CSC is finally awake !!

[AlinaH 38]

I think the fact many people here think it's okay just goes to show the degradation of importance placed on privacy. We can share so much information on the internet (think Facebook) so we get used to the idea that we have an online presence other people can peruse at their desire. But I'm sorry, the government should not let complete strangers view information on your case, even if it doesn't contain personal information. I don't agree to let that be public info.

And, maybe I'm wrong, but if someone hadn't put in their case number and opened an account for notifications, couldn't somebody else just go ahead and do that? I mean, when I checked our number, I just put in a name, email address, and password. They never verified if it was our case or not.

[JlovesA 109]

And, maybe I'm wrong, but if someone hadn't put in their case number and opened an account for notifications, couldn't somebody else just go ahead and do that? I mean, when I checked our number, I just put in a name, email address, and password. They never verified if it was our case or not.

Yes, you don't necessarily need to be a customer of USCIS to open an account. I opened one before we got the NOA1 (call me impatient if you will) and then later entered the WAC #. So I'm sure if I had your #, I could add you to my profile, too. I think that's what people here are discussing doing, as they said they signed up for notifications. That to me, makes me very uncomfortable. I really feel like USCIS needs to change this.

[VeraVimes 5]

Now if they can just churn out more June applications so they can hurry up and get to July!

Oh Christ, I know. I feel like the lot of us are heroin junkies, we got a little taste of movement, now I've turned from being sort of regular about checking my updates and the forums to 'GAAAH THERE MUST BE NEW APPROVALS WHERE ARE THEY OH MY GOOOOOOOD!!!!!'

It's not a pretty sight. It's my birthday tomorrow, so maybe, as a special present, they'll race through the June petitions and start on July this week...

I'm sure they're that considerate.

[thelastpetitioner 218]

Oh Christ, I know. I feel like the lot of us are heroin junkies, we got a little taste of movement, now I've turned from being sort of regular about checking my updates and the forums to 'GAAAH THERE MUST BE NEW APPROVALS WHERE ARE THEY OH MY GOOOOOOOD!!!!!'

It's not a pretty sight. It's my birthday tomorrow, so maybe, as a special present, they'll race through the June petitions and start on July this week...

I'm sure they're that considerate.

ahhh vera,seriously,youre adorable

happy birthday too

ooo and PS: the chances of them going through july petitioners is less than me getting to go up there myself and pulling out all of our petitions

Edited October 19, 2010 by ygr

[VeraVimes 5]

Yes, you don't necessarily need to be a customer of USCIS to open an account. I opened one before we got the NOA1 (call me impatient if you will) and then later entered the WAC #. So I'm sure if I had your #, I could add you to my profile, too. I think that's what people here are discussing doing, as they said they signed up for notifications. That to me, makes me very uncomfortable. I really feel like USCIS needs to change this.

I agree, I don't think it could be that hard for them to add password protection there. I don't want to put anyone down, I know everyone here is stressed out and desperate, and people will do what they do. But I'm with you on that funny feeling about the ethical side of it. It's too voyeuristic for me. If we all channel our desperation and hope like hell they get moving, it may be more effective...

ahhh vera,seriously,youre adorable

Ha! You say that now, it's just because you haven't seen my CRAZY FACE. I don't feel self conscious about it, though, because I know everybody on here has got one.

[thelastpetitioner 218]

dude i do not have a crazy face,i am crazy all together,like my normal every day face is crazy now

[VeraVimes 5]

dude i do not have a crazy face,i am crazy all together,like my normal every day face is crazy now

I look almost normal other than the fact that I'm really twitchy. I get what you were saying earlier, though, about failing your favourite class. I spent a lot of money on all these special costume design courses and they're really interesting, but I do just sit through them thinking... 'What am I going to find when I get home?!?! Can I borrow someone's iPhone?? I must have internet right now!!'

Edited October 19, 2010 by VeraVimes

[thelastpetitioner 218]

I look almost normal other than the fact that I'm really twitchy. I get what you were saying earlier, though, about failing your favourite class. I spent a lot of money on all these special costume design courses and they're really interesting, but I do just sit through them thinking... 'What am I going to find when I get home?!?! Can I borrow someone's iPhone?? I must have internet right now!!'

every day of my life.i refuse to turn off my computer cause it would take too much if i got an email from uscis.

[gap1 21]

Anything today yet?

[misteem 2]

I think the fact many people here think it's okay just goes to show the degradation of importance placed on privacy. We can share so much information on the internet (think Facebook) so we get used to the idea that we have an online presence other people can peruse at their desire. But I'm sorry, the government should not let complete strangers view information on your case, even if it doesn't contain personal information. I don't agree to let that be public info.

