ADIZ Violation Explained in AOPA Magazine

John T wrote:

That's news to me. Do you have any links I can check out? I tried Google,
but I may not be using the right search criteria.

From the AOPA article --
"Based on conversations later with government officials, both men believe the
helicopter's radios did not work — or at least did not work on civilian
frequencies — when it first approached the 150. Martin said he was told that
during the ordeal, the helicopter landed, fixed the radio, and then returned to
re-intercept the airplane. Sheaffer said he was told twice by a DHS official
that the helicopter had radio problems and had to land. Again, DHS chose not to
comment on any problems with the radios."

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

I saw that, too. I was hoping you had other links.

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

Sylvain wrote in news:Q7-
:

Skywise wrote:

My understanding is that of those four listed, only the
IRS has a legal right to the number.

that was my understanding too, but it seems that the
DMV can indeed require it, at least here in California
(I can dig it up if you'd like, it's probably buried in
my privacy related doc);

I'd be interested in reading that. If it's online and you
can post a link, that'd be fine. Otherwise just visit my
website in my sig below to find my email.

ISTR, and I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, but I
had read somewhere there were only four entities where you
were required by law to give your SSN, and they weren't all
what you thought they'd be. I cannot remmeber what they all
were, obviously one is Social Security, and I think one was
to a member of congress (for some odd reason). The other two
were equally obscure. Military seems a logical choice. But
I seem to recall being surprised that the IRS was *NOT* on
the list.

Damn...now I'm curious again. I'll have to see if I can
google anything up on this. It may all just be poppycock,
though.

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?

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

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
I'd be interested in reading that.

found it! :-)

California law doesn't have the authority to override the federal
prohibition against use of the social security number.

They can put whatever they want into the California Vehicle Code. If
federal law prohibits their use of the SS number, it is prohibited, and the
California law is in violation of federal law.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[...]
They can put whatever they want into the California Vehicle Code. If
federal law prohibits their use of the SS number, it is prohibited, and
the California law is in violation of federal law.

However, the premise that "federal law prohibits their use of the SS number"
is false (as I've now learned).

Here's the SSA FAQ on the question:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J3BB42B6C

(long version:
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/...php?p_faqid=78)

Some quotes:

The Privacy Act regulates the use of SSNs by government agencies.
When a Federal, State, or local government agency asks an individual
to disclose his or her Social Security number, the Privacy Act
requires the agency to inform the person of the following: the
statutory or other authority for requesting the information;
whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; what uses will be
made of the information; and the consequences, if any, of failure
to provide the information.

And,

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can
refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase
or service for which your number was requested.

IMHO the latter quote is a bit of a "duh". Other than the usual contractual
obligations, I'm not aware of any law that gives a private business the
authority to compel me to do something. Apparently, federal law does *not*
prohibit businesses from asking for and using a social security number as a
requirement for doing business with them.

Basically, the way I read this, pretty much anyone can ask for and use your
social security number, and governments can impose a legal obligation
requiring you to divulge it.

"Privacy Act". Right.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Privacy Act". Right.

at least California came up with the Civil Code Section 1798.85
-- gosh, why do I manage to memorize things like that, but
can forget where I parked my car? -- which brings a bit of
sanity in the whole thing (in short -- probably inaccurate
summary, but that's the gist of it as I remember it --
it prevents whoever has your SSN# from being as outwardly
careless and reckless with it as they once were, e.g., using
it in correspondence, on membership/id cards, etc., not
much about how they store and protect the info though...

--Sylvain

Skywise wrote in
:

Snipola
Damn...now I'm curious again. I'll have to see if I can
google anything up on this. It may all just be poppycock,
though.

Here's what I've found, some of which may have been stated
by others already.

Some gov't agencies can require your SSN *IF* required by
law.

All gov't agencies are required to provide a disclosure
statement stating how and why they are required by law
to have your SSN.

No gov't agency can deny you services for not providing
your SSN *unless* they are required to have it by law.
(see first point above) They may *think* they require it
but unless they can provide a disclosure statement as
required by law which states the law that requires them
to use it, they probably don't have a right to it. (see
point two above)

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.

It seems the only legal right any private business has with
your SSN is for tax purposes (such as your employer). Not
even insurers, creditors, or banks can *require* it. If
they insist on it, you are encouraged to complain to higher
levels as they may have policies to allow the use of an
alternate number that the peeons aren't aware of. If they
continue to insist, you are encouraged to take your business
elsewhere.

As always, there are the scattered exceptions to the rules,
and each state may have additional laws.

Information gleaned from:
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm

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?

"John T" wrote in message m...
Jose wrote:

Actually, I'm not convinced that the proposal for a permanent ADIZ is
triggered by or even supported by this incident.

I am. Soon after this incident (and directly due to it) members of Congress from both parties introduced legislation
to strengthen penalties for ADIZ violations. Not long after that (in bureaucratic terms), the FAA proposed to make
the ADIZ permanent. I'm sure the fact that as of May 12, 2005 there were 1,682 ADIZ violations had something to do
with it, too.

....snip...
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/TknoFlyer
http://pocketgear.com/products_searc...veloperid=4415
____________________




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....

Mo

Governmentium

A major research institution has announced the discovery of the heaviest
element yet know to science - "governmentium." It has 1 neutron, 12
assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons and 111 assistant deputy neutrons
for an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by
forces called morons that are further surrounded by vast quantities of
lepton-like sub particles called peons.

Governmentium has no electrons and is therefore inert. It can be
detected
however since it impedes every reaction it comes into contact with. A
tiny amount of governmentium can take a reaction that normally occurs in
seconds and slow it to the point where it takes days.

Governmentium has a normal half life of three years. It doesn't decay
but "re-organizes", a process where assistant deputy neutrons and deputy
neutrons change places. This process actually causes it to grow and in
the confusion some morons become neutrons, thereby forming isodopes.

This phenomenon of "moron promotion" has led to some speculation that
governmentium forms whenever sufficient morons meet in concentration
forming critical morass. Researchers believe that in Governmentium, the
more you re-organize, the morass you cover.