Immigration patrols on domestic Amtrak

On 2007-08-03, James Silverton wrote:

My SS card is similarly marked tho' I don't carry it and can't
remember where it is. For many years, until I was threatened
with dire penalties, I gave banks 314-15-9265 (digits of PI)
with complete success.


That's an extremely bad idea, as that's in the range of issued numbers, and
could collide with a legitimate number. If you want a truly bogus number
that won't collide with anyone else's, you should choose a number where
the first 3 digits are 8xx or 9xx (really, anything above 772 right now).

Not that I'm condoning tax evasion or fraud.

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_
(_)/ (_)

Kristian wrote on Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:22:17 GMT:

KMZ On 2007-08-03, James Silverton
KMZ wrote:
??
?? My SS card is similarly marked tho' I don't carry it and
?? can't remember where it is. For many years, until I was
?? threatened with dire penalties, I gave banks 314-15-9265
?? (digits of PI) with complete success.

KMZ That's an extremely bad idea, as that's in the range of
KMZ issued numbers, and could collide with a legitimate
KMZ number. If you want a truly bogus number that won't
KMZ collide with anyone else's, you should choose a number
KMZ where the first 3 digits are 8xx or 9xx (really, anything
KMZ above 772 right now).

KMZ Not that I'm condoning tax evasion or fraud.

As I said, I've obviously given up the practice even if I resent
the government evading the intent of Congress not to have
national IDs! At the time the cards were originally issed, there
was a great deal of opposition to the whole idea, hence the
disclaimer.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

Cute selective quoting bit. The OP had stated that Social Security Cards
are not forms of identification. I pointed out that they ARE forms of
identification at hiring.

An SS card is _never_ a form of identification. The reason the I-9 has
three groups of documents is that some prove identity, some prove work
elligibility, and others prove both. An SS card is in the second category.
It is _not_ a form of ID.

This is an entirely unconvincing counter-argument. I gave an example of
its possible use as a form of identification. It's use, for immigration
law purposes, is to identify an individual that meets the criterion of
having a Social Security Number from the series given to citizens and
permanent residents.

Therefore a SSN card is not even required to be shown to an employer,

That is what the form says, this is true. An employer wishing to avoid
hassle later asks to see the card.

I have never, in my entire life, been asked for my SS card.

Great. If your employer receives a complaint about records mismatch, he
would ask to see something to verify a match between Social Security
Number and name. The card issued by Social Security Administration
performs that function ably as an original document.

I don't have one, and I can't recall ever having held one. These days I use
my passport for the I-9 form, but I held four jobs before getting that and
none of them asked to see any documentation, not even my driver's license.

Your driver's license would not be useful for payroll purposes. Do
passports currently display Social Security Numbers? I hope not.

For that matter, only one employer _since_ I got my passport has bothered
checking it to verify what I wrote on the I-9 was true.

Great. I'm sure most employers resent complying with immigration laws,
particularly when hiring citizens and permanent residents, so you were
witnessing a bit of civil disobediance.

I think the provision in law should be repealed.

James Silverton wrote:

For many years, until I was threatened with dire penalties, I gave banks
314-15-9265 (digits of PI) with complete success.

Giving false identification information when requested by someone who
must collect it to comply with tax law is a crime. When you sign the
document giving identification information, you MUST sign under penalty
of perjury, so in addition to other crimes you could be charged with,
perjury is the easiest one to prove.

I guess this would be wire fraud.

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Merritt Mullen" wrote:
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

Why does the government have to get involved in insuring the deposits
in those banks?

As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), it is the customer that is
insured, not the bank.

Correct. The FDIC/NCUA/(former)FSLIC are insurance against the institution
_failing_, not being robbed.

Heh. Insurance against robbery would be a whole lot cheaper for the
taxpayers.

And, for that matter, the gov't is _not_ directly involved. The FDIC/NCUA
charge members for insurance, and they pay claims out of that revenue. If
they were to fail, as the FSLIC did, the Federal Reserve bails them out by
creating new money out of thin air (aka inflation). Note that, while
created by Congress, all of those entities are private corporations and not
part of the government according to US District courts. Their stock is held
exclusively by member banks, so they're not even "public" corporations like
the USPS or NPRC.

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message
reenews.net...
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
An SS card is _never_ a form of identification. The reason the I-9 has
three groups of documents is that some prove identity, some prove work
elligibility, and others prove both. An SS card is in the second
category.
It is _not_ a form of ID.

This is an entirely unconvincing counter-argument. I gave an example of
its possible use as a form of identification. It's use, for immigration
law purposes, is to identify an individual that meets the criterion of
having a Social Security Number from the series given to citizens and
permanent residents.

An SS card does not identify anyone; it can't, since it provides nothing
except a name and number.

