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

by endswapper • 10 years ago

114 112 10 years ago

criddell3• 10 years ago

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.

MichaelGG• 10 years ago

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.

fredgrott• 10 years ago

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

criddell3• 10 years 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.

moron4hire2• 10 years ago

SSNs are not unique.

deathanatos• 10 years ago

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...

sqeaky• 10 years ago

But people think they and worse they are intended to be.

nxzero• 10 years ago

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.

morganvachon• 10 years ago

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.

libeclipse• 10 years ago

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.

sbuttgereit• 10 years ago

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)

razwall• 10 years ago

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.

flubert• 10 years ago

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

nkrisc• 10 years ago

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.

pravda• 10 years ago

In some states, you have to give your SSN to get a driver's licence.

protomyth3• 10 years ago

North Dakota once used the SSN as the driver's license number. That's been corrected.

InclinedPlane2• 10 years ago

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.

jdmichal• 10 years ago

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.

InclinedPlane2• 10 years ago

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".

pmoney• 10 years ago

And even then, proof of fraudulent activity does not guarantee the issuance of a new number. It's a case-by-case basis.

danso• 10 years ago

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.

mindslight• 10 years ago

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.

quotemstr• 10 years ago

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!

jimktrains22• 10 years ago

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.

blacksmith_tb• 10 years ago

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...

dv_dt• 10 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.

dragontamer3• 10 years ago

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.

fapjacks• 10 years ago

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.

raarts• 10 years ago

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.

TheCoelacanth• 10 years ago

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.

Someone2• 10 years ago

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.

protomyth3• 10 years ago

I wonder if it would be possible to have private, certified identity providers for people.

ceejayoz• 10 years ago

Notaries public?

protomyth3• 10 years ago

I mean more in the sense of issuing an acceptable id number. It would probably be a stretch to get a Notaries public to do that.

jedberg2• 10 years ago

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.

cgusto• 10 years ago

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.

jedberg2• 10 years ago

Wow. I know at CSULA it was SSNs in the early 90s, but they were already phasing it out.

undersuit• 10 years ago

Montana, and I bet a number of other states, used to use the SSN as part of your driver license number.

etjossem2• 10 years ago

"The whole point of the federal privacy law is to prevent states from making the Social Security number into a nationally mandated identification number of the kind that’s common in Europe. The practice goes back to the immediate post-World War II era, when Sweden became the first country to assign every citizen a personal identity number that follows you throughout your life and must be used in essentially every interaction with state. Every Swede memorizes the number in childhood. And notably, the tax authority makes everyone’s number publicly available to anyone who asks for it."

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.

bsimpson• 10 years ago

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.

etjossem2• 10 years ago

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.

UnoriginalGuy2• 10 years ago

They no longer issue SSNs that way. Since 2011 it is now completely random.

ryandrake• 10 years ago

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.

mcherm• 10 years ago

Doesn't work if that business is, for instance, a financial institution required by law to verify your SSN.

mynameisvlad2• 10 years ago

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.

int_19h4• 10 years ago

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).

mturmon2• 10 years ago

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.

PhantomGremlin2• 10 years ago

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:

   FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
   AND TAX PURPOSES --
   NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION

time has passed

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

int_19h4• 10 years ago

> 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.

alistairSH3• 10 years ago

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/...

int_19h4• 10 years ago

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.

ourmandave• 10 years ago

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.

JadeNB2• 10 years ago

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.)

WorldMaker2• 10 years ago

"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.)

simbalion• 10 years ago

The author is really late to this particular party.

https://replacethessn.xyz/

cloudjacker• 10 years ago

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.

alkonaut• 10 years ago

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?

norea-armozel• 10 years ago

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.

Loophole Ends the Privacy of Social Security Numbers

Related Stories