Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

kalzumeus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 292 posts

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#231

Post by wpietri »

KGIII wrote: post #211
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Follow up question: What if I said "I am recording this call" while I am in an Automatic Voice Response system waiting for an human to arrive on the line and talk to me? As far as I am concerned, human representative or the automated voice response system, both represent the company that I am interacting with. It's not my fault that the voice response system that the company used to talk to me (to answer my questions…

Intent and reasonable expectations will come in to play. Unlike the movies, judges hate word games and attempts to skirt the laws. As in, they really frown on it. This is not legal advice and I'm not your lawyer. Consult a qualified legal representative in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Truth. I once happened to be in a hearing where the judge got the idea that the plaintiff's attorney might be jerking him around. It was an impressive display of wrath. Along with crocodiles and bears, federal judges are now on my "definitely do not fuck with" list.

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#232

Post by mark212 »

didibus wrote: post #147
patio11 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important not-a-lawyer advice: recording phone calls without the other party's consent is illegal in wide swathes of the U.S., but keeping copies of letters is legal everywhere.

I wonder if this law still makes sense. I feel it could be altered to say that recording someone without them even knowing you are listening should be illegal, but I don't see why it should be illegal to record a consenting conversation between two people. Btw, does it apply to video recording as well?

Generally the laws on video recording are based on where the camera operator is standing while filming. If you have a lawful right to be where you are, it's probably ok to make a video. But take a look at the facts in Shulman v. Group W Production, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 200, where the camera crew was lawfully present but intruded on a private encounter. Very much depends on context, at least in California.

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#233

Post by tedmiston »

mark212 wrote: post #227
tedmiston wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment glosses over the fact that most US states are one-party consent states not requiring notifying the other party that a telephone call is being recorded. From your source: > States that currently require that all parties consent to the recording include: California,[21] Connecticut,[22] Florida,[23] Hawaii (in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in…

This is not accurate. California makes it illegal to record "confidential" communications, which is sometimes called "two party consent," but that shouldn't be interpreted to mean that affirmative consent is required. Notice that the call may be recorded defeats any presumption of confidentiality and makes it permissible for any party to record the conversation. (I am a lawyer and have litigated these cases. But I'm…

I'm not seeing the claims that you are refuting about California in the quoted text. My point was just to illustrate that most states are not two party consent.

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#235

Post by scintill76 »

analog31 wrote: post #219
dang wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religious flamewar (which this crosses into) is off topic on HN, so please don't post like this.

My apologies, and thanks for the reminder. I was hoping, in some misguided way, to comment on the debate tactic rather than the underling religious content.

I think the mod was only talking to pmarreck. Your post was fine IMO.

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#236

Post by fweespeech »

astral303 wrote: post #58

"Angry people demand; professionals “require.” " YES YES YES--it's not enough to merely be aware of the connotations of your words. You must also be aware of any unintended information conveyed through their use. For example, despite being synonyms, the use of the word "demand" in this context exposes one as an amateur. It doesn't matter if you think this is unfair. It matters that you know all information conveyed,…

Small claims court goes with demand verbiage oddly enough in some states. So context matters.

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#237

Post by KGIII »

wpietri wrote: post #231
KGIII wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent and reasonable expectations will come in to play. Unlike the movies, judges hate word games and attempts to skirt the laws. As in, they really frown on it. This is not legal advice and I'm not your lawyer. Consult a qualified legal representative in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Truth. I once happened to be in a hearing where the judge got the idea that the plaintiff's attorney might be jerking him around. It was an impressive display of wrath. Along with crocodiles and bears, federal judges are now on my "definitely do not fuck with" list.

Playing semantics games is almost guaranteed to piss off the judge. Pissed off judges are not nice.

It's a very long-winded story, so I will try for the short version. Courts default to being open to the public. You can go down and watch them. Chances are, you can even make use of a law library.

Anyhow, this is sort of a hobby of mine. I know, I'm a strange person - but I love watching the court. Like I said, it's a long story.

I think my favorite was a guy who was in district court and argued with the judge about the definition of marijuana and the word possession. Now, the judge was pretty polite and told them that they were trying to give them a very small fine.

The kid persisted and had no idea about procedure. I mean, he could have argued those things but there's a procedure. Procedure is very, very important to judges. Seriously, they love proper procedure so much that they will even tell you what you need to do. She tried to explain this to the kid.

But no, he persisted and tried to fake his way into appearing to be a legal scholar. Again, this was district court.

Suffice to say, he kept going before finally admitting guilt and she gave him the maximum fine and just until the end of the day to pay that fine. At which point he decided it was time to double down and refuse to recognize the court - though not as one of those sovereign citizen things.

I'm not sure what the end result was, but he was taken into custody by the court officers. The rest of the day went quite smoothly.

The best part of this story? He had the chance to speak with the DA prior to this and the State provides an attorney of the day. He took advantage of neither one.

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#238

Post by Retric »

lsc wrote: post #214
patio11 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word connotation is typically used to describe inferences that you'd make about a statement given the word used which are widely available to native speakers of that language. Thin, skinny, and gaunt all mean the same thing; only "gaunt" has the connotation that the person described necessarily has a problem. The other poster is describing something a bit more meta than what the word connotation typically covers.…

Isn't this what semiotics[1] is all about? The difference between connotations and denotations? My parents were really into that sort of thing "Words have power" - So during my 'bratty teenager' phase, I standardized on the word with the most negative denotation that had the correct connotation in my speech. I still do it sometimes, as a joke, but it's... funny, because while I have the feeling that the connotation i…

Connotations are not meaningless. It's a question of redundancy when encoding information and should be treated like a checksum.

Re: Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You

#239

Post by i2shar »

cglouch wrote: post #205
andrewhillman wrote: post #175

"These days they have streamlined online applications for writing to them, but I suggest that you only send them paper letters. This is a really weird thing for a technologist to suggest, but when you send paper letters, you can establish and own a “paper trail.” When you type words into their godawful web applications and hit submit, you will likely fail to retain a copy of those words and fail to retain records abo…

Yep, for important written communications (e.g. CRAs, the IRS, debt collectors, etc.) I always use certified mail and request a return receipt. For any clueless millennials such as myself who are unfamiliar with the post office, this is a good video that shows exactly how to fill out the forms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLQLWdV1MZE

Thanks for the video. Curious why they say never to sign the letter.
Post reply on HN