7 ms·

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

• jimktrains2 10y 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 10y 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...
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • jimktrains2 10y ago
      Sure, but I was thinking of something that could have been implemented 50 years ago.
  • dv_dt 10y 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.
    • jdminhbg 10y ago
      The political segment of the US that would like Social Security to just be ended is statistically equivalent to zero people.
      • XorNot 10y ago
        Which is oddly not properly represented in the House.
        • jdminhbg 10y ago
          Which House members want to just end Social Security?
          • paulmd 10y ago
            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'.
          • MichaelBurge 10y ago
            "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.
      • sverige 10y ago
        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.)
      • Spooky23 10y ago
        Some of the more rabid conservatives are against social security. I think that the GP was referring to national ID.
      • DINKDINK 10y ago
        I would like to opt out of Social Security.
• pithic 10y ago
  The socialist slave number was never intended as a private key empowering the bearer to authorize or prove identity. It's more akin to a serial number on a a manufactured item. It allows item-specific tracking and servicing of inventory by both state and third-parties. When viewed from the item's perspective, its drawbacks may amount to a "disgrace," but that's coming from the products' perspective, not the customer's.
  • quotemstr 10y ago
    Wat
    • ceejayoz 10y ago
      Primary keys are slavery. Pass it on.
• dragontamer 10y 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 10y ago