ADIZ Violation Explained in AOPA Magazine

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:08:04 -0800, Sylvain wrote in
::

Skywise wrote:
that was my understanding too, but it seems that the
DMV can indeed require it,

I'd be interested in reading that.

found it! :-)


California Vehicle Code Section 1653.5:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d02/vc1653_5.htm



More information he

http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/cpsr/pr...n/ssn.faq.html

Why SSN Privacy matters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it illegal for someone to ask for my SSN?
The short answer is that there are many restrictions on government
agencies asking for your number, but few on individuals or companies.
When someone from a government agency asks for your number, they are
required to provide a Privacy Act Disclosure Notice, which is required
to tell you what law allows them to ask, whether you have to provide
your number, and what will happen if you don't provide the number.

Private companies aren't required to follow this law, and in general
your recourse is to find another company to do business with if you
don't like their policies.


Why Should I Care Whether Anyone Knows my SSN?
There are two problem with the way SSNs are used these days. The first
is that they are used (by different parties) as if they were both a
representation of identity and a secure password. The second problem
is that they have become a widely used identifier which can be used to
tie multiple records together about a single individual.

Many institutions, including hospitals and some banks and brokerages
use client's SSNs as a secure representation of their identity. This
seems a good idea, since you aren't allowed to change your SSN, even
though you might change your address, your name, or your phone number.
Other institutions, notably banks, use SSNs as if they were secret
passwords that only the owner would know. If someone knows the name
and the SSN, and is willing to say they have forgotten the account
number, they will usually be allowed to transfer funds, or make other
changes to an account with serious repercussions.

The problem is that these uses are incompatible. As SSNs are widely
used representations of people's identities, appearing on driver's
licenses, mailing labels, and publicly-posted progress reports at
universities, their broad availability becomes more apparent.

There is further discussion of this issue in the section on
Significance of the SSN.


Didn't the government promise that SSNs wouldn't be used for ID?
For the first few decades that SSN cards were issued, they carried the
admonition: "Not to be used for Identification." Unfortunately there
was never any law passed instituting this as a policy. The Social
Security Agency was apparently attempting to instill good values in
the citizens, but was apparently unsuccessful in preventing government
encroachment into this territory. For more information on the
evolution of the laws concerning privacy and Social Security
additional details are available in the more complete version of the
FAQ.

Skywise wrote:

Not
even insurers, creditors, or banks can *require* it.

Banks can require it, since they are obligated to report certain transactions to
the IRS.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Private business cannot compel you to provide your SSN
unless the transaction involves notification of the IRS.

No law prevents private business from asking for your
SSN, and no law exists to prevent them from refusing to
do business with you for refusing to release your SSN.

These two together (both of which are in fact true) do give the lie to
the word "compel" though.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
These two together (both of which are in fact true) do give the lie to
the word "compel" though.

that's how ID cards, rfid and/or biometric IDs/passports, etc.
are being snuck in pretty much everywhe hey, it's not compulsory,
but if you don't have one, you won't be allowed to fly, ride the
train, take the bus, drive, etc.

--Sylvain

".Blueskies." wrote in message
et...
The NPRM for permanently making this airspace restricted is the FAAs way
to calling the TSA or Homeland Security to the table; when this airspace
was defined, the TSA (or Homeland Security, or SS) was supposed to justify
it every 60 days or so which has never been done. This NPRM requires
public hearings so they will have to try and justify it which should prove
to be interesting....

You are quite the optimist.

The NPRM doesn't force anyone to justify anything. It's not the FAA's "way
to calling the TSA or DHS to the table". It's their way of following the
legally required steps to implement their new rules.

If the NPRM were anything other than bureaucratic procedure, then all the
previous NPRMs for bad ideas would have resulted in those bad ideas not
being implemented. But it's not, and they didn't. Anyone who thinks that
comments to a NPRM will have any real effect on the outcome just hasn't been
paying attention to the way the FAA has handled them.

Pete

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:w_jvf.15562$Gu6.3912@trnddc06...
Banks can require it, since they are obligated to report certain
transactions to the IRS.

Anyone can require it. If you decline, they can refuse to do business with
you.

It's like those stupid binding arbitration agreements that stock brokers all
use now. You have a choice to refuse them, but then you can't use any real
financial services, because there aren't any companies that don't have them.

Pete

".Blueskies." wrote in news:STjvf.63153
:

Governmentium
Snipola

HAHAHAH...that's too funny....where did you find that?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

".Blueskies." wrote in message
et

justify it which should prove to be interesting....

As Peter said, the NPRM is just the FAA dotting i's and crossing t's to make
permanent airspace changes.

As for justifying its existence, Congress mandated the FAA (not DHS, etc.)
justify it periodically. As you say, nobody has done it and, as far as I
can tell, nobody has followed through on requiring it.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message


As I recall the article, they were planning on flying under the Class
B near its edge. Of course that's now the ADIZ that goes all the way
down to the surface, so they were actually expecting to be in what is
now ADIZ.

....and was then the ADIZ.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:08:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

Anyone who thinks that comments to a NPRM will have
any real effect on the outcome just hasn't been
paying attention to the way the FAA has handled them.

While I don't disagree with that analysis of the record, the NPRM
procedure does require the FAA to justify their decision with reasoned
responses to the questions/objections raised during the comment
period(s). It would seem that this opens an avenue to legally
challenge that rational in an effort to modify/strike-down the
rule(s).