Loophole Ends the Privacy of Social Security Numbers(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Loophole Ends the Privacy of Social Security Numbers
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-15/this-loophole-ends-the-privacy-of-social-security-numbers
120 comments
For many people, the last 4 digits are the only ones that aren't easily deduced if you know the city a person was born in and the person's approximate birthdate.
And for this reason, many SSN verifiers (banks, government agencies, etc) ask for the last 4 digits. Then they store them in a dusty database somewhere and forget about them until they have to verify identity again, or there's a major breach.
That last part is the part that keeps me up at night.
That last part is the part that keeps me up at night.
Even if they didn't, given the number of state-level administrations, I am sure I can get close to the 9999 attempts I need to brute force a code. I wonder how many automated attempts are possible.
They no longer issue SSNs that way. Since 2011 it is now completely random.
Which is ever so helpful to those of us who are more than 5 years old.
Or, y'know, arrived in the US after 2011. Plenty of people have had SSNs generated in the last 5 years that are older than 5, myself included.
That doesn't dispel the fears of lots of non-immigrants older than 5. :-)
You realise I know because I am one of those people? And trust me, I am over 5 years old (immigrant).
Point is that there are hundreds of millions of us whose numbers are still guessable.
If you encounter a business still wanting your social security number as proof of identity, just generate and give them a random one and store it in a password manager like you would any other password.
Doesn't work if that business is, for instance, a financial institution required by law to verify your SSN.
Most businesses asking for your SSN are most likely going to do a soft or hard pull on your report to actually verify your identity. This would 100% not work in those cases.
The opposition to the national ID in US is really, really weird. Especially when it comes from many of the same people who insist on photo ID when voting, because they're afraid of non-citizens going to vote. Since the federal government is the one that keeps track of things such as immigration status, it stands to reason that it should be the one issuing IDs that are used for voting purposes - and at that point you might as well use it for everything else.
And, of course, SSNs are already a de facto national ID system. It just happens to be one that wasn't designed for ID purposes, and so it's very suboptimal (but any government abuses you could do with a proper ID, you can also do with SSN).
And, of course, SSNs are already a de facto national ID system. It just happens to be one that wasn't designed for ID purposes, and so it's very suboptimal (but any government abuses you could do with a proper ID, you can also do with SSN).
Opposition to using the SSN as an identifier started out as a privacy thing. It's also the reason that the Social Security Card itself is so flimsy and bare-bones. They did not want it to become a national ID card.
I used to respect this, but as time has passed, I think crooks and scammers get more benefit out of the lack of ID than most of the public gets out of these rudimentary guards. Anyone remotely serious (nation-states and bigcorps) can ID me if they want.
I used to respect this, but as time has passed, I think crooks and scammers get more benefit out of the lack of ID than most of the public gets out of these rudimentary guards. Anyone remotely serious (nation-states and bigcorps) can ID me if they want.
>> Opposition to using the SSN as an identifier started out as a privacy thing. ... They did not want it to become a national ID card.
That's the thing. I understand why that was the prevailing mode of thinking back in 1930s (?) when SSN was first introduced. There were plenty of people without any form of ID back then.
But it's just not so today. Vast majority of people in US have some form of ID, and it is extremely difficult to impossible to do even the most basic things (like, say, getting a job) without some form of ID. Even if there was some valid reasoning behind the desire to not have ID, this ship has sailed decades ago.
The best that can be done now is to acknowledge the actual situation for what it is, and fix the bureaucracy and overhead of dozens of different incompatible IDs. Have one national photo ID, with a guaranteed unique identifier, prominently featuring citizenship / green card status, and with a chip providing crypto for signing purposes and guaranteed secure communication with the government (say, submitting tax returns). Issue and re-issue it for free, using some existing federal government owned infrastructure - USPS seems like the most obvious choice here. Make all federal agencies use this ID for all purposes that require it - taxes, social security, immigration (i.e. replace green cards with it) etc.
States can do whatever they want with their own IDs, but I suspect that most would simply reuse national ID numbers on their driver licenses, concealed carry licenses etc. That would conveniently make all those IDs readily substitutable for most practical purposes.
I also don't see a national ID as a privacy thing in and of itself. It creates a record of you that the government has - sure, but so does your birth certificate (or immigration paperwork for naturalized citizens). The potential violations of privacy begin when government starts demanding ID for activities that didn't require it before, or even just for regular spot checks. But that is a different fight.
That's the thing. I understand why that was the prevailing mode of thinking back in 1930s (?) when SSN was first introduced. There were plenty of people without any form of ID back then.
But it's just not so today. Vast majority of people in US have some form of ID, and it is extremely difficult to impossible to do even the most basic things (like, say, getting a job) without some form of ID. Even if there was some valid reasoning behind the desire to not have ID, this ship has sailed decades ago.
The best that can be done now is to acknowledge the actual situation for what it is, and fix the bureaucracy and overhead of dozens of different incompatible IDs. Have one national photo ID, with a guaranteed unique identifier, prominently featuring citizenship / green card status, and with a chip providing crypto for signing purposes and guaranteed secure communication with the government (say, submitting tax returns). Issue and re-issue it for free, using some existing federal government owned infrastructure - USPS seems like the most obvious choice here. Make all federal agencies use this ID for all purposes that require it - taxes, social security, immigration (i.e. replace green cards with it) etc.
States can do whatever they want with their own IDs, but I suspect that most would simply reuse national ID numbers on their driver licenses, concealed carry licenses etc. That would conveniently make all those IDs readily substitutable for most practical purposes.
I also don't see a national ID as a privacy thing in and of itself. It creates a record of you that the government has - sure, but so does your birth certificate (or immigration paperwork for naturalized citizens). The potential violations of privacy begin when government starts demanding ID for activities that didn't require it before, or even just for regular spot checks. But that is a different fight.
