5 ms·

Odd, since a birth certificate is not actually a valid proof of identity. There is no biometric associated with a birth certificate created in year X that can

Odd, since a birth certificate is not actually a valid proof of identity. There is no biometric associated with a birth certificate created in year X that can be used to prove that the baby named in it has grown up to become the person claiming that identity in year Y. An actual background check has to establish a chain of evidence linking the birth to the person being checked. This requires interviewing relatives, friends and acquaintances, collecting school and business records, drivers license records and any other public or private records.

gvx 7y ago
While true, doing such background checks gets a lot easier with documentation like birth certificates. I assume a large fraction of people who have considered committing this kind of fraud, have decided against it because they realised it would be relatively easy to investigate. (And I expect that places with birth certificates also tend to have a more consistent presence of other kinds of records, and a higher law enforcement budget for investigating possible instances of fraud, when compared to places without birth certificates.)
- Muromec 7y ago
  You don’t really need a better budget if you have vital records of sufficient quality — just a routine procedure to cross-reference them when issuing identity documents. Ex-soviet countries would be fine example for that.
Muromec 7y ago
The thing with birth certificates — it’s pretty difficult to backdate them or retroactively issue legitimate ones without rising red flags in process that would trigger some background checks. So you need to assume identity of real person living or dead, which is more an effort than flat out bullshiting about your age. And if you are assuming identity of other person, you cant simply snatch birth certificate and issue new id, but with your photo — if such id was issued before, it would be routine check to match photos. Alltogether it greatly limits, but not entirely eliminates this kind of identity thieft. It is however other story to assume same identity (name, dob) but different parents (altought with same names) for inheritance or immigration fraud. That is pretty much undetectable in some circumstances.
jobigoud 7y ago
> This requires interviewing relatives, friends and acquaintances, collecting school and business records, drivers license records and any other public or private records. We are talking about people born before 1910 here. Friends and acquaintances are all dead by definition. Drivers license won't come into play for decades. Other mid-life documents like marriage are also going to be decades later. It's a hard problem. Especially when identity fraud for other reasons may be involved (a chield taking the identity of a parent to bypass inheritance taxes). We need a biological test. Is there a biological marker that can attest of someone's age?
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  > Is there a biological marker that can attest of someone's age? No, especially when you'd expect that the same qualities that might allow someone to live a very long time would also make them appear "biologically" younger. We don't have rings like trees.

gvx 7y ago

While true, doing such background checks gets a lot easier with documentation like birth certificates. I assume a large fraction of people who have considered committing this kind of fraud, have decided against it because they realised it would be relatively easy to investigate. (And I expect that places with birth certificates also tend to have a more consistent presence of other kinds of records, and a higher law enforcement budget for investigating possible instances of fraud, when compared to places without birth certificates.)

Muromec 7y ago
You don’t really need a better budget if you have vital records of sufficient quality — just a routine procedure to cross-reference them when issuing identity documents. Ex-soviet countries would be fine example for that.

Muromec 7y ago

The thing with birth certificates — it’s pretty difficult to backdate them or retroactively issue legitimate ones without rising red flags in process that would trigger some background checks. So you need to assume identity of real person living or dead, which is more an effort than flat out bullshiting about your age. And if you are assuming identity of other person, you cant simply snatch birth certificate and issue new id, but with your photo — if such id was issued before, it would be routine check to match photos. Alltogether it greatly limits, but not entirely eliminates this kind of identity thieft. It is however other story to assume same identity (name, dob) but different parents (altought with same names) for inheritance or immigration fraud. That is pretty much undetectable in some circumstances.

jobigoud 7y ago

> This requires interviewing relatives, friends and acquaintances, collecting school and business records, drivers license records and any other public or private records. We are talking about people born before 1910 here. Friends and acquaintances are all dead by definition. Drivers license won't come into play for decades. Other mid-life documents like marriage are also going to be decades later. It's a hard problem. Especially when identity fraud for other reasons may be involved (a chield taking the identity of a parent to bypass inheritance taxes). We need a biological test. Is there a biological marker that can attest of someone's age?

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
> Is there a biological marker that can attest of someone's age? No, especially when you'd expect that the same qualities that might allow someone to live a very long time would also make them appear "biologically" younger. We don't have rings like trees.