What it does do is prove that someone _previously identified by other means_
has the right to work in the US.

You, like most people, are confusing authentication (identity) with
authorization (rights). They're two very different problems, and few
systems solve both because they have completely different requirements.

I have never, in my entire life, been asked for my SS card.

Great. If your employer receives a complaint about records mismatch, he
would ask to see something to verify a match between Social Security
Number and name. The card issued by Social Security Administration
performs that function ably as an original document.

Since I know what my legal name is, and I've never changed it or gone by
anything else, I've never had a problem with it.

An ex of mine insisted that her name was something other than what was on
her birth certificate, and it caused her all kinds of hassles. My sister
forgot to update the SSA when she changed her name at marriage, and that
caused her problems too, even though the state DL office was happy to accept
her new last name with no proof.

I don't have one, and I can't recall ever having held one. These days I
use
my passport for the I-9 form, but I held four jobs before getting that and
none of them asked to see any documentation, not even my driver's license.

Your driver's license would not be useful for payroll purposes.

My point was they had no proof at all that I was who I said I was. I could
have been some serial killer, simply using Stephen Sprunk's name and SSN,
and they wouldn't have had a clue about the deception.

Now that I think about it, my current employer had me fax my passport over
to payroll and my manager never saw it; the same thing could have been done
there as well.

Do passports currently display Social Security Numbers? I hope not.

Mine doesn't, but it was issued in 1998; it's time for me to renew, so I'll
let you know if nobody else responds in the meantime.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Adam wrote on 03 Aug 2007 19:49:16 GMT:

?? For many years, until I was threatened with dire
?? penalties, I gave banks 314-15-9265 (digits of PI) with
?? complete success.

AHK Giving false identification information when requested by
AHK someone who must collect it to comply with tax law is a
AHK crime. When you sign the document giving identification
AHK information, you MUST sign under penalty of perjury, so in
AHK addition to other crimes you could be charged with,
AHK perjury is the easiest one to prove.

Didn't you read my post? :-) I said "until threatened by dire
penalties"

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On 03 Aug 2007 19:53:36 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Merritt Mullen" wrote:
Scott en Aztl?n wrote:

Why does the government have to get involved in insuring the deposits
in those banks?

As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), it is the customer that is
insured, not the bank.

Correct. The FDIC/NCUA/(former)FSLIC are insurance against the institution
_failing_, not being robbed.

Heh. Insurance against robbery would be a whole lot cheaper for the
taxpayers.

And, for that matter, the gov't is _not_ directly involved. The FDIC/NCUA
charge members for insurance, and they pay claims out of that revenue. If
they were to fail, as the FSLIC did, the Federal Reserve bails them out by
creating new money out of thin air (aka inflation). Note that, while
created by Congress, all of those entities are private corporations and not
part of the government according to US District courts. Their stock is held
exclusively by member banks, so they're not even "public" corporations like
the USPS or NPRC.

The post office is NOT a public corporation or any kind of corporation.
It's a government agency. Till the Nixon administration, it was a
cabinet-level executive department.

It's not a corporation, although that was part of the original
proposal for re-organization. But it is also not an agency;
"agency" has a specific legal meaning that doesn't apply to
independent groups like the USPS, which the USPS web site calls
"an independent establishment of the executive branch".

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On 03 Aug 2007 19:49:16 GMT, "Adam H. Kerman"
wrote:

James Silverton wrote:

For many years, until I was threatened with dire penalties, I gave banks
314-15-9265 (digits of PI) with complete success.

Giving false identification information when requested by someone who
must collect it to comply with tax law is a crime. When you sign the
document giving identification information, you MUST sign under penalty
of perjury, so in addition to other crimes you could be charged with,
perjury is the easiest one to prove.

I guess this would be wire fraud.

It means any interest earned at the bank will be credited to
someone else which would allow you to evade taxes on that
interest.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article ews.net,
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

This is an entirely unconvincing counter-argument. I gave an example of
its possible use as a form of identification. It's use, for immigration
law purposes, is to identify an individual that meets the criterion of
having a Social Security Number from the series given to citizens and
permanent residents.

In what why does a SS card identify anyone. All it has on it is a name
and a number. You need supplemental evidence before identification is
possible.

I have never, in my entire life, been asked for my SS card.

Great. If your employer receives a complaint about records mismatch, he
would ask to see something to verify a match between Social Security
Number and name.

He can easily do that without seeing a card. The SSA can match a name to
a number.

I have worked for the federal government all my life, either in the
military or as a civilian, and I can tell you the federal government has
never asked to see my card. What purpose would it serve? I could make
one myself if I needed to.

And, by the way, when you apply for SS benefits, as I have, the SSA
doesn't ask to see your card either (they do want to see your birth
certificate). The sole purpose of the card is to inform the holder of his
account number.

Merritt