We are in vigorous agreement.
But it's worth mentioning that organizations from the ACLU (which I support) to Rand Paul are on the other side of this issue:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/national-id/r...
http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/306969-rand-paul-a...
But it's worth mentioning that organizations from the ACLU (which I support) to Rand Paul are on the other side of this issue:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/national-id/r...
http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/306969-rand-paul-a...
They did not want it to become a national ID card.
I laminated my card because it was flimsy. It's still OK over 40 years later. My card has the following words on it:
Yes you are right. That ship sailed way back in 1972 when the SSA removed those words.[1]
[1] https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
I laminated my card because it was flimsy. It's still OK over 40 years later. My card has the following words on it:
FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
AND TAX PURPOSES --
NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION
Yes you are right. That ship sailed way back in 1972 when the SSA removed those words.[1]
[1] https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
Just a note that the SSA advises not laminating your card.
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3786/Can...
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3786/Can...
That's good advice for the newer cards.
Back in the old days there were no security features. The name was hand typed onto the card. Here's an earlier example than mine, note that the text at the bottom is different: http://www.elvispresleymusic.com.au/pictures/img/elvis/50s/5...
Can any of you young whippersnappers (whatever that means!) tell me who that person was? :)
Back in the old days there were no security features. The name was hand typed onto the card. Here's an earlier example than mine, note that the text at the bottom is different: http://www.elvispresleymusic.com.au/pictures/img/elvis/50s/5...
Can any of you young whippersnappers (whatever that means!) tell me who that person was? :)
If the government issues a number for each citizen, it will be used for identification. The same way that government debit will be used as money. Lawering it away is like making gravity illegal.
The only way to stop the practice is issuing a more convenient identification.
The only way to stop the practice is issuing a more convenient identification.
[deleted]
Voter ID isn't about ID; it's about racism and classism and making it more difficult for the non-rich-white minority to exercise their rights.[1]
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/...
Voter ID as usually suggested or implemented in the USA is that, yes. But try taking your American hat off for a little bit, and ask yourself why most countries in the world, including all those (by US measure) "socialist" European countries, do require some form of identification to vote.
Voter ID, by itself, is not racist, classist, or anything. It is a reasonable and prudent measure to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote. We can argue whether it's really necessary or not based on how much voter fraud there is in practice, but if you do have a national ID anyway, there's no particular reason not to use it for voting.
The problem with US voter ID laws is that they are not coupled with an actual national ID system, and instead rely on existing IDs, which aren't free. On top of that, the laws are written in such a way, and also combined with other policies (e.g. closing DMVs that issue IDs in certain areas), so as to make vote suppression a deliberate side effect. It is entirely possible to implement voter ID without such side effects, though.
Voter ID, by itself, is not racist, classist, or anything. It is a reasonable and prudent measure to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote. We can argue whether it's really necessary or not based on how much voter fraud there is in practice, but if you do have a national ID anyway, there's no particular reason not to use it for voting.
The problem with US voter ID laws is that they are not coupled with an actual national ID system, and instead rely on existing IDs, which aren't free. On top of that, the laws are written in such a way, and also combined with other policies (e.g. closing DMVs that issue IDs in certain areas), so as to make vote suppression a deliberate side effect. It is entirely possible to implement voter ID without such side effects, though.
> Voter ID, by itself, is not racist, classist, or anything. It is a reasonable and prudent measure to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote.
Even on the assumption that everyone has the moral right to vote, and that therefore the check you mention is a crime against humanity, voter ID is still an important and prudent measure to ensure that people vote no more often than they're supposed to.
Even on the assumption that everyone has the moral right to vote, and that therefore the check you mention is a crime against humanity, voter ID is still an important and prudent measure to ensure that people vote no more often than they're supposed to.
In theory, that makes sense, but has there ever been proof of large-scale voter impersonation in the US? To my knowledge there has not. And any proposed ID system is more likely to disenfranchise voters than prevent fraud.
There hasn't been such proof, and what information we have indicates that the levels are very low. But the problem is that you don't really have easily available and reliable data in the absence of IDs.
To some extent, this is symbolic. In most developed countries, and especially in US, resident non-citizens - especially permanent residents - have most of the legal and economic rights and the advantages enjoyed by citizens. Political rights, including right to vote, is one of the few things that are reserved for citizens alone. If it is to mean something, ensuring that it is only exercised by those who have it makes sense, even if you don't actually catch any miscreants - you could consider it an honor guard of sorts. But, by the same logic, it is crucial that those who do have the right to vote can exercise that right.
To some extent, this is symbolic. In most developed countries, and especially in US, resident non-citizens - especially permanent residents - have most of the legal and economic rights and the advantages enjoyed by citizens. Political rights, including right to vote, is one of the few things that are reserved for citizens alone. If it is to mean something, ensuring that it is only exercised by those who have it makes sense, even if you don't actually catch any miscreants - you could consider it an honor guard of sorts. But, by the same logic, it is crucial that those who do have the right to vote can exercise that right.
All true, but the parent was questioning policy in the US.
I don't understand how people can pretend that a SSN isn't a national ID number. Of course it is.
If a state wants to show that it isn't, then make changes that make the number unsuited to being a national ID number. Let people pick their own number or reduce it to a 4 digit number.
If a state wants to show that it isn't, then make changes that make the number unsuited to being a national ID number. Let people pick their own number or reduce it to a 4 digit number.
It's not only your SSN that is a national ID number, thanks to the Real ID Act your driver's license/state ID number is your true national ID number. At least, that was the plan, but literally half the states and territories are holding out and stalling it, so the SSN continues to be that default ID number for anything federal.
I don't know which is worse: The cock-up that is the Real ID Act or the stupidity surrounding the SSN being a de facto ID number for anything and everything.
I don't know which is worse: The cock-up that is the Real ID Act or the stupidity surrounding the SSN being a de facto ID number for anything and everything.
It's federal isn't it? So it wouldn't be up to the state.
I'd want to read the actual decision because on face value, this seems ridiculous. Basically every agency can just get around the Privacy Act saying "uh child support!". It should be up to the child support or taxation authorities to go around and find people not paying and deal with them appropriately.
Unfortunately, especially with people used to modern databases, I don't think many people are used to thinking that the government's job should sometimes be a bit more difficult.
I'd want to read the actual decision because on face value, this seems ridiculous. Basically every agency can just get around the Privacy Act saying "uh child support!". It should be up to the child support or taxation authorities to go around and find people not paying and deal with them appropriately.
Unfortunately, especially with people used to modern databases, I don't think many people are used to thinking that the government's job should sometimes be a bit more difficult.
Yes, it would be up to the state..
LOOK AT YOUR DL from your state, does it show your SSN?
In some USA States we still can have our SSN not listed on our DL in some other states we cannot
LOOK AT YOUR DL from your state, does it show your SSN?
In some USA States we still can have our SSN not listed on our DL in some other states we cannot
Mine's not listed on my DL but I did have to give it to DOT when I received my license.
Well, I didn't _have_ to; the gentleman asked me for a single proof of residence and my SSN. When I said "I don't want to give out my SSN, you can't ask for that as ID" he replied, "yes, you're correct. In that case I'll need three proof of residence documents from this list and two identification documents from this other list".
I had a passport, a mortgage and a phone bill so I just caved and gave him my SSN.
Well, I didn't _have_ to; the gentleman asked me for a single proof of residence and my SSN. When I said "I don't want to give out my SSN, you can't ask for that as ID" he replied, "yes, you're correct. In that case I'll need three proof of residence documents from this list and two identification documents from this other list".
I had a passport, a mortgage and a phone bill so I just caved and gave him my SSN.
In the states where the DL number is not identical to the SSN, it may still be possible to reconstruct the SSN from the DL number. The SSN may also be encoded in the 2D barcode on the back, without appearing on the face. There may be a few states that have to query a central database in order to link a DL number to a SSN.
But rest assured that every state will attempt to maintain such a link, and will sell access to it for the right price. That's why you should treat every request for your driver's license number as a request for your social security number, even though it is probably not governed by the privacy protection laws as it might be if the request was for a SSN directly.
But rest assured that every state will attempt to maintain such a link, and will sell access to it for the right price. That's why you should treat every request for your driver's license number as a request for your social security number, even though it is probably not governed by the privacy protection laws as it might be if the request was for a SSN directly.
Do you have sources on this? I remember doing research on this and concluding that most states phased out basing driver's license numbers on SSNs
I thought it was a provision of the RealID act that states couldn't use your SSN as your driver's license number anymore.
IMHO, the idea that it's a secret number has been shot for years now. Fretting over who can find your SSN is pointless because the answer is anybody. It's ok as long as you don't give any special privileges to someone just because they know another person's SSN. It's no more special than your full name.
IMHO, the idea that it's a secret number has been shot for years now. Fretting over who can find your SSN is pointless because the answer is anybody. It's ok as long as you don't give any special privileges to someone just because they know another person's SSN. It's no more special than your full name.
I'm not entirely certain whether all states have decided to comply with the requirements of RealID for their drivers' licenses. Last time I checked, there were still some holdouts, but that was quite some time ago.
> It's federal isn't it?
Of course. You're right.
My point still stands though. It is a federal ID number and I don't really get the opposition to it (other than the religious objection).
If the feds want to deny that it's an ID number, they should take steps to ensure that no number is linked to a single individual.
Of course. You're right.
My point still stands though. It is a federal ID number and I don't really get the opposition to it (other than the religious objection).
If the feds want to deny that it's an ID number, they should take steps to ensure that no number is linked to a single individual.
> I don't really get the opposition to it (other than the religious objection).
Read some history of how national ID was used and abused by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to find reasons other than (but also including) religion as the basis for objection.
Read some history of how national ID was used and abused by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia to find reasons other than (but also including) religion as the basis for objection.
Sure, but we are so far beyond what was available 1930's and 1940's already, what's the problem with the bar association seeing your SSN? There's no going back now and even if we could, I'm not sure we should.
My big objections with SSN is that they are a quasi-secret thing. They are the key to so many things yet they really are public.
My big objections with SSN is that they are a quasi-secret thing. They are the key to so many things yet they really are public.
ID fraud already makes a lot of SSN non-unique; one in seven SSN has been used more than once, though the SSA doesn't report this to the owner of the SSN.
SSNs are not unique.
In what sense? They're only ever assigned to a single individual, and they are not reused[1]. The number uniquely IDs the individual.
The Wikipedia article makes the same point as the parent poster: "the Social Security number has become a de facto national identification number".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Exhaust...
The Wikipedia article makes the same point as the parent poster: "the Social Security number has become a de facto national identification number".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Exhaust...
While the SSA says that they do not reuse SSNs (which is nicely couched in the present tense in the FAQ cited by Wikipedia), there have been historic, mostly accidental, reuses in some of the geographic administration districts (the SSA only really centralized number generation in the 2011 decision to also start randomizing them), and I think far back enough now that the overlaps mostly don't matter operationally...
Off hand I don't have a source I can cite on that, only that in past job (mostly health care claims) I've been involved with some quite hard work to ensure not to build systems that use an SSN as a individual ID as much because there are some very weird edge cases out there, especially if you have old, dirty, and/or large enough datasets, as because it's not a good idea in the first place to rely just on SSNs for anything other than a Tax ID.
Off hand I don't have a source I can cite on that, only that in past job (mostly health care claims) I've been involved with some quite hard work to ensure not to build systems that use an SSN as a individual ID as much because there are some very weird edge cases out there, especially if you have old, dirty, and/or large enough datasets, as because it's not a good idea in the first place to rely just on SSNs for anything other than a Tax ID.
At least in the sense that there's no 1-1 mapping from SSNs to individuals.
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Duplicate__111371029.html
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Duplicate__111371029.html
nitpick: based on the example you linked, you probably mean 1-1 in the opposite direction, or something like, "no well-defined function" in that direction.
That's a technically accurate, but weasely answer from the SSA. Realistically, there are many loopholes and exceptions.
- People born in various New England states have social security number overlap with number ranges issued by the social security systems in Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall islands. Those territories get services from Federal programs which causes issues.
- EINs and SSNs are issued by different departments and can overlap. People in various scenarios will provide the number in the wrong context.
- Millions of people use the wrong SSN without fraudulent intent.
- People frequently and fraudulently use the SSNs of children and older people.
- Hundreds of thousands/low millions of people have multiple valid SSNs.
- 40,000 people used a real SSN included as a sample in a wallet in the 1930's.
- Some populations have a higher incidence of mistakes, fraud, multiple valid SSNs or other problems. One dataset that I was acquainted with had IIRC a 7% known exception rate for SSNs.
- People born in various New England states have social security number overlap with number ranges issued by the social security systems in Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall islands. Those territories get services from Federal programs which causes issues.
- EINs and SSNs are issued by different departments and can overlap. People in various scenarios will provide the number in the wrong context.
- Millions of people use the wrong SSN without fraudulent intent.
- People frequently and fraudulently use the SSNs of children and older people.
- Hundreds of thousands/low millions of people have multiple valid SSNs.
- 40,000 people used a real SSN included as a sample in a wallet in the 1930's.
- Some populations have a higher incidence of mistakes, fraud, multiple valid SSNs or other problems. One dataset that I was acquainted with had IIRC a 7% known exception rate for SSNs.
How does someone end up with multiple valid SSNs?
They get one at a young age at and are unaware of it for various reasons.
Remember that there are 320M US citizens with all sorts of improbable stories. You have people born abroad, native americans on isolated reservations, people born at home or with irregular birth certificates, people with scummy parents committing fraud in their child's name, etc.
When New York implemented facial recognition on IDs, over 100 people were arrested for having multiple driver's licenses. Stuff happens!
Remember that there are 320M US citizens with all sorts of improbable stories. You have people born abroad, native americans on isolated reservations, people born at home or with irregular birth certificates, people with scummy parents committing fraud in their child's name, etc.
When New York implemented facial recognition on IDs, over 100 people were arrested for having multiple driver's licenses. Stuff happens!
They claim they're not reused, even though the current living US population is a third of the entire keyspace (320 million vs 1 billion).
That, and the keyspace is sparsely populated, since the prefix is geographically assigned.
until june 25, 2011, after which it is now random:
https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html
https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html
Just think about it for a minute. It's a nine digit number, of which only the last four are serial (the other 6 encode location and issuing date in a round about way). Our population is currently 320,000,000, meaning even if all 9-digit numbers were in play (somewhere around 350 values in the area number are not currently used), the current living population is already using 1/3 of all SSNs.
Add in the fact that some not-as-rare-as-you-would-hope people can have multiple SSNs and you just can't say for certain "this SSN means this person".
SSA may say numbers don't get reused, but that is a straight up lie and they know it. I've seen it happen in databases I've ran. Dead people occasionally get their SSN reissued.
Add in the fact that some not-as-rare-as-you-would-hope people can have multiple SSNs and you just can't say for certain "this SSN means this person".
SSA may say numbers don't get reused, but that is a straight up lie and they know it. I've seen it happen in databases I've ran. Dead people occasionally get their SSN reissued.
But people think they and worse they are intended to be.
I wonder how much of the desire to hang on to SSN as a private identifier is rooted in the fact that SSN's contain a bit of personal data. Until 1972, the first 3 digits represented where you were born or where the card was issued. Afterwards they represent the mailing address for the application for the card.
And because of that design decision, some states were fairly close to running out of SSNs: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html
Today, SSNs are randomized: https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html
Considering the numbering system was created in the 1930s, their idea of what constitutes a unique, private (i.e. hard to remember) number is a bit less relevant today.
And because of that design decision, some states were fairly close to running out of SSNs: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html
Today, SSNs are randomized: https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html
Considering the numbering system was created in the 1930s, their idea of what constitutes a unique, private (i.e. hard to remember) number is a bit less relevant today.
IMHO it's just about trying to hold onto it being less generally useful, as was initially promised. The government pulled the same "limited scope" bullshit they did for all the recent "terrorism" "laws".
Enumerating and precisely identifying citizens is the basis of mass surveillance. For most every societal use, a name and a birthday is good enough identification. Individuals should not be perfectly legible to the government, because then the rulers are further tempted into demanding that reality conform to their whims.
Of course now that government-cum-computer has entrenched and precessed, there are many areas where precise identification will help preserve one's rights. If one shared a name and birthdate with a wanted criminal, they certainly would want to be distinguishable!
But such situations are really due to the system asserting that its abstractions are airtight. For example if someone applies for credit in my name, the crime that has occurred is fraud and I am not involved. But the system (within-abstraction) diagnoses the situation as me being a victim of "identity theft", transferring blame to the individuals affected by its own shortcomings! Further cementing the abstractions further strengthens belief in them, making these failure modes even harsher.
Another practical problem in the US is that the government fails to prohibit the use of such identifiers for private purposes, under a half-applied theory of private contract (or really just money talks). So we end up with the double-edged sword of the free market combined with a government mandate, which destroys individuals' sole power of exit versus otherwise unaccountable corporate entities.
Enumerating and precisely identifying citizens is the basis of mass surveillance. For most every societal use, a name and a birthday is good enough identification. Individuals should not be perfectly legible to the government, because then the rulers are further tempted into demanding that reality conform to their whims.
