From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:38:50 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fingerprinting annoyance
In-Reply-To: <01I4QVHPIRS68Y5E90@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960515193813.10635L-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 15 May 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> From:	IN%"unicorn@schloss.li"  "Black Unicorn" 15-MAY-1996 00:00:25.51
> >On Tue, 14 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> >> At 3:22 PM 5/14/96, Matthew Williams wrote:
> >> >Although knowingly providing a fake social security number when one
> >> >has any expectation of gain is, I believe, a felony.
> 
> >> >42 USC. sec. 408.
> 
> >Note the key provisons, for gain, and when submitted to those entitled to
> >the number legally.
> 
> 	But is "entitled to the number legally" meaning anyone who _must_
> have the number legally (IRS & other government agencies, those dealing with
> the IRS, etcetera), or anyone who can require it as a condition of doing
> business? There is a difference between the two, at least according to the
> Social Security Number FAQ that I last read.
> 	-Allen


It means essentially the IRS and banks.  Even banks have little recourse.
They make you sign a piece of paper that says you gave them the right SSN,
but practically speaking no one cares.

Equifax (a credit reporting agency) refuses to take bank records as
evidence of SSN's because they KNOW the banks don't care or enforce and
that people lie to or make mistakes to the bank on a daily basis.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com