Slashdot Mirror
How To Stop Businesses Storing SSNs Indefinitely?
The Angry Mick writes "My wife and I recently moved, and during the course of providing change-of-address information to the many companies we do business with, I asked each if they were storing a full Social Security number in their databases, and if so, could they remove it or replace it with an alternate identifier. Neither the experience nor the results were particularly enjoyable. On the positive end of the spectrum, some companies were more than willing to make a change, even offering suggestions for a suitable alternate such as a driver's license number. In the middle were companies that made things a little more difficult, requiring several steps up the management tree before speaking to someone with some actual authority to address the issue. Then there was DirectTV. This company not only flatly refused to consider the suggestion, but also informed me that even if I were to discontinue service with them, they still intended to keep my full SSN on file indefinitely. There is no logical reason for them to do this, and I'm not keen on the idea of being left vulnerable to identity theft should they have experience any security breaches at any future point in my life. So, my questions to the Slashdot community are: Has anyone else tried getting your SSN replaced or removed in corporate databases, and what were your experiences? And short of Armageddon, is there any way to force a company to erase your SSNs after you cease doing business with them, or is this a job for a lawyer or regulatory body?"
Lately it seems everyone wants to know my SSN: my dentist, my grocery store, my heating fuel supplier, the guy who changes my oil, etc. When credit checks are required, I ask them to try running it without the SSN (just address data) and often they will try. Other times, they are simply using the SSN as a convenient identifier for customers -- !!!! -- so I politely suggest a different number, or insist on only giving 3-4 digits of it. Thankfully my health insurance company will generate an internal ID# for you, if you request it, so that your SSN is not printed on your insurance card and therefore stored at your physician's office.
Other than to the government, and to organizations directly attached to my banking needs, what's wrong with giving a different number in place of the SSN? As long as you can remember it, that is. Would that be considered some kind of fraud?
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In 1998, Congress made identity theft a federal crime when it enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (Identity Theft Act).5 The act made it a criminal offense for a person to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority," another person's means of identification "with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law." Under the act, a name or SSN is considered a "means of identification," and a number of cases have been prosecuted under this law.
Now, with that, I would seek a lawyer who would take this case (maybe even some high profile lawyer or a member of the EFF) and clearly outline the above in a written letter with your signature informing them that they are in violation of the "Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (Identity Theft Act)" and if they do not remove your Social Security Numbers, you will take legal action. If your case is solid enough, you might be able to really stick it to DirectTV for storing personal private data "without lawful authority" as they do not have the written consent of every customer.
Nothing in that quote suggests it is against the law for the company to retain the SSN in the course of lawful business, and as they are not intending to commit or aid or abet an unlawful activity, then your harshly worded letter would be meaningless.
Of course, other laws may be quotable with better effect...
In 1998, Congress made identity theft a federal crime when it enacted the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (Identity Theft Act).5 The act made it a criminal offense for a person to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority," another person's means of identification "with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law." Under the act, a name or SSN is considered a "means of identification," and a number of cases have been prosecuted under this law.
DirecTV can simply claim that they have no intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or use the SS# in connection with an unlawful activity.
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
Although is is actually illegal to use a SSN for identification, companies claim it is for, uhhh, just for the record. I'm sure you must be among the 99% pf people with a cell phone. I've tried with all of the big three to get a phone without giving a SSN, explaining that it is illegal to require me to provide it, and they all told me "I understand, thanks for shopping with us".
There is no reason for a POS to have SSN. There are many other methods to get uniqueness.
When companies ask for it, I request for what use do they have for it. I have left hospitals for requesting the information, for they have no need for the information.
But to ask a person doing a POS transaction for their SSN, is just plan broken.
The problem is that the banks (and similar) have convinced you that you are the one being defrauded.
Sure, someone opens an account using your details and it sucks for you, but it wasn't your mistake, it was the institution that opened the account that made the mistake.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
No, in America we use the free market system. Which means the system is free to market your data any way they want.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
SSNs are not secrets. They are not authentication credentials.
Storing (or even leaking) SSNs is not the problem. The problem is when certain negligent organizations use knowledge of SSNs as some sort of proof of identity. If you're worried about your SSN being misused, talk to those companies.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Do you think they actually delete your SSN anyway? I can see two things happening: 1) customer service tells you "yes, we can do that" and doesn't do anything or 2) somebody makes a note to change your SSN to XXX and then enters it in a system that keeps a change log that stores SSN to XXX. Unless they have a system for specifying different rules for SSN's, I think all customer information change would probably show up at least in a change log. Of course, I imagine most cust serv reps just tell you what you want to hear while you are on the phone with them.
Many of our peers here are the ones designing databases with SSN keys. Stop doing that! Hash the SSNs with a seed using MD5 or a stronger algorithm (or weaker if there is the possiblity that on rare occasions you will need to brute force the original SSN out). If you are required to validate against a subset of the number, store that hashed also. Done consistently you can use the hash to uniquely identify your customer without having to store the SSN in plain text.
The U.S. Government should tax the storage of SSN numbers. We could start at 2 cents per day per instance. Once the tax is enacted, it will be a perpetual risk for businesses that this tax rate will go up and there will be an obvious business case for coming up with other methods for identifying customers.