Re: [IP] When police ask your name,
>At 01:53 AM 6/25/2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: >>The transcription rules for furriner names are strict, too. >>No Phn'glui M'gl wna'f, Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgha Nagl Ftaghn for you. > >Just as well. They'd probably make you fill the form out in triplicate, In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits knitting? I think a few typos may have crept into that one. >and that could be unwise No, you're thinking of Hast(&%#^& Error: No route to host.
Re: [IP] When police ask your name,
At 01:53 AM 6/25/2004, Eugen Leitl wrote: The transcription rules for furriner names are strict, too. No Phn'glui M'gl wna'f, Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgha Nagl Ftaghn for you. Just as well. They'd probably make you fill the form out in triplicate, and that could be unwise
Re: [IP] When police ask your name,
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 09:45:09PM -0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > How many names can a person have? Anyone can change > their name any number of times if not for fraudulent > purposes. My brother changed his middle name from It is precisely for these reasons that changing your name in Germany is a major undertaking (costs money, too), and is associated with a background check (clean rap sheet requried). The transcription rules for furriner names are strict, too. No Phn'glui M'gl wna'f, Cthulhu R'lyeh Wgha Nagl Ftaghn for you. Such legislation, of course, is easy to introduce in the U.S. as well. I'd be really surprised of you US cpunks didn't have a national ID cum biometrics issued (er, make that rammed down your throat) a few years downstream. Unless the general populace wakes up to the fact what's been going on since the 1970s. Fat chance. -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgpiddksA3fPD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [IP] When police ask your name,
At 05:16 AM 6/22/04 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: >- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] - >The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police >the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. I'm out of it for a few weeks and this is what happens. How many names can a person have? Anyone can change their name any number of times if not for fraudulent purposes. My brother changed his middle name from something normal to Cariboo. My dad's a lawyer so the fees were zero. Can I use Major Variola (ret) as a nym since I use it? Must I spell my last (real) name which is hard to write as its from another language? Can I abbreviate? Can I have a religious exemption (We do not identify our religion to nonbelievers, nor do we speak to government officials, in my faith). Can I use cyrillic or mandarin to write it, a temporary bout of elective mutism? Of course lying to a pig is illegal (but not vice versa) but lying is subject to interpretation. My name is yahway, ie I am. Yours is go away, ie fuck off. Go for the head shot, they're wearing body armor. Suicide by police is a noble cause, if you take one of them out.
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
At 12:04 AM 6/22/2004, Justin wrote: On 2004-06-21T22:38:01-0700, Steve Schear wrote: > Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that > use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and > non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that > wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does > not conform. It's legal to _have_ any name you wish, but in some states you can just use the name you want, and in other states you have to legally change your name. California's DMV changed their policies five or ten years ago - this used to be one of the places where changing your name on a whim was not only freely accepted, but just about mandatory in Hollywood, but at least the DMV now requires you to legally change your name (not sure if the rest of the law requires it.) Don't citizens have to have an english-alphabet transliteration of their name to use for legal purposes (birth certificate, green card, social security record)? No legal requirement that I'm aware of, nor is literacy mandatory. Some individual types of paperwork may require that (wouldn't surprise me if the INS thugs did, for instance, though their standard rule in the past was that they'd assign you an inaccurate transliteration...) but that doesn't mean they all need the same. You're not required to get a birth certificate, though if your kid's born in a hospital they'll tend to issue one whether you ask for it or not. I never applied for a social security number, so I haven't seen the forms (my parents had already done that for me, and I assume that the number I memorized in ~2nd grade was correct, though I've long since lost the paper.) Is there a list of the other 20 states with stop-and-identify laws? Go read the Supreme Court majority opinion - the states are mentioned there, though the opinion doesn't say exactly what each state requires. California, BTW, isn't on the list. The DMV differentiates same-name people by SSN, right? It tries :-) It also tries to differentiate by address. Most DMVs aren't very good at record-keeping, and the last two states I've lived in have each spent ~$50 million on huge computer modernization processes that have failed miserably... Is it very far-fetched to imagine that state courts and federal appeals courts will uphold state laws requiring SSN disclosure for identification purposes? State laws requiring SSN disclosure for driver's licenses were illegal under the Privacy Act of 1974, and then legalized for limited uses in ~1986, and the Feds have made them all but mandatory. They're also mandatory for income-taxable business, except when you can use a Taxpayer ID Number instead. After all, the Supreme Court didn't rule this way for fun; You're overestimating the morals of the more conservative members of the Court, though "fun" requires a sense of humor which may be lacking in Rehnquist's case. (Some of them do have fun - Scalia recently went hunting with Cheney, for instance, and Thomas got raked over the coals at his acceptance hearings because of the fun he'd had harassing Anita Hill. And one or two of the liberals are a bit on the odd side as well.) Maybe the 9th circuit will be safe from mandatory SSN disclosure during Terry stops, but I doubt any other circuits will be. The Supremes can't want to hear another case of this sort in the near future. They just cranked up the temperature; if they crank it up again too soon the frogs may notice they're about to boil. They didn't take this case just because they wanted it to - they took it because Gilmore and Noise and friends helped Hiibel and the Nevada Public Defender get it there. They aren't likely to hear another case soon that isn't edgy like this, but the FBI, Homeland Security thugs and their antecedents have been pushing for more and more government control over citizens, so any available edge is likely to get pushed. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
