shrdlu at deaddrop.org
Mon Oct 23 17:19:15 UTC 2006
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> Craig Holland wrote:
>> Is this some new trend or have I just gotten lucky in the past?
>> Wouldn't someone like AT&T be better served by giving their
>> employees some company issued ID that they can submit to secure
>> facilities? I know it wouldn't be government issued, but would at
>> least be a step in the right direction.
I'm a little surprised by all this, truthfully. I *know* that AT&T has
to work inside certain facilities that are government run, and they are
*required* to provide government issued ID, company issued ID, and
social security number (really!) at a minimum. They must also state
whether or not they are a US citizen, and if not, what country they hold
> I am shocked that the ATT employee did not have an ATT ID. In our
> facilities, we require all visiting telcos to produce company
> identification, and between telcove/level 3, Verizon, MCI, and
> several others, we have never had an issue. I'd be a bit more
> suspicious that he didn't have ATT ID.
Me too. In my former life, I was involved with such requirements (but
only at what the fedgov lovingly refers to as contractor sites), and we
always had the alternative for anyone objecting to our requirements for
ID. No problem. They could just sit in the lobby (or outside) and wait.
I used to object to our method of gathering social security numbers
(since it was on a form that anyone adding a name could see), but I can
tell you that it was much more onerous than your standard telco.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
More information about the NANOG