to publish only the numbers
because they feel more anonymous.)
Another extreme example (and perhaps even a bit ridiculous) was a
Finnish website which collected photos of cars with funny license plates.
The website was shut down by authorities because it was interpreted to
break privacy laws (it connected license numbers with the technical
info of the cars, in the form of photographs).
Naturally phonebooks are an exception to this. But even with them you
always specifically choose whether you want your number on the public
phone book or not when you create a phone contract. (And later you can
change this with one phone call.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Maybe there, but not here...not everyone in the US has one. Many people
>> who live in the US don't, even though they're legal.
>
> I can't understand how that can work. The most prominent problem which
> comes to mind is: How do they collect taxes if they don't know who is who?
The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) of course has your SSN, as does anyone
with the authority to collect taxes. (Interestingly, it's called "Social
security number" because it was originally only to be used to collect social
security, not even other federal or state taxes.)
Private companies (other than your employer of course) don't necessarily get
your SSN unless you give it to them. Most places that key their database by
your SSN have mechanisms to support people who don't have or refuse to
provide their SSN.
> How can employers inform the government who is working for them if the
> employees have no ID?
Only taxpayers actually need an SSN. You don't get it "at birth". You get it
before you get a paying job. It's not a national ID number, it's a taxpayer
ID number.
> That might sound a bit draconian when said like that, but I have yet
> to feel that being abused.
It was certainly abused during various wars, by both the USA and Germany
during WWII, for example. Not to invoke godwin or anything...
> To somewhat compensate, Finland has very strict privacy laws (probably
> much stricter than in most other countries).
We lack that here, which is part of the problem. And even when there are
specific laws, our government is pretty good at ignoring them anyway. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now, if I could just learn to not be terrified of all human beings,
>> maybe I'd be getting somewhere! :-}
>
> You're making progress. :-)
I am?
Right now I'm just miserable because she hasn't contacted me yet... :-(
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:32:04 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Now, if I could just learn to not be terrified of all human beings,
>>> maybe I'd be getting somewhere! :-}
>>
>> You're making progress. :-)
>
> I am?
Yes, you are. You're asking and talking to people, that's a huge step
forward.
> Right now I'm just miserable because she hasn't contacted me yet... :-(
Now we need you to learn patience. :-) You could always drop in the
restaurant for dinner one night....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren's summed it up pretty well....
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:44:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Maybe there, but not here...not everyone in the US has one. Many
>> people who live in the US don't, even though they're legal.
>
> I can't understand how that can work. The most prominent problem which
> comes to mind is: How do they collect taxes if they don't know who is
> who? How can employers inform the government who is working for them if
> the employees have no ID? (At least here employers have a rather strict
> duty to have very accurate paperwork on who is working and every single
> cent is accounted for and notified, mostly for taxing and insurance
> purposes but also for other things, such as ensuring employee rights and
> such.)
No SSN != No ID in the US. But most (not all) IDs are issued by the
state and not by the federal government.
For foreign workers, for example, there are other ways and methods used
to report that information.
>> > as it's an unambiguous unique identifier (and the government has your
>> > data associated with it).
>
>> Over here we tend to be suspicious (some would say "overly suspicious")
>> of the idea of a national identity database. Governments around the
>> world have demonstrated that they're not terribly good at keeping data
>> that should secure secured. Though the most recent examples I can
>> think of are from he UK....
>
> One can be suspicious of a government that wants to keep accurate
> information on every single citizen of the country, but I really can't
> understand how a country can work without that. The Finnish government
> (and I'm sure it's the same for many other countries) knows the exact
> number of Finnish citizens, and their basic info (date of birth, etc.)
We do a census every 10 years to find out how many people there are
here. :-)
Looking at my credit report (not managed by the government but by three
separate reporting bureaus), they all don't have the correct address for
me. But they still track my credit without too much trouble - and I know
that, because I check it at least monthly.
> That might sound a bit draconian when said like that, but I have yet
> to feel that being abused.
You're not in the US. Finland has what I certainly would consider to be
reasonable privacy laws.
> It seems to work quite well. One situation
> where the government knowing who you are works pretty well is in, as the
> name implies, social security. For example if you break a leg, you just
> go to the hospital, tell your social security number, and they fix you
> up for free. No hassle.
Ah, socialism that works. :-) Seriously, I admire the health care system
you guys have, and wish we had something similar instead of the crappy
insurance-based system we have now. Granted, having insurance is better
than not.
