[verisimi]

Let's finish that thought too.

You're asking for new legislation written by governments that a/ want that data to spy on you too and b/ are lobbied by corporations to write the legislation corps want.

It's a closed loop of crap, that goes in one direction only.

[kakacik]

No worries, next generation won't even understand what we are blabbing about. Look at that cute cat video! Privacy what? Oh that puppy is rolling on his back!

[bflesch]

Once your intergenerational wealth is offshore you can pick any of your nepo offspring and make them a hollywood star or unicorn startup CEO with a clean wikipedia page. Their wealth is also tied to national security jobs, because those make you immune in front of the law plus you have the benefit of constructing identities (and death certificates) out of thin air.

For example very rich people in the US receive vanity SSNs. Ghislaine Maxwell has one that spells out "Leet Babe". It's like number plates to show off.

[cogogo]

“Leet Babe” is not even the right number of letters. Doesn’t seem like “leet” would even be in her generation’s vocabulary. Are you trolling? Very rich get vanity numbers? Where is there evidence of that?

[coldtea]

Bothered to check it? It's not literally the letters "leet babe", it's in "leetspeak" as the parent said:

"Ghislaine Maxwell's Social Security Number (133-78-4883) is recorded in U.S. law enforcement documents, such as historical NYPD files, as part of her official identification and background records".

1337 84883 --> LEET BABBE in leetspeak.

It's a stretch, but to be fair, apparently they already had no problem getting visas and other documents with 3-4 variations of their names (to make database lookup more difficult)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet

[cogogo]

I did check but did not find the reference. What exactly are you quoting? I do not see that in any of the parent comments. I also doubt Maxwell was well versed in leetspeak. She was a career socialite.

Getting visas and documents under different names is not anything other than garden variety use of aliases. All kinds of people who are not mega-wealthy do this, legally and illegally. I am specifically questioning the ability of ultra-wealthy choosing SSNs. I had never previously seen this assertion.

[coldtea]

> I did check but did not find the reference. What exactly are you quoting?

I mean man, I didn't ask you to search for my verbatim quote (it's an one-off llm answer). Search for her SSN. You can google it, it's here on the first page under "'Application Info" for example:

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01653...

Also in meta pages about the documents:

https://github.com/rhowardstone/Epstein-research/blob/main/i...

[bflesch]

That's exactly it. There was a time before widespread fingerprint checks and facial recognition where they'd all been swapping their first/middle/lastnames around like crazy between passports, and for GM we have the actual immigration documents she filled out with the clear intention to fool the government - for each government entity she sent the form to, she used a different name. She was working in NY without a visa, and after Bush was voted out there was a sudden scrambling to get her an H1B and it was done via one of Epstein's companies.

The vanity SSN thing looks even weirder because someone who I assume was Epstein's great-grandfather was head of US social security administration in the 1920s, a crazy coincidence [Trump family was more department of agriculture]. The 133784883 SSN is clearly a five-eyes meme and one day FOIAs will show what other interesting VIPs have a 1337-range SSN.

Even Donald Trump's officially-curated Wikipedia lists some of his fake identities, and he has some Epstein-related pseudonyms which are not widely known yet which are miraculously also associated with the Kashoggi family name.

[coldtea]

Next generations (plural) already doesn't.

The last generation that cared about this in any big way were the Xers (and close to X-er boomers) circa 1990s.

And even them, not enough, and not as a majority. But at least many techies back then did.

[amelius]

What did you expect with such asymmetry of power?