3 ms·

Not since June 25, 2011 when they started randomizing assignment[1]. They still don't use 666 as an area number, though. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/employer/rando

by tmm 5y ago

Not since June 25, 2011 when they started randomizing assignment[1]. They still don't use 666 as an area number, though. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html

abustamam 5y ago
This is a good change, but since it's not retroactive anyone born before that date (which is 100% of adults and probably roughly 50% of minors, who are likely not good targets for identity theft) are still at risk.
- Moru 5y ago
  And it's still a problem since everyone uses it as a secret, not a username. So if leaked, you are still at risk. This is why the number realy should have been public from start so companies would not get the idea to use it as password.
registeredcorn 5y ago
I have mixed emotions about this. From a security professional perspective, this is at least somewhat of an improvement, even if the entire thing feels like it's held together with a wish and a prayer. I would really like if there were a means to just institute an entirely new system. Essentially having one's entire life ruined, on the chance a bad actor can guess a four digit number is...not great. From a genealogist perspective though, this is horrible news. Being able to trackdown people based off of rough geographic assumptions can help narrow down if someone is "lucky" enough to have a common name in a specific region. Of course, this change to SSN isn't nearly as disastrous as the death of paper - especially newspapers - but I really do not envy anyone who is going to try and do historical family research in two to three hundred years. It makes me cringe just to think about how much valuable information, how many life changing moments, are going to be lost to encryption, bit rot, and the constantly changing standards of software and hardware.

3 ms·

Not since June 25, 2011 when they started randomizing assignment[1]. They still don't use 666 as an area number, though. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/employer/rando

by tmm 5y ago

abustamam 5y ago
This is a good change, but since it's not retroactive anyone born before that date (which is 100% of adults and probably roughly 50% of minors, who are likely not good targets for identity theft) are still at risk.
- Moru 5y ago
  And it's still a problem since everyone uses it as a secret, not a username. So if leaked, you are still at risk. This is why the number realy should have been public from start so companies would not get the idea to use it as password.
registeredcorn 5y ago
I have mixed emotions about this. From a security professional perspective, this is at least somewhat of an improvement, even if the entire thing feels like it's held together with a wish and a prayer. I would really like if there were a means to just institute an entirely new system. Essentially having one's entire life ruined, on the chance a bad actor can guess a four digit number is...not great. From a genealogist perspective though, this is horrible news. Being able to trackdown people based off of rough geographic assumptions can help narrow down if someone is "lucky" enough to have a common name in a specific region. Of course, this change to SSN isn't nearly as disastrous as the death of paper - especially newspapers - but I really do not envy anyone who is going to try and do historical family research in two to three hundred years. It makes me cringe just to think about how much valuable information, how many life changing moments, are going to be lost to encryption, bit rot, and the constantly changing standards of software and hardware.