Out of curiosity, how much of your salary goes to taxes? Over here it's
typically in the 30-40% range.
> Naturally phonebooks are an exception to this. But even with them you
> always specifically choose whether you want your number on the public
> phone book or not when you create a phone contract. (And later you can
> change this with one phone call.)
We do have an option to be unlisted, but that doesn't stop abuses. Right
now there seems to be a dearth of telemarketing companies that skirt the
DNC list rules - like saying they're calling to do a survey (legal) when
the point of the survey is to see if you want to buy something (not
legal). Or political/charity organizations. Or people who just refuse
to identify who they're with or play by the rules.
We had one the other day who insisted that they were legally required to
NOT disclose the name of the charity they were calling on behalf of,
except to the named person they were calling (they claimed my wife had
"done business with" the charity in the past).
I had another who just identified himself by name, and when I asked who
he was calling on behalf of, he gave me his name again and asked if my
wife was home. I asked a second time and in a more demanding tone who he
was calling on behalf of, and he said something like "national
registry" (I actually couldn't make it out). I told him to take us off
their calling list - which they're required by law to do if you ask - and
he actually started to argue before giving up, saying OK and hanging up.
It doesn't help that there are certain categories of numbers that we
cannot block at all. We have to make a note in our phone's electronic
phonebook to have it display the note when hey call (as if it were the
caller ID).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Now, if I could just learn to not be terrified of all human beings,
>>>> maybe I'd be getting somewhere! :-}
>>> You're making progress. :-)
>> I am?
>
> Yes, you are. You're asking and talking to people, that's a huge step
> forward.
On Tuesday it felt like a huge step. But...
<Smith>What good is a phone number if it doesn't do anything</Smith>
>> Right now I'm just miserable because she hasn't contacted me yet... :-(
>
> Now we need you to learn patience. :-) You could always drop in the
> restaurant for dinner one night....
I intend to.
...but I'd like to avoid looking like I'm stalking her. o_O
Patience is one thing, but what if it's not really her number? What if
she doesn't remember who I am? What if she just doesn't want to talk to me?
But... nobody *forced* her to give me the number, so...?
AAARRGH! I'm so *confused*! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:12:10 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> Now, if I could just learn to not be terrified of all human beings,
>>>>> maybe I'd be getting somewhere! :-}
>>>> You're making progress. :-)
>>> I am?
>>
>> Yes, you are. You're asking and talking to people, that's a huge step
>> forward.
>
> On Tuesday it felt like a huge step. But...
It was, and it is.
> <Smith>What good is a phone number if it doesn't do anything</Smith>
Sometimes life gets in the way. Maybe someone in her family got sick or
died. Who knows? Try not to assume it's because it's you.
>>> Right now I'm just miserable because she hasn't contacted me yet...
>>> :-(
>>
>> Now we need you to learn patience. :-) You could always drop in the
>> restaurant for dinner one night....
>
> I intend to.
>
> ...but I'd like to avoid looking like I'm stalking her. o_O
Certainly, but if it's a restaurant you like going to for the food, then
just go for the food. If she's working that night, she is, and if she
isn't, oh well, at least you got a good meal. :-)
> Patience is one thing, but what if it's not really her number? What if
> she doesn't remember who I am? What if she just doesn't want to talk to
> me?
You can what-if yourself to death. So stop it. Just be relaxed and
groovy and see what happens. And keep on dancin'.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Ladies and gentlemen, tonight I went out for a meal. It turns out that
> my waitress was quite cute, and definitely very friendly. Long story
> short: I now have her phone number.
Well, it _is_ her number. Unfortunately it's not going to do me much good.
I suggested to her that maybe we could meet up today. Her response was
that she's trying to "sort things out" with her boyfriend so it's
"probably not a good idea".
To summarise:
1. She already has a boyfriend, so she's not going to improve my
lovelife (e.g., by allowing me to *have* one...)
2. She's not going to hang out with me either, so she's not going to
improve my social life.
*sigh* So I now have another name to add to the list of people I
sometimes contact electronically but almost never get to actually meet
up with. Yay, me.
What a disappointing result...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 1. She already has a boyfriend, so she's not going to improve my
> lovelife (e.g., by allowing me to *have* one...)
What, a boyfriend?
(you walked right into that)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:38:35 +0200, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> 1. She already has a boyfriend, so she's not going to improve my
>> lovelife (e.g., by allowing me to *have* one...)
>
> What, a boyfriend?
http://basicinstructions.net/?p=322
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
