Slashdot Mirror
Congress To Restrict Social Security Number Use
diverge_s writes "News.com.com has an article detailing a long overdue attempt Congress is making to restrict the use of Social Security Numbers. From the article: 'In both the House and the Senate, there are at least three pieces of pending legislation that propose different approaches to restricting the use and sale of SSNs. Politicians have expressed astonishment at what they see as a rising identity fraud problem, frequently pointing to a 2003 Federal Trade Commission survey that estimated nearly 10 million consumers are hit by such intrusions each year.'"
All the proposals mentioned in the article are merely band-aids on a system that is fundamentally broken. Any competently designed identification system consists of two parts: the public identifier, and the private key. The problem with SSNs is that you have a system where one number is simultaneously the public and private parts of the system, which dooms it to failure every time.
Making new rules limiting the sale and purchase of SSNs, or restricting the display of SSNs on reports, is just closing the barn door after the hore has already left.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Many companies and government organizations use the SSN as some kind of shared secret for the purposes of establishing identity.
This law wants to prop up this model.
THIS IS A STUPID MODEL.
There are much better ways of establishing identity than using the SSN.
What we need to do is STOP USING SSN TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY!!!
Then it can be public, you can post it wherever you want, and we won't have to deal with the impossible problem of putting the cat back in the bag.
Government issued smartcards, with a simple PKI (and revocation system) would be a perfect method for establishing identity. We need to put the money in to that, not trying to keep some unchangable number secret.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
078-05-1120
It's a specimen number from the Eisenhower era. No need to give ur correct number to the cable or phone company. They don't need it. Period. Of course it's possible that someone else has used this number already, especialy if you live near me in upstate NY.
Otherwise use the "Fletch" approach on things like your customer loyalty cards. I keep mine under Harry S Truman, Ted Nugent and John Cocktosen. I have started using Igor Stravinsky lately.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
*NOT*
Wait... What's this printed on the back of my Social Security card? "Not to be used for identification purposes."
Having been the victim of identity theft and credit card fraud, I have to say this is probably too little too late. I've had over $20,000 in fraudulent charges made in my name -- items ranging from electronic equipment to beer and gasoline. The Social Security number is already the de facto citizen identification number, even if it is not de jure.
Some culpability lies in the lap of merchant businesses, as well. In one case, a company sent a credit card application issued in my name to an old address. The occupant filled it out and began making purchases. When the bill came due, the collections agency had no problem tracking me down to give notice. In my opinion, this merchant could have been more dilligent, because I had asked them to cancel my account years before this happened. They were certainly dilligent when it came to getting paid.
...right on the card. Just what is there about "Not for purposes of identification" that is hard for officials to understand?
Of course, when I was in the hospital emergency room and I said I didn't want to give them my social security number, they said they would treat me until I did. I backed down.
When I contacted the social security administration about this, and said "Am I required to give anybody but the government my SSN," their rather unhelpful reply was "No, you're not required to, but the hospital is not required to treat you without it."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
They just don't care because the current system minimizes their financial losses by transfering those losses to the individual who has his/her identity "stolen".
Making any changes would cost money which reduces profits.
Any changes that improved the situation could be used to find them responsible when/if their new system is defrauded.
So, fixing the system is, from the individual company's point of view, all loss and no gain.
Now, in order to claim your children on taxes, you have to get them a social security number.
Not only that, but with my youngest kids, the paperwork to request and issue an SSN was processed by the hospital. We were told that if we didn't sign the request form, we wouldn't be allowed to take our child home. I didn't buy that, of course, but signed the form because I knew we'd need the number anyway. I'm sure that if you forced the issue, you could take your baby home without getting an SSN, but I doubt anyone does.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
At the state school everything was all about the SSN. One every test, you had to put your SSN...
In the early 1990s a group of students took Rutgers to court regarding SSN use as the student identifier. They won in federal court, and that case was considered precedence in this field. (Not to mention kinna cool because it was just a bunch of students going at the university pro se.)
That case specifically enumerated
*prohibitions using all or part of the SSN as an identifier on tests or assignments
*prohibitions using all or part of the SSN as an identifier en masse (such as posting grades by last four digits)
*prohibitions regarding using all or part of the SSN as an identifier on student ID cards
Universities damn well know of the Krebs v. Rutgers prohibitions but they have taken their time in implimenting them. Hell, even my university broke/still breaks the Privacy Act of 1974, by not disclosing how the SSN will be used and if its necessary to disclose, when applying for admission.