There is a bill in the Arizona legislature making it a felony to have four or more financial identifications in your possession.
That isn't going to affect anyone here, is it?
Actually, I have to wonder why they think two or three are OK and four is not.
> Actually, I have to wonder why they think
> two or three are OK and four is not.
My gut guess is that baby boomers taking care of their institutionalized parents may require someone to have more than one financial identification (credit card with separate billing to keep Mom or Dad's bills separated for trust fund reimbursement) or someone that owns a business that is set up as an S- or C-Corp would have financial paperwork that is different than their personal financial paperwork. I don't know the law or the article on which you are talking about, but I can see how multiple "financial identifications" could be very normal. Just my 2 cents. Maybe post a link to the story so we can read it too.
The law is directed toward those persons or businesses who collect personal information on unknowing victims. The inference is that if you've got the goods on that many people, you're up to something unlawful. (The wording of the bill I've seen mentions "five or more" persons, although it may have been altered since then).
It does not mean that there's a limit to how much identification you can have on yourself (or your aliases).
Arizona has the most problems with identity theft of any state in the country. They're just trying to get a handle on it.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks