Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Congress To Restrict Social Security Number Use 280

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress To Restrict Social Security Number Use

Comments Filter:
  • Start with the Banks (Score:1, Interesting)

    by cwalk ( 899502 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:11PM (#15318407)
    Banks are the biggest culprits. Your account number is often your SSN. Therefore, if criminals get a hold of your bank statements, they can usually ascertain your SSN.
  • by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:12PM (#15318423) Homepage
    I was once reprimanded by an employer for standing my ground on the fact that a badgenumber+SSN was not a good idea for a login id. grumble grumble. I left the place soon after and have never listed it on my resume.
  • No - Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WeAzElMaN ( 667859 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:17PM (#15318465)
    Politicians have expressed astonishment at what they see as a rising identity fraud problem

    You don't say. It took them long enough. Apparently MySpace is a bigger threat [slashdot.org] to consumers these days - after all, identity theft has been around longer than SNSs. Give me a break.
  • by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:19PM (#15318497) Journal
    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.
  • by rjune ( 123157 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:19PM (#15318498)
    You are correct in the the system is totally broken, and needs to be revamped. However, the first step in the process to fix things is to stop the universal use of the Social Security number because it is so convenient. You should not have to reveal such an important piece of data for a grocery store discount card.
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:30PM (#15318622) Homepage
    ...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."
  • by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:34PM (#15318652)
    if you haven't done so already, i highly suggest using the optout program to stop receiving CC offers https://www.optoutprescreen.com/ [optoutprescreen.com]

    I did this a year ago and i get no CC offers in the mail AT ALL. it is a great program. it is also 100% legit FTC Gov't Site Explaining Program [ftc.gov]
  • by Gonarat ( 177568 ) * on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:34PM (#15318658)

    Exactly. It shouldn't matter if I know your SSN. There should be a private key part of the equation required for a transaction that requires an SSN to take place. This token should be a pass phrase, not just a password or PIN. Verification can be done electronically by the Social Security Administration.


    For example, if I sign up for a credit card, the application would not be processed until I give my valid pass phrase and it was verified. This way, someone could find out my SSN, date of birth, Mother's maiden name, shoe size, or whatever else, but could not do anything with it without knowing my pass phrase. Credit cards themselves should at least require a PIN to complete a transaction. This could be done without a major overhaul of the financial network -- the ISO 8583 specs supports PINs.


    You could support several pass-phrases. One pass phrase would be for applying for credit and such, giving a Bank or Credit institution this pass phrase would allow them to not only access your credit report, but would give them authorization to update it as they do today. A second pass phrase could be given to just allow read access to a credit report. This could be used for your own access, access by landlords, or any other situation where you need to give out that information without giving the ability to update it. One time use read pass phrases could even be supported. Pass phrases could be changed by visiting the Social Security Office or online. Any forgotten pass phrases would require a visit to the Social Security Office.


    A system like this would massively cut down on fraud and identity theft without too massive of a change to the current system flow.


     
  • by Alex P Keaton in da ( 882660 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:35PM (#15318670) Homepage
    Um- do we really need legislation to restrict use of SSNs? I thought that the law already said that SSNs are only for, well, social security... Why dont we enforce laws before making up new ones?
    I went to a state University for 2 years before transferring to a private one. At the state school everything was all about the SSN. One every test, you had to put your SSN...
  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:35PM (#15318673)
    I wonder why more companies/organizations don't realize this, and any step to educate them is a step in the right direction.
    They do realize it.

    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.
  • Re:No Significance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @12:47PM (#15318795) Journal
    Unless they are providing some other way to authenticate people when they sign up for a service this doesn't seem to me like it will do much.

    You mean something like "assign a pseudorandom 20-digit account number"? Yeah, real challenge there


    After all, who wants to pay your taxes?

    The problem here directly relates to that answer - No one.

    You should ONLY ever need to give your SS# for the purpose of reporting taxable income to the SSA. Period. End of valid reasons.

    You should not need it on your driver's license, you should not need it on non-interest-bearing financial accounts such as credit cards or most checking accounts. You should not need to give it to the phone, cable, gas, and electric companies. You shouldn't even need to give it to the town/city or possibly even the state (though, as far as the state goes, since the IRS disgustingly considers the state giving me back the excess of my withheld taxes as "income", they've done a definitional end-run around that exception). You shouldn't need to give it to your university if you don't receive any fincial aid. You shouldn't need to give it to your insurance company, since they only reimburse you for losses. You shouldn't need to give it to your doctor or pharmacist. You shouldn't need it on your marriage license (though again, we have a definitional end-run by the government for that one, by having special tax rules for married couples).



    Personally, I find it telling that politicians "expressed astonishment" that every company and their dog asks for your SS#. How the hell do these guys live in the modern world? Do they actually have servant even for such rare tasks as signing up for a new long distance carrier or ISP? And can someone even legally let a servant sign up for credit cards or mortgages?

    We need these assclowns out of office ASAP, and a maximum allowable income and assets cap for any future officeholders. Have over half a million in capital or make over 100k per year? See ya.

    And NO... MORE... LAWYERS!
  • by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @01:02PM (#15318963)
    Are they going to make it illegal, in the sense of large scale corporate fraud, where the perpetrator gets to keep his mansions and private islands and billions of dollars and so on? Or are they going to make it illegal in the sense of getting caught with a gram of marijuana where the perpetrator does a career of hard time behind bars with forced labor, and loses basic rights of citizenship for life?
  • by Atroxodisse ( 307053 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @01:13PM (#15319076) Homepage
    It seems obvious that you need one number that only the government and your employer knows and another unique number that can be given to banks, your land lord, credit companies etc. At least that way if your public number is stolen they can only affect your credit rating and not your income taxes. What they really need is a website where you can generate new keys to give to different agencies. That way you know where the leak came from and police can identify companies that are selling your number, have employees that are stealing numbers or have weak network security. In Canada it is suppose to be illegal for anyone but a government agency to ask for your Social Security Number(Canada's version of the SSN). Banks still ask for it though.
  • But my father pointed out that years ago, you didn't need a social security card until you first got a job. Now, in order to claim your children on taxes, you have to get them a social security number.

    Over here(Ireland), we used to have an RSI (Revenue and Social Insurance) number. Basically a fraternal twin of the social security number. Well not any more pal! These got "upgraded" to a PPS(Personal Public Service) number. You get them from birth and you need them for everything [oasis.gov.ie]. If you do not have, or like me, constantly forget your number, you cannot apply for anything. Without this number, you do not exist.

    Basically, it's your Number. The unique ID that indexes your name in the Government's databases. That is, if the Government has a database. Things are still a little behind the times over here.

    Anyway my point is that this overtly and officially does what your SSN unofficially does, i.e. replaces your name as your most important indentification. For everything. Private companies ask me for this all the time, and probably have complete access to any verification database to check up on it. Who am I kidding. In this country, private companies probably have write access to the database.

    To bring things heavily ontopic, no one, no one I know cares about this. "A shure, what's wrong with it?... Will you go 'way from me with your 'privacy'. What do you have to be private about, What?" is the typical, nay, universal response. Never mind that this country used to be a theocracy, one party state and under foreign rule not so long ago.

    Admittedly, the odds of a dictatorship are extremely low, but I can tell you that there is an extreme level of corruption here. Most importantly, the police here are highly unaccountable and frequently unscrupulous. There are many well documented incidents of railroading amoung other things. How does the PPS number mix into all this? I'm not too sure, but I don't like the idea of it.

    I don't think the issue is one of privacy. I think it's one of independance. Freedom in a sense. I should be able to be who I am, say who I am, without needing any official papers from the state. why should they have the right to grant and revoke some number or tag that in effect becomes my name? As a citizen, I should have the right to live my life free from interaction with the government, not bound to its whim by beaurcracy.

    Consider the plight of people in China, who need papers to move from provence to provence. How dare the government tell them where they can and cannot live in their own country. My fear is that PPS and SSN may lead to a similar situation. You will need the governments approval, via a valid, unsuspect number, to do just about anything. Need to open a bank account. Sorry, your PPS came up red. Need to fly interstate? Sorry your SSN is on the do not fly list.

    Try and tell this to anyone over here and they'll just give you funny looks. I'm one of the few people that disagreed with electronic voting, and I can tell you that was a struggle. So I'm not even going to waste my time going on about PPS numbers outside of this post.
  • Re:shared secret (Score:3, Interesting)

    by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @01:48PM (#15319475)
    You must not pay much attention to what is going on today...

    We have the NSA monitoring internet traffic (AT&T), logging all phone calls, and probably much much more. We have the FBI doing "sneak and peak" searches without warrants, expanding wiretaps, delving into library records and requiring secrecy on that (or go to jail), holding people for years without charging them with a crime, etc. etc. etc.

    Every single day we have the government gathering more and more data and invading privacy to levels our founding fathers could not possibly conceive of. Some people don't want to know what's going on... "LA LA LA, I can't hear you... All is good, government can be trusted even though history since the beginning of civilization proves otherwise... If you are not doing something wrong you have nothing to worry about... LA LA LA!"

  • by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday May 12, 2006 @02:47PM (#15320083) Journal

    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.

  • by terrymr ( 316118 ) <terrymr@@@gmail...com> on Friday May 12, 2006 @02:56PM (#15320178)
    some of these "unassigned" numbers are used for non-resident taxpayer ID numbers ... before I lived here I had a 988 number.
  • by JimBobJoe ( 2758 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @03:29PM (#15320458)
    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.
  • by canuck57 ( 662392 ) on Friday May 12, 2006 @05:24PM (#15321463)

    For example, if I sign up for a credit card, the application would not be processed until I give my valid pass phrase and it was verified.

    This isn't going to help, what if the institution records it? Sooner or later they will. Oh yea, pass a law... that is useless too as we can't enforce the laws we already have.

    The real issue is the lending institutions business practices of NOT practicing due diligence in maters of credit. That's right, they are just too damn lazy to verify who you are. They have been known to hire ex-cons to process credit card applications!!! Personnally, I don't care if they are careless, I do however care about the grief it causes people.

    The real solution is to make it easy for those that get grief from poor and lax credit to recover damages and get their records corrected quickly. I would propose:

    • Unlimited liability for damages to people who have been harmed by invalid or incorrect credit information.
    • Credit information must be corrected in 7 days of notice or the credit agencies involved shall assume 100% liability for all damages and up to 30 times the damages in punative damages.
    • Damages can include almost any expense, milleage, legal, rental, hotel, airfare, time taken, etc.
    • No charges are allowed for users to check their credit, and no charges for correcting their credit. This includes providing 1-800 numbers as not to incur long distance. And up to 8 times per year.
    • If big credit is deemed negligent or unresponsive punitive damages can be unlimited.

    And enforce the above vigoriously. Make the lenders so scared and costly to get it wrong they will clean up their act. Maybe we have to go the bank where we meet a real person that will check our ID and knows we have deposits. But a small price to pay. And apply at the bank, not through Joe's Con Credit card processing service.

    One last item, a forced labor camp where if convicted of fraud, you have to work to pay off all damages to get free. In essence, those that knowingly choose a life of fraud become indentured slaves to society.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Working...