4 ms·

I personally think this is the wrong track to take. What we should do to social security numbers is make them so ubiquitous, make it so that you know all of you

I personally think this is the wrong track to take. What we should do to social security numbers is make them so ubiquitous, make it so that you know all of your friends social security numbers, so that it is no longer used as a private identifier, which it isn't, and is thoroughly unsuit for purpose as. Especially as "AI", the ubiquity of chat GPT and AI generated images makes it easy to fake people, having a public registry of every real citizen becomes a much more sensible thing. There is an insane take on "PII" that the list of "Your real name and address" are sensitive information. A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book, and we were better off for it.

kibwen 2y ago
> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book, and we were better off for it. Would you like to start? Please leave a reply to this comment with your real name, full home address, date of birth, SSN, and whatever other non-PII PII you have in mind.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  The parent poster seems to be talking about it being a coordinated widespread effort, why are you challenging them to do something different?
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Because the specific risk to an individual from having their personal information publicized does not decrease when everyone else's personal information is publicized as well. If the poster above wants people to throw away the notion of privacy, then they have nothing to lose from leading by example. And if they refuse, that in itself is proof that their words are hollow.
init2null 2y ago
It's tough to make that argument when those were the days of physical locations and card-based verification. While SS# is thoroughly unsuitable and personal info is even more so, that pragmatism and illusion of security serves as the foundation of government and commerce. What are we going to use instead? The likelihood of a truly national cryptographically verifiable smart ID card is seemingly nil given the patchwork quilt of laws in the US.
jbaber 2y ago
Lots of people were unlisted on purpose. e.g. people with aggressive ex-boyfriends.
realityfactchex 2y ago
FYI: s/track/tack [0] [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/do-you-change-tack-or-tact https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/do-you-change-tack-o...
- GauntletWizard 2y ago
  I was sailboating this weekend, I know how to change tack. I also know that you can be on the wrong track. My decision of which metaphor to use was deliberate.
  - realityfactchex 2y ago
    In that case, both apologies and gratitude are delivered to you thusly.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book, and we were better off for it. I'm much happier in a world where the answer to "how do I reach a random person I don't know" is "look for the contact method of their convenience that they deliberately choose to share, if any".
crote 2y ago
> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book, and we were better off for it. Were we? Anyone who has ever been stalked would disagree with you. There's a reason "doxxing" is considered a bad thing.
JohnFen 2y ago
> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book No they weren't. Most people's were, but a large number of people were willing to pay the $5/mo extortion fee to have their information omitted.

kibwen 2y ago

> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book, and we were better off for it. Would you like to start? Please leave a reply to this comment with your real name, full home address, date of birth, SSN, and whatever other non-PII PII you have in mind.

Terr_ 2y ago
The parent poster seems to be talking about it being a coordinated widespread effort, why are you challenging them to do something different?
- kibwen 2y ago
  Because the specific risk to an individual from having their personal information publicized does not decrease when everyone else's personal information is publicized as well. If the poster above wants people to throw away the notion of privacy, then they have nothing to lose from leading by example. And if they refuse, that in itself is proof that their words are hollow.

init2null 2y ago

It's tough to make that argument when those were the days of physical locations and card-based verification. While SS# is thoroughly unsuitable and personal info is even more so, that pragmatism and illusion of security serves as the foundation of government and commerce. What are we going to use instead? The likelihood of a truly national cryptographically verifiable smart ID card is seemingly nil given the patchwork quilt of laws in the US.

jbaber 2y ago

Lots of people were unlisted on purpose. e.g. people with aggressive ex-boyfriends.

realityfactchex 2y ago

FYI: s/track/tack [0] [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/do-you-change-tack-or-tact https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/do-you-change-tack-o...

GauntletWizard 2y ago
I was sailboating this weekend, I know how to change tack. I also know that you can be on the wrong track. My decision of which metaphor to use was deliberate.
- realityfactchex 2y ago
  In that case, both apologies and gratitude are delivered to you thusly.

JoshTriplett 2y ago

> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book, and we were better off for it. I'm much happier in a world where the answer to "how do I reach a random person I don't know" is "look for the contact method of their convenience that they deliberately choose to share, if any".

crote 2y ago

> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book, and we were better off for it. Were we? Anyone who has ever been stalked would disagree with you. There's a reason "doxxing" is considered a bad thing.

JohnFen 2y ago

> A generation ago everybody's name and address were in the phone book No they weren't. Most people's were, but a large number of people were willing to pay the $5/mo extortion fee to have their information omitted.