Of course now that government-cum-computer has entrenched and precessed, there are many areas where precise identification will help preserve one's rights. If one shared a name and birthdate with a wanted criminal, they certainly would want to be distinguishable!
But such situations are really due to the system asserting that its abstractions are airtight. For example if someone applies for credit in my name, the crime that has occurred is fraud and I am not involved. But the system (within-abstraction) diagnoses the situation as me being a victim of "identity theft", transferring blame to the individuals affected by its own shortcomings! Further cementing the abstractions further strengthens belief in them, making these failure modes even harsher.
Another practical problem in the US is that the government fails to prohibit the use of such identifiers for private purposes, under a half-applied theory of private contract (or really just money talks). So we end up with the double-edged sword of the free market combined with a government mandate, which destroys individuals' sole power of exit versus otherwise unaccountable corporate entities.
The entire SSN system is a disgrace. We've had the cryptographic tools for decades to do it right, but we instead treat SSNs as both identifier and some sort of awful bearer token. In any sane system, knowing an actor's precise identity should not permit impersonating that actor!
I always wondered why we didn't at least have a "full access" number the user would never shared but on their taxes, a "write only" number to give employers, and a "read only" number for background checks, banks, &c.
Ideally I'd think the private (key) version wouldn't be human-readable at all, you'd need to physically possess the card to use it, while the public number could be carelessly used like we do SSNs now...
[deleted]
Sure, but I was thinking of something that could have been implemented 50 years ago.
I would suspect it's because there's a certain political segment that stands in the way of improving programs for which they would prefer would just be ended.
The political segment of the US that would like Social Security to just be ended is statistically equivalent to zero people.
Um, no. I'd opt out entirely if it wasn't next to impossible. My uncle never had an SSN (and of course never collected a check from Social Security, though he lived to age 75.)
Some of the more rabid conservatives are against social security.
I think that the GP was referring to national ID.
I think that the GP was referring to national ID.
I would like to opt out of Social Security.
Become Amish. They are the only ones I know of that can opt out.
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3821/Are...
https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3821/Are...
There are people who can (or in some cases must) opt out based on occupation. For example, see https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/teacher-retirement... for a brief discussion of some of the mess.
Interesting, thanks for sharing that info!
The syntax around the requirements creates ambiguity but:
"Meet the following requirements: Be a member of a recognized religious sect conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits under a private plan or system that makes payments in the event of death, disability or retirement, or which makes payments towards the costs of or provides for medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by Social Security); Be a member of a religious sect that makes a reasonable provision of food, shelter and medical care for its dependent members and has done so continuously since December 31, 1950;..."
By my reading, the first bullet point would mean that you couldn't be involved in any health insurance plans. The second bullet point seems completely arbitrary; that the sect must have been active since 1951?
The syntax around the requirements creates ambiguity but:
"Meet the following requirements: Be a member of a recognized religious sect conscientiously opposed to accepting benefits under a private plan or system that makes payments in the event of death, disability or retirement, or which makes payments towards the costs of or provides for medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by Social Security); Be a member of a religious sect that makes a reasonable provision of food, shelter and medical care for its dependent members and has done so continuously since December 31, 1950;..."
By my reading, the first bullet point would mean that you couldn't be involved in any health insurance plans. The second bullet point seems completely arbitrary; that the sect must have been active since 1951?
It's not arbitrary. It's a grandfather clause. It prevents new religious groups from claiming this privilege even if they establish a track record of providing these benefits to members.
Which is oddly not properly represented in the House.
Which House members want to just end Social Security?
"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program" -- Roosevelt
Plenty of people want the program gone. Nobody's going to say it in public if they want to get elected, though.
Plenty of people want the program gone. Nobody's going to say it in public if they want to get elected, though.
Nobody will ever fess up to ending social security in as many words, but ending the program in its current form as a guaranteed safety net is a plank of the Republican platform. Typically this is coupled with some kind of savings plan along the lines of an individual retirement account, which may retain the name 'social security'.
Social Security was invented in 1935, and the first Social Security cards were passed out in 1937. The SSN system has been virtually unchanged since then.
There's absolutely no disgrace about the SSN system: it did the job quite well decades before the invention of the computer. The disgrace is that no system has come to replace it in the last 80 years.
The US Post Office sent out a RFC suggesting that they're contemplating a national-identity system btw, complete with PKI infrastructure and cryptographic proofs. They're probably the best agency to verify the identities of millions of Americans (any American with a home / post office address can be verified by a Post Office employee).
But that's all speculation. I don't recall any news suggesting that the US Post Office has actually been approved to roll out this hypothetical identification system. (But honestly, I do think its a good idea and would support such an initiative)
--------------
In any case: Social Security Numbers aren't a problem. We all need to be tracked by the social security system so that we get benefits.
The problem is that every government agency is using SSNs as if they were good identifiers. I mean, yeah, its good for the government to "save money" here and recycle the Social Security Administration's hard work in listing all American Citizens. But this is definitely an area of the Government where I'd prefer more money were spent on a "proper solution", as opposed to the minor cost savings of centralizing it all on the shoulders of the Social Security Administration.
---------------
Repurposing the US Post Office would serve multiple purposes:
* The US Post Office has been downsizing recently. IE: Lost jobs, fewer benefits, losing money. Etc. etc. If the US Post Office took on more work and did something essential in today's computer-based society (aka: if they were the gatekeepers of a National-identity PKI certificate), it'd give all those Post Office workers a job in an age of declining snail-mail.
* Very large agency with a staff who specializes in physical contact with a huge number of Americans. There are very few agencies that have the size, scale, and connectivity of the US Post Office.
