readers might want to think on the following.

alan

New member
Social Security Numbers: Original Intent or Identity Theft?
By Mike Krause Dec 28th 2006
According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), it was identity theft that led to recent raids on meatpacking plants in Greeley, Colorado and other states. "I can tell you that identity theft is a very real threat," said an ICE spokesman, about the raids.

Yet it has been Congressional mandates forcing Americans to routinely disclose their social security number (SSN) in order to go about their daily lives that have made the SSN ridiculously easy for identity thieves to obtain and misuse.

In other words, the "real threat" of identity theft is in part a consequence of big and intrusive government.

Social Security numbers were introduced as part of the Social Security Act of 1935. Then President Franklin Roosevelt assured Americans that the numbers would only be used by the Social Security Program.

In 1943, the same President Roosevelt signed executive order 9397, which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems.

By 1961, the IRS began using the SSN as a taxpayer identification number.

Today, thanks to continuing federal mandates, the SSN is required-among many other things- to open a bank or brokerage account, rent a moving van, or get a passport, driver's license or state ID card. Indeed, the number is demanded for nearly every government service and government regulated activity imaginable, from hunting and fishing licenses to veteran's benefits and food stamps to consumer credit and insurance.

A 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report notes, "Agencies at all levels of government frequently collect and use SSNs to administer their programs, verify applicant's eligibility for services and benefits, and perform research and evaluation of their programs."

Unfortunately, as an earlier GAO report found, "Although agencies that use SSNs to provide benefits and services are taking steps to safeguard the numbers from improper disclosure, our survey identified potential weakness in the security of information at all levels of government".

As for the private sector, GAO continues, "Certain private sector entities routinely obtain SSNs from various public and private sources, and use SSNs for various purposes..."

A 2005 survey by Javelin Strategy and Research found that nearly twenty three percent of identity theft cases where the source of fraud was discovered were the result of "dishonest employees."

If you are at all an active participant in the modern economy, the list of companies that have your SSN is depressingly long.

In 1998, congress made identity theft a federal felony. It didn't do much good; complaints to the Social Security Administration about SSN misuse actually increased five fold from 1998 to 2001, with 81% of the allegations relating directly to identity theft and the problem has only grown since.

"There is no one law that comprehensively regulates SSN use and protections," continues the 2006 GAO report.

But since as far back as 1998, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has been introducing into Congress the "Identity Theft Protection Act," which would, among other things, require the Social Security Administration to issue all Americans new SSNs, and restrict use of the number to the administration of Social Security benefits; in other words, a return to the original intent of the number.

As Rep. Paul puts it, "It is simply common sense that repealing those federal laws which promote identity theft is more effective in protecting the public than expanding the power of the federal police force.

While such a policy may be at odds with our modern economy and the federal government's ever-increasing information collection demands, it is telling that the act-which in no way increases the power of politicians and bureaucrats-gets no traction in Congress.

Under Paul's bill the new numbers would be the legal property of the recipients rather than the government, giving individual citizens at least some say over the use of their SSN, and thus their privacy.

"Privacy thrives when aware and empowered citizens are able to exercise control of information about themselves" Says Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood.

Harper continues, "Because privacy is subjective, government regulation in the name of privacy can only create confidentiality or secrecy rules based on politicians' and bureaucrats' guesses about what "privacy" should look like.

For more than half-a-century, politicians' and bureaucrats' idea of social security number privacy has been a large and intrusive government that demands the SSN as a national identifier, while enabling identity theft and fraud.

Summary: Feds make it easy to steal Social Security Numbers

________________
(c) 2006
The Independence Institute
13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400
Golden, CO 80401
303-279-6536
www.independenceinstitute.org
 
alan,

in the future, I'd ask you to give your new threads a descriptive title that gives some sort of indication as to the nature of the article you're referencing.

You've started a half-dozen threads in the last few days that have equally vague titles, and I don't want to have to follow every link before I even find out what it is you're trying to talk about.
 
yeah, readers might not want to think on the following. that is why threads have titles. such as

"independanceinstitute.org's lengthy article on ID theft as it pertains to social security numbers and the recent ICE raid of meatpacking plants, as written by Mike Krause"
 
In 1969 the SSAN replaced the older military service numbers.
What I would like to know is how much of this use and abuse of the SSAN
is mandated by law-i.e. by Congress, and how much merely by executive order and bureaucratic fiat.
 
