Found Kostrzewa's column full of tiresome talking points and written in the typical Rhode Island nasal whine. The ink isn't even dry on the Executive orders and everyone is whining about the burdens being placed on them.
Enough already! God this place is embarrassing.

The only thing missing from Bakst's piece was some Obama-like reference accusing those of us who oppose illegal immigration / amnesty of "clinging to guns and religion."

Memo to Charlie: just because they're in Rhode Island doesn't mean that they're Rhode Islanders or "one of us" - they're trespassers here illegally, so they CAN'T be Rhode Islanders or one of us.

Kostrzewa an enemt of the state? He's a business journalist. How many liberal business journalists are there, anyway?
The Providence Business News also came out against the gov's executive order. Can't blame Charlie Bakst for THAT.

I'd personally prefer a lot of the illegal aliens I encountered on my former job to Merrill C Bakst as a neighbor or friend.Bakst is the ultimate outsider- a mole faced nerd who probably got his lunch money taken on a regular basis.He is truly "alien" to normal Americans.

Bakst's colums are usefull only as they obviate the need to purchase ipecac to induce vomiting.

From my perspective, one of the major documented problems with Governor Donald L. Carcieri’s executive Order 08-01 is the directive requirement to use a person’s private “federal social security number” and public law suit liability not only directly to the Governor but also to the State of Rhode Island, Rhode Island State Police, Rhode Island Department of Administration, Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicles, Rhode Island Department of Corrections, Department of Homeland Security and the local business that comply with the executive order.

Also the request of Homeland Security to gain unrestricted access to the State of Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicles records without permission as required by the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et. seq. (Public Law 103-322). Under the law, the State of Rhode Island must ask permission of the driver to release information. The unrestricted access without “individual’s permission” opens Rhode Island to law suits (watch for another check off box on DMV renewal forms.)

Contrary to the State of Rhode Island executive order, the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a and the Social Security Administration restrict use of social security numbers.

The Social Security Number (SSN) was created in 1936 as a nine-digit account number assigned by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the purpose of administering the Social Security laws. SSNs were first intended for use exclusively by the federal government as a means of tracking earnings to determine the amount of Social Security taxes to credit to each worker's account. Over time, however, SSNs were permitted to be used for purposes unrelated to the administration of the Social Security system. For example, in 1961 Congress authorized the Internal Revenue Service to use SSNs as taxpayer identification numbers.

In response to growing concerns over the accumulation of massive amounts of personal information, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974. Among other things, this Act makes it unlawful for a governmental agency to deny a right, benefit, or privilege merely because the individual refuses to disclose his SSN.

Section 7 of the Privacy Act further provides that any agency requesting an individual to disclose his SSN must "inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it." At the time of its enactment, Congress recognized the dangers of widespread use of SSNs as universal identifiers. In its report supporting the adoption of this provision, the Senate Committee stated that the widespread use of SSNs as universal identifiers in the public and private sectors is "one of the most serious manifestations of privacy concerns in the Nation." Short of prohibiting the use of the SSN outright, the provision in the Privacy Act attempts to limit the use of the number to only those purposes where there is clear legal authority to collect the SSN. It was hoped that citizens, fully informed where the disclosure was not required by law and facing no loss of opportunity in failing to provide the SSN, would be unlikely to provide an SSN and institutions would not pursue the SSN as a form of identification.

Penalties for Violating the Federal Privacy Act of 1974:

Civil Remedies
The Privacy Act provides for both civil and criminal penalties for violating certain sections. If an agency refuses to amend an individual's record upon request, the individual can sue in civil court to have the record amended. In this case, the court can also award the individual reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs, to be paid by the United States.

If an agency refuses to allow an individual access to his records as required in subsection (d)(1), the individual can sue in civil court to have the records produced. The court that decides this suit will have the ability to review the records "in camera" (privately) to see if the agency has properly claimed one of the exemptions allowed to them. The court can also make the United States pay for reasonable attorney's fees.

If an agency has violated any other section of the Privacy Act, and a court finds that the violation is "intentional or willful," the court can make the United States pay to the individual actual damages suffered as a result of the violation (but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000), along with costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Penalties for Violating the Privacy Act:

Criminal Penalties:
If any officer or employee of a government agency knowingly and willfully discloses personally identifiable information will be found guilty of a misdemeanor and fined a maximum of $5,000. Also, if any agency employee or official willfully maintains a system of records without disclosing its existence and relevant details as specified above can be fined a maximum of $5,000. The same misdemeanor penalty (and $5,000
maximum fine) can be applied to anyone who knowingly and willfully requests an individual's record from an agency under false pretenses.

PLEASE BE ADVISED TERM “AGENCY” MEANS AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT such as Homeland Security not the State of Rhode Island however, civil suit may go forward for violations by the State of Rhode Island and private business knowingly violating federal law and possibly under State of Rhode Island General Law 11-49.2-1. "Rhode Island Identity Theft Protection Act of 2005."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "E-Verify" program has been cited for returning a very high percentage of false identifications. Currently the agency will require more than 200,000 federal contractors to use E-Verify, an increase of more than 1,076 percent over the 17,000 employers currently registered in E-Verify. The system will use an "enhanced photograph capability" that will allow employers to check photographs in E-Verify databases. DHS will expand the number of databases E-Verify checks to include visa and passport databases; and the agency is asking states to "voluntarily" allow DHS access to their motor vehicle databases. DHS will require employers to fire employees if they were unable to resolve "no match" discrepancies within 90 days. If the employers do not terminate the workers' employment, the businesses would face fines of $11,000 or more. DHS also will raise fines against employers by 25 percent and increasingly use criminal action against employers, as opposed to administrative action.

So if you change jobs in the future, you must under go screening by the DHS and if a false “no match” is returned by using “YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER” you will be fired within 90 days if YOU can not clear what the computer and database information is reporting and may be subject to deportation to whatever country the system indicated.

One other thing that stands out about “E-Verify”, security of the information in electronic transfer and storage appears not to meet the minimum security requirements as dictated by federal law for protection of SSNs especially at the network, local non-federal government and local business level thus making sensitive information and SSN subject to tampering, partial or full loss and manipulation.

The net cast covers a lot more than was thought out!