* A PKI-based national identity certificate would replace SSNs as the national identifier of choice. With proper security / proper certificate handling, it would be significantly safer than SSNs. Proof through physical access + identifiers (ie: Government-issued ids, like Passports + Drivers Licenses) is a solved problem with the Post Office. Post Office employees are regularly trained to verify Birth Certificates, Drivers Licenses, Passports and so forth. They know how to verify identities physically.
There's absolutely no disgrace about the SSN system: it did the job quite well decades before the invention of the computer. The disgrace is that no system has come to replace it in the last 80 years.
The US Post Office sent out a RFC suggesting that they're contemplating a national-identity system btw, complete with PKI infrastructure and cryptographic proofs. They're probably the best agency to verify the identities of millions of Americans (any American with a home / post office address can be verified by a Post Office employee).
But that's all speculation. I don't recall any news suggesting that the US Post Office has actually been approved to roll out this hypothetical identification system. (But honestly, I do think its a good idea and would support such an initiative)
--------------
In any case: Social Security Numbers aren't a problem. We all need to be tracked by the social security system so that we get benefits.
The problem is that every government agency is using SSNs as if they were good identifiers. I mean, yeah, its good for the government to "save money" here and recycle the Social Security Administration's hard work in listing all American Citizens. But this is definitely an area of the Government where I'd prefer more money were spent on a "proper solution", as opposed to the minor cost savings of centralizing it all on the shoulders of the Social Security Administration.
---------------
Repurposing the US Post Office would serve multiple purposes:
* The US Post Office has been downsizing recently. IE: Lost jobs, fewer benefits, losing money. Etc. etc. If the US Post Office took on more work and did something essential in today's computer-based society (aka: if they were the gatekeepers of a National-identity PKI certificate), it'd give all those Post Office workers a job in an age of declining snail-mail.
* Very large agency with a staff who specializes in physical contact with a huge number of Americans. There are very few agencies that have the size, scale, and connectivity of the US Post Office.
* A PKI-based national identity certificate would replace SSNs as the national identifier of choice. With proper security / proper certificate handling, it would be significantly safer than SSNs. Proof through physical access + identifiers (ie: Government-issued ids, like Passports + Drivers Licenses) is a solved problem with the Post Office. Post Office employees are regularly trained to verify Birth Certificates, Drivers Licenses, Passports and so forth. They know how to verify identities physically.
I doubt the "it'd give all those Post Office workers a job" part.
It would if one would require a Post Office employee to be present whenever an identity has to be verified, but in practice, people would have a passport or identity card with a photo/fingerprint/DNA scan.
The only effect might be that the Post Office will have to handle more ID cards, but even that is doubtable, as almost everyone already has a driver's license, passport, or similar.
It would if one would require a Post Office employee to be present whenever an identity has to be verified, but in practice, people would have a passport or identity card with a photo/fingerprint/DNA scan.
The only effect might be that the Post Office will have to handle more ID cards, but even that is doubtable, as almost everyone already has a driver's license, passport, or similar.
> It would if one would require a Post Office employee to be present whenever an identity has to be verified, but in practice, people would have a passport or identity card with a photo/fingerprint/DNA scan.
And who would verify the passport's authenticity? That takes training.
Every state has a different drivers license format: including watermarks and other security features. Post Office Employees in Texas will know how to read the Texas Drivers License (but not necessarily one from New York).
Valid documents for identity include: * Birth Certificates (differs from state to state) * Most Drivers licenses (differs from state to state. Some states are not federally valid forms of ID btw) * Passports * Social Security cards (uuuhhhhh... we probably should stop this one) * etc. etc.
And who would verify the passport's authenticity? That takes training.
Every state has a different drivers license format: including watermarks and other security features. Post Office Employees in Texas will know how to read the Texas Drivers License (but not necessarily one from New York).
Valid documents for identity include: * Birth Certificates (differs from state to state) * Most Drivers licenses (differs from state to state. Some states are not federally valid forms of ID btw) * Passports * Social Security cards (uuuhhhhh... we probably should stop this one) * etc. etc.
"And who would verify the passport's authenticity? That takes training."
The same way you verify ID now: for low risk (relative to your business) things, you judge a person and the quality of whatever piece of paper they present, for slightly higher risk, you limit that to a set of more official documents you recognize (say passports and driver's licenses of nearby states), for more official things, you go to a notary.
I fail to see what group of transactions falls between "It is OK to follow common sense and your gut w.r.t. the validity of the documents someone presents to check identity" and "you have to go to a notary" that visiting a post office would cater for.
"Every state has a different drivers license format: including watermarks and other security features. Post Office Employees in Texas will know how to read the Texas Drivers License (but not necessarily one from New York)."
So, post office workers, at least currently, cannot help solve that problem.
A nation-wide ID that almost everybody can show would help there, but it also would make people more familiar with recognizing it, decreasing the probability that one will think "I need help handling this kind of ID"
Also, a decent modern nation-wide ID could have electronic ways for relative laymen to verify it, for example a chip that allows one to query 'does this passport ID go with this name/city of birth/photo?'
TLDR: how often is the desire to verify identity so great that it warrants visiting a post office or paying a post office employee to visit you?
The same way you verify ID now: for low risk (relative to your business) things, you judge a person and the quality of whatever piece of paper they present, for slightly higher risk, you limit that to a set of more official documents you recognize (say passports and driver's licenses of nearby states), for more official things, you go to a notary.
I fail to see what group of transactions falls between "It is OK to follow common sense and your gut w.r.t. the validity of the documents someone presents to check identity" and "you have to go to a notary" that visiting a post office would cater for.
"Every state has a different drivers license format: including watermarks and other security features. Post Office Employees in Texas will know how to read the Texas Drivers License (but not necessarily one from New York)."
So, post office workers, at least currently, cannot help solve that problem.