If you want to have some fun; the next time a government agency asks for your SSAN and they do not provide you with a Privacy Act (of 1974) statement, tell them they are in violation of federal law and refuse to give it. The Privacy Act clearly states that a government agency can not deny the service for refusing unless "the disclosure is required by Federal statute"

The Privacy Act of 1974

The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579, in section 7), which is the
primary law affecting the use of SSNs, requires that any federal, state,
or local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has
to tell you four things:


1: The authority (whether granted by statute, or by executive order of
the
President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and
whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;

2: The principal purposes for which the information is intended to be used;

3: The routine uses which may be made of the information, as published
annually in the Federal Register, and

4: The effects on you, if any, of not providing all or any part of the
requested information.

The Act requires state and local agencies which request the SSN to
inform the
individual of only three things:

1: Whether the disclosure is mandatory or voluntary,
2: By what statutory or other authority the SSN is solicited, and
3: What uses will be made of the number.

In addition, that section makes it illegal for Federal, state, and local
government agencies to deny any rights, privileges or benefits to
individuals who refuse to provide their SSNs unless the disclosure is
required by Federal statute. (The other exception is if the disclosure
is for use in a record system which required the SSN before 1975. (5
USC 552a note). So anytime you're dealing with a government institution
and you're asked for your Social Security Number, look for a Privacy Act
Statement. If there isn't one, complain and don't give your number. If
the statement is present, read it. Once you've read the explanation of
whether the number is optional or required, and what will be done with
your number if you provide it, you'll be able to decide for yourself
whether to fill in the number.

There are several kinds of governmental organizations that usually have
authority to request your number, but they are all required to provide the
Privacy Act Statement described above. (see the list in the "Short History"
section of the website
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/SSN-History.html#history) The only time
you should be willing to give your number without reading that notice is when
the organization you are dealing with is not a part of the government.
 
Interesting reads on the mandated Federal ID. I find it amazing that the purpose of this card is to prevent terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists entered the US using valid and legal documents issued by the US. So if they had all the documentation to get valid US documents they would have valid documents to get a valid state issued Federal ID.

So do you think terorist organizations are going to send folks with bad documents to the US? No they are going to send folks who will be under the radar with all the documents necessary to get a Federal ID. Just going to create more security issues dealing with terrorism.

In Congress and the White House attempt to have a national ID has been opposed for a number of years. Some genius stuck it on a funding bill for the War on Terrorism and it passed.

If your state don't have a valid Federal ID by 2008 you could find your access cut off from airline flights, federal buildings and some other things. It seems that Congress has once again shot the American people in the foot due to "magic wand" syndrome.

There is no standard for the Federal ID card. So if your the guy in charge of this at the state level what technology do you go with.

Compatibility issues between card reader systems in different states

Technology doesn't come cheap. The cost is estimated at 11 Billion Dollars. wonder who is going to pay that...lol we will of course.

From the estimates I have read a new Drivers License/ID card could cost you $100.00 or more.

We have already had instances of where night clubs and other businesses have used this technology to nab your data. States have had to pass laws.

I don't even want to think of the issues if a RFID chip is used.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127419-c,techrelatedlegislation/article.html

a chain is only as strong as its weakest link......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201421.html

So do you have confidence in the National ID Card or have we been wounded again by a brainless Congress.
 
so do you have confidence in the National ID Card or have we been wounded again by a brainless Congress.

My vote goes to the later, although I think it's being done with the full knowledge and consent of Congress. Their loyalty is to someone other than the American people.

badbob
 
When the legislation came up by itself it was always voted down by Congress or the White House even refused to support it.

It had to be back-doored into some legislation during the Iraq war which nobody was sure to vote against. We know and it has been admitted that the Congressional representatives don't read all the legislation.
 
Recon7, Marko Kloos:

Point taken. A more specfic title would be helpfull. That aside, what's your take on the article?

SixForSure:

Re privacy and such matters, in Pennsylvania, in a case heard in 3rd U.S. District Court, that's the U.S. District Court where USSC Justice Alito sat, Stollenwerk v. State Police. The Pennsylvania State Police got slapped down regarding their requirement for the individual to furnish their Social Security Number in connection with their purchase of a handgun or application for a state issued concealed carry permit/license (CCW).

The Court cited the 1974 Privacy Act, which apparently stipulated that no government agency may deny services to an individual on the basis of the individual refusing to provide their Social Security Number. The PSP might well appeal the District Court's ruling. If they do, things could get quite interesting.

The "yellow sheet", federal form 4473 inquires about purchasers Social Security Number. It also notes that furnishing this data is optional. The PSP "required" this data, there were no "options" available to the purchaser/applicant.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top