10 ms·

remember when SSNs were being implemented and the government promised it wouldn't be used as a personal identifier?

iaresee 6y ago
I've only been in the USA for less than a decade but when I landed here and got my SSN I got a pretty good lecture at the window from the Federal worker about never giving this out, keep it safe, yadda, yadda, yadda... ...and was then asked at every turn, by every website and application and whatnot, to provide four or more digits of this number to accomplish even the most benign things. There's what the US government thought it would be and then there's what it's become because zero enforcement on use of it as a national person identity number was ever enacted. The "don't give anyone your SSN" trope has become one of those household jokes. Right up there with "American's don't pay high taxes".
- jniedrauer 6y ago
  And those 4 numbers that they always ask for are the only part of the SSN that isn't procedurally generated from public information.
  - Mindless2112 6y ago
    This isn't true anymore. (Although for most adults, it doesn't matter as they got their SSN before it changed.) > On June 25, 2011, the SSA changed the SSN assignment process to "SSN randomization". SSN randomization affected the SSN assignment process in the following ways: > 1. It eliminated the geographical significance of the first three digits of the SSN, referred to as the area number, by no longer allocating specific numbers by state for assignment to individuals. > 2. It eliminated the significance of the highest group number assigned for each area number, and, as a result, the High Group List is frozen in time and can be used for validation of only those SSNs issued prior to the randomization implementation date (see section "Valid SSNs"). > 3. Previously unassigned area numbers have been introduced for assignment, excluding area numbers 000, 666 and 900–999. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Structu...
    - smileysteve 6y ago
      That's great for 9 year olds. But for the people it matters for now, these points don't apply.
      - tonyztan 6y ago
        OP already acknowledged this: "for most adults, it doesn't matter as they got their SSN before it changed"
Jakawao 6y ago
In 1936? Sorry, I don’t remember that.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Not personally, because I’m not 90 years old. But you’re right that the original purpose wasn’t identifying people, however it was private banks that really latched onto it as a convenient way to identify people and associate debts to individuals.
- apta 6y ago
  Just goes to show how much of a net negative the parasitic banking system is on society.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    Your lifestyle must be pretty ascetic then? A society that only contains business bootstrapped by independently wealthy owners is pretty small. Almost everything we have required somebody else's capital to build. There was a reason unemployment spiked when lending stopped in 2008.
    - apta 6y ago
      There are other ways of bootstrapping businesses: people pitch in money in exchange for owning a percentage of said business. That's exactly using someone else's capital to build, but without the parasitic and immoral practice of lending with usury (aka interest).
      - unishark 6y ago
        That's not bootstrapping, just investment funding. We have that, though many still prefer debt financing instead for whatever reason. For example you can often get money "cheaper" via debt versus giving up too much ownership.
        apta 6y ago
        Preferring something doesn't automatically make it good or acceptable. Just like how some people prefer to smoke or prefer to gamble or prefer to drink. Regarding your point, debt today is only cheaper because it is available and widely pushed by the government through banks. If lending money on interest were hypothetically banned, then everything would have to change, and we'd have a fair equilibrium.
acomjean 6y ago
yeah. My college id number was my social and that was in the 90s. License numbers typically were too.
loeg 6y ago
You were alive in the 30s? No, I don't think most of HN's audience remembers that time.
codegeek 6y ago
Try telling a Doctor's office you don't want to give them your SSN. I personally make it a point to NOT give them my SSN and they always give me hell for it. Sometimes I give up but whenever I can, I try to fight it.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  What do they want it for?
  - jandrese 6y ago
    Credit checks. They need to know how much of a risk you are of not being able to pay.
  - astura 6y ago
    Identification for billing. The more information you have about someone the easier it is to collect debt from them.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  It’s been easy in my experience. I say the magic words “will pay up front.”
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

I've only been in the USA for less than a decade but when I landed here and got my SSN I got a pretty good lecture at the window from the Federal worker about never giving this out, keep it safe, yadda, yadda, yadda... ...and was then asked at every turn, by every website and application and whatnot, to provide four or more digits of this number to accomplish even the most benign things. There's what the US government thought it would be and then there's what it's become because zero enforcement on use of it as a national person identity number was ever enacted. The "don't give anyone your SSN" trope has become one of those household jokes. Right up there with "American's don't pay high taxes".

jniedrauer 6y ago
And those 4 numbers that they always ask for are the only part of the SSN that isn't procedurally generated from public information.
- Mindless2112 6y ago
  This isn't true anymore. (Although for most adults, it doesn't matter as they got their SSN before it changed.) > On June 25, 2011, the SSA changed the SSN assignment process to "SSN randomization". SSN randomization affected the SSN assignment process in the following ways: > 1. It eliminated the geographical significance of the first three digits of the SSN, referred to as the area number, by no longer allocating specific numbers by state for assignment to individuals. > 2. It eliminated the significance of the highest group number assigned for each area number, and, as a result, the High Group List is frozen in time and can be used for validation of only those SSNs issued prior to the randomization implementation date (see section "Valid SSNs"). > 3. Previously unassigned area numbers have been introduced for assignment, excluding area numbers 000, 666 and 900–999. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number#Structu...
  - smileysteve 6y ago
    That's great for 9 year olds. But for the people it matters for now, these points don't apply.
    - tonyztan 6y ago
      OP already acknowledged this: "for most adults, it doesn't matter as they got their SSN before it changed"

Jakawao 6y ago

In 1936? Sorry, I don’t remember that.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Not personally, because I’m not 90 years old. But you’re right that the original purpose wasn’t identifying people, however it was private banks that really latched onto it as a convenient way to identify people and associate debts to individuals.

apta 6y ago
Just goes to show how much of a net negative the parasitic banking system is on society.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Your lifestyle must be pretty ascetic then? A society that only contains business bootstrapped by independently wealthy owners is pretty small. Almost everything we have required somebody else's capital to build. There was a reason unemployment spiked when lending stopped in 2008.
  - apta 6y ago
    There are other ways of bootstrapping businesses: people pitch in money in exchange for owning a percentage of said business. That's exactly using someone else's capital to build, but without the parasitic and immoral practice of lending with usury (aka interest).
    - unishark 6y ago
      That's not bootstrapping, just investment funding. We have that, though many still prefer debt financing instead for whatever reason. For example you can often get money "cheaper" via debt versus giving up too much ownership.
      - apta 6y ago
        Preferring something doesn't automatically make it good or acceptable. Just like how some people prefer to smoke or prefer to gamble or prefer to drink. Regarding your point, debt today is only cheaper because it is available and widely pushed by the government through banks. If lending money on interest were hypothetically banned, then everything would have to change, and we'd have a fair equilibrium.

acomjean 6y ago

yeah. My college id number was my social and that was in the 90s. License numbers typically were too.

loeg 6y ago

You were alive in the 30s? No, I don't think most of HN's audience remembers that time.

codegeek 6y ago

Try telling a Doctor's office you don't want to give them your SSN. I personally make it a point to NOT give them my SSN and they always give me hell for it. Sometimes I give up but whenever I can, I try to fight it.

chrisseaton 6y ago
What do they want it for?
- jandrese 6y ago
  Credit checks. They need to know how much of a risk you are of not being able to pay.
- astura 6y ago
  Identification for billing. The more information you have about someone the easier it is to collect debt from them.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
It’s been easy in my experience. I say the magic words “will pay up front.”

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]