Morlock Elloi wrote: incriminating, and the State has a substantial interest in knowing who you are -- you may need medicating, or you may owe the government money, or Exactly ... and maybe you are on this "consumer" list: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458 Thanks for ruining my day! Now I'm going to go home and watch Equilibrium again. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not "It's just this little chromium switch, here." - TFS SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
> incriminating, and the State has a substantial interest in knowing who you > are -- you may need medicating, or you may owe the government money, or Exactly ... and maybe you are on this "consumer" list: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458 >The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental >disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental >health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool >children. According to the commission, "Each year, young children are >expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely >disruptive behaviours and emotional disorders." Schools, wrote the >commission, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students >and 6 million adults who work at the schools. > >The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with treatment >and supports" including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific >medications for specific conditions." The commission commended the Texas >Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment >plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better >consumer outcomes." BTW, looks like designation "citizen" has been obsoleted by "consumer". = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2004-06-21T22:38:01-0700, Steve Schear wrote: > Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that > use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and > non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that > wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does > not conform. Don't citizens have to have an english-alphabet transliteration of their name to use for legal purposes (birth certificate, green card, social security record)? Everyone should change their legal names to Agent Smith. Is there a list of the other 20 states with stop-and-identify laws? The DMV differentiates same-name people by SSN, right? Is it very far-fetched to imagine that state courts and federal appeals courts will uphold state laws requiring SSN disclosure for identification purposes? After all, the Supreme Court didn't rule this way for fun; they ruled this way because they think that citizen have a duty to reveal their identity to police. If a name isn't enough to do so, I would think a SSN would be required. Maybe the 9th circuit will be safe from mandatory SSN disclosure during Terry stops, but I doubt any other circuits will be. The Supremes can't want to hear another case of this sort in the near future. They just cranked up the temperature; if they crank it up again too soon the frogs may notice they're about to boil. -- "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that." "Not your decision to make." "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter." - Beatrix; Bill ...Kill Bill Vol. 2
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On 2004-06-22T02:52:15-0400, Gabriel Rocha wrote: > > On Jun 21 2004, Steve Schear wrote: > | Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that > | use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and > | non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that > | wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does > | not conform. > > Well, in principle this is a nice "screw you" method. But in practice... > well, if you have to write down your name because the sound doesn't > exist or can't be pronounced, you're that much more singled out eh... > And for those of us who wish to travel, well, passports become difficult > to manage I suspect. I am quite surprised with this ruling actually (I > haven't yet read the specifics) but the first impression of it says that > this does not bode well for opponents of the "War on Terrorism" (tm) or > for anyone who doesn't like the great big database in the sky... Yes, we're screwed, but not because of the name requirement. Soon we will have to recite our citizenship number whenever a police officer, I mean pig, is "investigating an investigation" and asks us to identify ourselves. The supreme court will uphold that requirement for the same reason they just upheld the NV law. The number itself is not incriminating, and the State has a substantial interest in knowing who you are -- you may need medicating, or you may owe the government money, or you may have violated any number of illegitimate laws and therefore need reeducating in a federal prison. -- "Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that." "Not your decision to make." "Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter." - Beatrix; Bill ...Kill Bill Vol. 2
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
On Jun 21 2004, Steve Schear wrote: | Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that | use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and | non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that | wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does | not conform. Well, in principle this is a nice "screw you" method. But in practice... well, if you have to write down your name because the sound doesn't exist or can't be pronounced, you're that much more singled out eh... And for those of us who wish to travel, well, passports become difficult to manage I suspect. I am quite surprised with this ruling actually (I haven't yet read the specifics) but the first impression of it says that this does not bode well for opponents of the "War on Terrorism" (tm) or for anyone who doesn't like the great big database in the sky...
Re: [IP] When police ask your name, you must give it, Supreme Court says (fwd from dave@farber.net)
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong. The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity. The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work. Not a problem. Its legal to use any name you wish, including those that use gyphs and sounds which cannot be represented by standard Roman and non-Roman alphabets (as is common in some African tribes). So, those that wish to avoid this data base nightmare can legally adopt name which does not conform. Steve