A nation-wide ID that almost everybody can show would help there, but it also would make people more familiar with recognizing it, decreasing the probability that one will think "I need help handling this kind of ID"
Also, a decent modern nation-wide ID could have electronic ways for relative laymen to verify it, for example a chip that allows one to query 'does this passport ID go with this name/city of birth/photo?'
TLDR: how often is the desire to verify identity so great that it warrants visiting a post office or paying a post office employee to visit you?
> TLDR: how often is the desire to verify identity so great that it warrants visiting a post office or paying a post office employee to visit you?
You pay post-office once for a $100 PKI-based certificate / smartcard with strong federally mandated identification regiments.
From there on out, the smartcard serves as your national identity, and can be used for like 10 years on any smartcard compatible system.
That's the kind of system I'm envisioning. The Post Office won't visit every single time you use the card, you visit the post office once every 10 years.
With 300 million Americans, that still 30-million hard identity checks per years. That would require an agency of massive size.
------------
And to answer your question: every time you use a SSN for identification (applying for a job, opening bank accounts, etc. etc.) would be a time to use this PKI-based smartcard verified by the US Post Office.
You pay post-office once for a $100 PKI-based certificate / smartcard with strong federally mandated identification regiments.
From there on out, the smartcard serves as your national identity, and can be used for like 10 years on any smartcard compatible system.
That's the kind of system I'm envisioning. The Post Office won't visit every single time you use the card, you visit the post office once every 10 years.
With 300 million Americans, that still 30-million hard identity checks per years. That would require an agency of massive size.
------------
And to answer your question: every time you use a SSN for identification (applying for a job, opening bank accounts, etc. etc.) would be a time to use this PKI-based smartcard verified by the US Post Office.
We could also then make it illegal to send unsolicited direct mail advertisements, since the USPS wouldn't rely on those scummy dirtbags for their bread and butter. I'm 100% in on this idea.
You'd need the politicians to do that. USPS could stop allowing unsolicited mail, but that is a revenue source for them.
> the problem is that every government agency is using SSNs as if they are good identifiers
So much this. Especially with all the data breaches knowledge of an SSN has become meaningless. The practice of taking it as an identifier should be outlawed. It's time people start suing the organizations that enable identity theft by practicing this.
So much this. Especially with all the data breaches knowledge of an SSN has become meaningless. The practice of taking it as an identifier should be outlawed. It's time people start suing the organizations that enable identity theft by practicing this.
The problem isn't with the concept of SSNs. The problem is that everyone and their uncle asks you to disclose them yet we still have the delusional idea that they are secret.
Though everyone and their uncle asks you to disclose SSNs, you don't actually have to. Tell AT&T that it's none of their business, tell your university, 'no thanks', etc. Though everyone asks, the only people you should tell are your bank, your employer, and the IRS.
This doesn't really work in practice. Have you ever applied for a credit card without a social? Sure, they can't require you to provide it, but the odds for getting approved without it are virtually nil.
Quite right. Most will accept a driver's license number in lieu of SSN.
pithic(1)
Anyone who thinks an SSN is a secret is naive at best.
Back in the day, your student ID at California State schools was your SSN. It was on your ID card, which you had to present to do anything at the school.
Back in the day, your student ID at California State schools was your SSN. It was on your ID card, which you had to present to do anything at the school.
Wasn't even that long ago. In 2006, the CSU I was at still used your SSN for everything - including logging into the computers. This particular school has since changed this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the practice is still used elsewhere.
Wow. I know at CSULA it was SSNs in the early 90s, but they were already phasing it out.
Montana, and I bet a number of other states, used to use the SSN as part of your driver license number.
What's fun about SSNs is that proof of them having been leaked isn't sufficient to get a new one, you have to become the victim of fraud based on your SSN having leaked to get a replacement.
Honestly, that's somewhat understandable. Otherwise, there would be plenty of advice that you should rotate your SSN every year, just in case... While that would be an ideal final state, in our current state that's probably not a great idea.
I suppose ideal final state would be some combination of a cryptographic certificate and a rotating security token ala RSA SecurID. The token is enough to verify that you possess the certificate, but has no unique value in-and-of itself.
I suppose ideal final state would be some combination of a cryptographic certificate and a rotating security token ala RSA SecurID. The token is enough to verify that you possess the certificate, but has no unique value in-and-of itself.
Right. But remember, this applies to cases where you can prove that your SSN has been stolen, which isn't enough to get a new one (if it were about 2/3 of Americans would be able to get one, most likely).
The big problem is that the SSN is completely, utterly a bad idea in the 21st century, but nobody is working on a superior replacement because things aren't "that bad yet".
The big problem is that the SSN is completely, utterly a bad idea in the 21st century, but nobody is working on a superior replacement because things aren't "that bad yet".
And even then, proof of fraudulent activity does not guarantee the issuance of a new number. It's a case-by-case basis.
[deleted]
I really wish we would just standardize identification in the US but it's likely that such a standardization will result in 50 "standards" which don't talk to each other and are vulnerable to all kinds of attacks. I say this mostly because I've seen some of the crap that passes for IT in my home state (Kansas). And it's a mess. I can only imagine it gets worse the bigger the state government.
Haven't we moved on from pretending SSNs are secret or useful in any way? Now there's two factor authentication ("what's your favorite color?"), etc.
When I read that The Hackers have my SSN again I'm not really that worried having lost count.
But if we had a Federally issued Secure ID, when (not if) that got hacked I would worry a lot.
When I read that The Hackers have my SSN again I'm not really that worried having lost count.
But if we had a Federally issued Secure ID, when (not if) that got hacked I would worry a lot.
> Now there's two factor authentication ("what's your favorite color?")
Not so great an example of secret information …. TFA is useless, I think, unless you are allowed to pick the question. (Or, of course, you can give site-specific nonsense answers to repeated questions, but most people don't do that.)
Not so great an example of secret information …. TFA is useless, I think, unless you are allowed to pick the question. (Or, of course, you can give site-specific nonsense answers to repeated questions, but most people don't do that.)
