4 ms·

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-bo

by mturmon 10y 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.

PhantomGremlin 10y 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 https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  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.
- Tactic 10y ago
  Just a note that the SSA advises not laminating your card. https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3786/Can-I-laminate-my-Social-Security-card https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3786/Can...
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    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/50/elvis_social_security_card_1950.jpg 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? :)
int_19h 10y 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.
- mturmon 10y ago
  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/real-id https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/national-id/r... http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/306969-rand-paul-amendment-would-bar-national-id-system http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/306969-rand-paul-a...

by mturmon 10y ago

PhantomGremlin 10y 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 https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

marcosdumay 10y ago
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.
Tactic 10y ago
Just a note that the SSA advises not laminating your card. https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3786/Can-I-laminate-my-Social-Security-card https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3786/Can...
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  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/50/elvis_social_security_card_1950.jpg 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? :)

int_19h 10y 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.

mturmon 10y ago
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/real-id https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/national-id/r... http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/306969-rand-paul-amendment-would-bar-national-id-system http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/306969-rand-paul-a...