That was the point I was making about the website monitoring your login history when I was locked out of my own account for password issues. Seems like it should be illegal, but we all know with access to the internet.. nothing is private. No matter how moral or immoral you are, you put yourself at risk/make yourself public everytime you login or open an account on the internet.

[Maxx121 14]

I think the fact many people here think it's okay just goes to show the degradation of importance placed on privacy. We can share so much information on the internet (think Facebook) so we get used to the idea that we have an online presence other people can peruse at their desire. But I'm sorry, the government should not let complete strangers view information on your case, even if it doesn't contain personal information. I don't agree to let that be public info.

I totally understand your opinion, but the fact of the matter is once you punch your numbers into a government system certain details about your file are public information. That number gives you anonymity; if you give me that number then I can associate it with you and know your personal information if I cant associate that number with you then you are just a statistic.

I work for a quasi government agency in the tourism field and every year we get information about every tourist who visits. This information is made public and if I need to I can request a HUGE file that as some very detailed information but I would never know who a given number represents. This information is used in marketing all the time and because of this we have offices all over the world placed in key areas.

But any citizen can access that data as per the Open government act of 2007 which I placed below for you, please note:

• it specifically addresses data sources used to generate reports; "shall make the raw statistical data used in its reports available electronically..."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if you feel me plugging in a number to a database violates your privacy then im sorry, but the fact of the matter is it does not.

For anyone else who likes to crunch numbers here is the key on how to decipher the USCIS receipt numbers: (because people are so freaked out if you want a bit more info on how to break it down just google it, sorry but this is the information age)

WAC - California Service Center (formerly Western Adjudication Center)

EAC - Vermont Service Center (formerly Eastern Adjudication Center)

OPEN Government Act of 2007

President Bush signed the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007 on December 31, 2007. This law, also known as public law 110–175 and the "OPEN Government Act of 2007", amended the federal FOIA statute in several ways.[23] According to a White House press release, it does so by:

1. establishing a definition of "a representative of the news media;"

2. directing that required attorney fees be paid from an agency's own appropriation rather than from the Judgment Fund;

3. prohibiting an agency from assessing certain fees if it fails to comply with FOIA deadlines; and

4. establishing an Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives and Records Administration to review agency compliance with FOIA.[24]

Changes include the following:

• it recognizes electronic media specifically and defines "News Media" as "any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience."

• it extends the 20 day deadline by allowing for up to 10 days between the FOIA office of the agency and the component of the agency holding the records and specifically allows for clarification of requests by the FOIA office (Effective 12/31/2007).

• it calls for each agency to designate a FOIA Public Liaison, "who shall assist in the resolution of any disputes" (Effective 12/31/2008).

• it requires agencies to assign tracking numbers to FOIA requests that take longer than 10 days, and to provide systems determining the status of a request.

• it codifies and defines annual reporting requirements for each agencies FOIA program.

• it specifically addresses data sources used to generate reports; "shall make the raw statistical data used in its reports available electronically..."

• it redefines the definition of an agency "record" to include information held for an agency by a government contractor.

• it establishes an Office of Government Information Services which will offer mediation services to resolve disputes as non-exclusive alternative to litigation.

• it requires agencies to make recommendations personnel matters related to FOIA such as whether FOIA performance should be used as a merit factor.

• it requires agencies to specify the specific exemption for each deletion or redaction in disclosed documents

[lance1002 0]

Finally!!!!! Per VJ timeline CSC is processing July 14, 2010 Yey!!!!

[marriedtomrg 141]

If I were to guess, they probably just entered someone else's case number on the USCIS Check Your Case Status link. One of the members did that...just entered a case number two numbers down, one 12 numbers down...just to see what was going on.

how can you see other people's cases on uscis site?

[gap1 21]

Finally!!!!! Per VJ timeline CSC is processing July 14, 2010 Yey!!!!

What?! No way. They haven't done most of June yet, why would they jump to July 14th? Gah, this is crazy. Where did you see this?

Edited October 19, 2010 by gap1

[locito79 0]

What?! No way. They haven't done most of June yet, why would they jump to July 14th? Gah, this is crazy. Where did you see this?

It actually says June 14, but that is wrong too as most people in early June haven't heard. There is actually one person in June saying they sent, got NOA1, RFE, and NOA2 all on the same day (like June 18)..

I'm sure that is throwing things wayyyy off. Check out Igors List.