"Secret questions" are almost always not two factor, they are "Wish It Was Two Factor". The two factors are supposed to be: something only you know (a password) and something only you have (a physical key or device you keep with you).
Secret questions are still just something you know, therefore not a second factor from passwords. Secret questions are often worse than two factor because they also violate the "only you" part of the security factors by often asking mostly the equivalents of public record information making them generally only about as useful as tertiary usernames/IDs. (Which is why the advice these days is to treat them as passwords and give them pseudo-randomized phrases, unconnected to actual answers of the stated question.)
Secret questions are still just something you know, therefore not a second factor from passwords. Secret questions are often worse than two factor because they also violate the "only you" part of the security factors by often asking mostly the equivalents of public record information making them generally only about as useful as tertiary usernames/IDs. (Which is why the advice these days is to treat them as passwords and give them pseudo-randomized phrases, unconnected to actual answers of the stated question.)
> "Secret questions" are almost always not two factor, they are "Wish It Was Two Factor".
You are right. I was going along with what I perceived as my parent (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12509768 )'s identification of 'secret' questions with TFA, but I shouldn't have. Thank you for the correction.
(Also, although surely there aren't many such people around here, for anyone who doesn't get your reference: http://thedailywtf.com/articles/WishItWas-TwoFactor- .)
You are right. I was going along with what I perceived as my parent (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12509768 )'s identification of 'secret' questions with TFA, but I shouldn't have. Thank you for the correction.
(Also, although surely there aren't many such people around here, for anyone who doesn't get your reference: http://thedailywtf.com/articles/WishItWas-TwoFactor- .)
How is it decided if one law supersedes another? It seems pretty strange to have contradicting laws, especially since the federal privacy act is very broad in its statement.
Given the volume of law that we have, it's not surprising at all that there are laws which contradict other laws.
Decisions of which law supersedes another are more often than not up to judges, and sometimes juries, in cases like this. Other laws can be written which try to settle the questions, too, but by and large it's the court cases which settle precedent.
This is why who gets to be a judge is such an important question. At the end of the day, the decisions of individual people who are judges can hold an incredible amount of power... and so long as their decisions are well reasoned (or well rationalized)... they can determine how we can live (or not live) our lives.
(edited for clarity)
Decisions of which law supersedes another are more often than not up to judges, and sometimes juries, in cases like this. Other laws can be written which try to settle the questions, too, but by and large it's the court cases which settle precedent.
This is why who gets to be a judge is such an important question. At the end of the day, the decisions of individual people who are judges can hold an incredible amount of power... and so long as their decisions are well reasoned (or well rationalized)... they can determine how we can live (or not live) our lives.
(edited for clarity)
In general, a more specific law trumps a more general law, and a later law trumps an earlier enacted law.
So the more specific rule of "States may ask for SSN's for tax purposes" would override the general rule of "States may not ask for SSN's". And the exception was presumably enacted after the general rule, since otherwise there would have been no need to make an exception.
So the more specific rule of "States may ask for SSN's for tax purposes" would override the general rule of "States may not ask for SSN's". And the exception was presumably enacted after the general rule, since otherwise there would have been no need to make an exception.
>It seems pretty strange to have contradicting laws
I think you might enjoy:
THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
I think you might enjoy:
THE MYTH OF THE RULE OF LAW
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
This is one of the reasons we (the U.S.) have judges and an appeals process. The legislature can then also act to clarify the laws such that they work in harmony or repeal one of the conflicting ones.
[deleted]
How about just make the SSN a proper national ID, issue everyone with proper photo + SSN Id cards?
The SSN is a username, not a secret password. I fail to see how it can be more of a privacy concern that authorities (or other people) know your SSN, than that they know your middle name?
The SSN is a username, not a secret password. I fail to see how it can be more of a privacy concern that authorities (or other people) know your SSN, than that they know your middle name?
The ironically named Federal government should just finish subjugating the states , completely, so that these silly idiosyncrasies stop existing
We would be better off if we stopped pretending there is any form of federalism here as the states contribute nothing to the aggregate whims of the national government as it continues to tolerate their mentally challenged courts, useless evolving body of opaque case law, and patch work of redundant executive departments. Literally the only things states do is adversely affect interstate commerce.
The national government has complete leverage over every state, and will just as well sanction any one financially just as fast as it would sanction a foreign nation state, when it becomes interested in an outcome such that the 10th amendment is null and moot.
The consequences, politically, are very minimal, as these bankrupt states are reliant on the teet of the national government that long ago granted itself the authority to regulate all nuances everywhere.
We would be better off if we stopped pretending there is any form of federalism here as the states contribute nothing to the aggregate whims of the national government as it continues to tolerate their mentally challenged courts, useless evolving body of opaque case law, and patch work of redundant executive departments. Literally the only things states do is adversely affect interstate commerce.
The national government has complete leverage over every state, and will just as well sanction any one financially just as fast as it would sanction a foreign nation state, when it becomes interested in an outcome such that the 10th amendment is null and moot.
The consequences, politically, are very minimal, as these bankrupt states are reliant on the teet of the national government that long ago granted itself the authority to regulate all nuances everywhere.
The author is really late to this particular party.
https://replacethessn.xyz/
https://replacethessn.xyz/
This wouldn't be a bad thing if we didn't also use the SSN as proof of identity. Numbers as "usernames" for individuals are fine. But they should not also serve as "passwords." That particular cat is already out of the bag. The list of people who know or have access to your social security number includes dozens of bank personnel, medical professionals, standardized testing agencies, previous employers, and government employees. It is entirely possible for malicious actors, given any other personal identifier (a unique full name, or any full name plus address), to find the associated social security number.
We simply cannot expect any SSN - let alone its last 4 digits - to be known only by the person to which it was issued.