Date: Fri, 07 Jan 94 14:38:04 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#015
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 07 Jan 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 015
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Phone company selling forwarding addresses
Re: Phone company selling forwarding addresses
Re: Autoland Credit Scam
SSN reqd by public schools; DL reqd with credit card
Social Security Number FAQ (long)
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect
of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into
the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions
should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative requests
to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via
anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp"
with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory
"pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rmg3@access.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Re: Phone company selling forwarding addresses
Date: 6 Jan 1994 11:02:02 -0500
Organization: Under construction
In article <comp-privacy4.14.1@cs.uwm.edu>,
Dave Ptasnik <davep@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>Sure enough, we are getting mail bombed by insurance agencies, siding
sales reps, etc, looking for Del Murphy at the PO Box address (Welcome
to town...). The only way they could have gotten that name/place
combination would have been if GTE had sold it. At least we recycle.<
Ditto for the Bell company in central Pennsylvania. I didn't have an
identifiable name error/combination, though, to tip me off. The mail
came to Mr. Phone Hooked Up.
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
------------------------------
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 14:10:02 EST
Subject: Re: Phone company selling forwarding addresses
Organization: CPSR Washington Office
Postal Service Still Selling NCOA Info
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
News from the office of January 4, 1994
Congressman Gary A . Condit
CALIFORNIA - 15TH DISTRICT
1529 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6131
CONDIT CLAIMS VICTORY IN FIGHT FOR POSTAL PRIVACY
BUT NOTES CONTINUED POSTAL SERVICE VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAWS
Rep. Gary A. Condit (D-CA) today claimed a partial victory in his
ongoing battle to compel the U.S. Postal Service to comply with Federal
statutes that protect the privacy of customer name and address
information. The Postal Service informed Condit today of its intention
to alter regulations which currently allow anyone to obtain the new
address of someone who has moved simply by presenting the Postal
Service with the individual's old address and a $3 fee. However, the
Postal Service will continue to sell change of address information to
the nation's largest direct mail companies, unless someone can produce
a court order to stop the sale.
Condit responded to the Postal Service action: "The Postal Service has
taken a small positive step to protect personal privacy and safety --
one that I've been strongly advocating. But it still has a long way to
go. The Postal Service has no plan to halt its regular sale of change
of address information to the junk mail industry. Ordinary citizens who
want to protect their privacy will continue to have no recourse. Only
those people protected by a court order will be able to prevent the
Postal Service from selling their change of address information many
thousands of times."
Condit chairs the House Committee on Govenunent Operations Subcommittee
on Information, Justice, Transportation, and Agriculture, which has
oversight jurisdiction over the Postal Service. In November 1992, the
Government Operations Committee issued a unanimous report, based on the
subcommittee's investigation, which condemned the Postal Service's
address dissemination practices. Entitled _Give Consumers a Choice:
Privacy Implications of U.S. Postal Service National Change of Address
Program_ (House Report 102-1067), the report explained that the Postal
Service's address dissemination practices violate federal statutes
restricting the release of names and addresses of postal patrons by the
Postal Service. The Postal Reorganization Act prohibits the Postal
Service from making available any mailing or other list of names or
addresses of postal patrons or other persons. The Privacy Act of 1974
prevents agencies, including the Postal Service, from selling or
renting an individual's name and address unless the agency has specific
legal authority to do so.
Condit continued: "I've objected to the Postal Service's sale of
address information all along, not just because it violates personal
privacy but also because it violates the law. Nothing the Postal
Service did today cures its continuous violation of Federal statutes.
The Postal Service's disregard for privacy rights and for privacy
statutes is callous and irresponsible."
Last year, Condit introduced legislation to give postal customers the
right to prevent the U.S. Postal Service from giving out their change
of address information. H.R. 1344, the Postal Privacy Act of 1993,
targets both the Postal Service's $3 sale of an individual's new
address and its widespread sale of change of address information
through its National Change of Address (NCOA) service.
Condit explained the impact of NCOA on personal privacy: "Every year,
40 million people file change of address orders with the Postal
Service. Little do they realize that every one of those orders is
immediately made public. Under the NCOA program, the Postal Service
sells all of those records to 25 of the largest direct mail companies
in the country, which in turn resell them to thousands of other
mailers."
Condit continued, "What makes this practice a real invasion of privacy
is that the Postal Service doesn't give anyone a choice about it. If
you ask the Postal Service to forward your mail, your new address is
automatically made public -- and there is nothing you can do to stop
it."
Condit's proposed legislation would require the Postal Service to give
customers explicit written nodce that their change of address
information will be given out and to whom. Moreover, the legislation
would require the Postal Service to include a check-off box on change
of address cards where people could prevent public access to their
address records.
Condit added, "The Postal Service has recognized that the sale of
address information invades the privacy of sonie people. It is now time
to ensure that everyone with a privacy concern has the same rights. My
bill would bring the Postal Service into compliance with federal law.
More importantly, it would give people a say about how their personal
information is used. It would give them the right to say no."
920 13th Street Federal Building
Modesto, CA 95354 415 West 18th Street
(209) 527-1914 Merced, CA 95340
(209) 383-4455
------------------------------
From: jepstein@cordant.com (Jeremy Epstein -C2 PROJECT)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 20:46:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Autoland Credit Scam
There was a description in a recent issue of this mailing list about
the Autoland scam. It was similar to something I'm going through now,
and I've learned some interesting stuff.
I discovered something was wrong when I received a letter from Fifth
Third Bank (that's the real name) informing me that they had rejected
my credit card application. After checking with MasterCard that that
is a real bank (I thought it was a prank), I learned that someone had
changed my address from Virginia to Houston and applied for a credit
card in my name. The bank noticed that things didn't quite add up and
rejected the application. Score one for the good guys.
Seems that Fifth Third is seeing a rash of these, so they're working
with the FBI, Secret Service, and postal inspectors on them. No one
has complete jurisdiction, which slows things down.
A few days later, I noticed that I hadn't received a bill from AT&T for
my mastercard. I called them and discovered that they had the same
wrong address in Houston for me. I changed it back and added an extra
security code. The bad guy hadn't managed to charge anything to my
account. The security person said that since the bad guy didn't have
my card expiration date he could't charge me anything anyway. After
thinking about this a few second, I realized that there are only about
two dozen possible expiration dates (all cards expire within two
years), so it should be easy to guess it by trying out a few choices.
I convinced him to close the account and issue me new cards. Seems
that if you change your address in writing (rather than on the phone)
you don't need to supply your mother's maiden name, which provides
something of an authenticator. Oh well. Got them to mark that *any*
change, even in writing, must have the additional code.
I called the rest of my credit card companies. The bad guy hadn't
gotten any of those, but I put in an extra code on those. With one
bank, though, it took some convincing. The nice lady said "well who
would know your SSN anyway"? Guess they don't hire those folks for
brains.
I applied for a car looan and discovered that the bad data had made it
into Equifax. After "proving" who I am to Equifax (by FAXing a copy of
my Social Security card and driver's license) they took all the bad
data out, and put an automatic notification on the account. Any time
someone does an inquiry they're supposed to let me know about it. No
charge. I'm still working on getting TRW to do the same thing. We'll
see if it actually works.
I asked Equifax if the FBI was interested in these things. They said
that unless there's $10K or more lost, they're not interested.
Lesson learned: like so many other people, I've been complacent. I'm a
bit more cautious now.
Amusing note: the bad guy isn't too smarrt. Instead of a PO box, he
listed a street address including an apartment number. Of course I
have no idea if that building actually exists.
And the ironic part? I earn my living as a computer security
specialist!
--Jeremy Epstein
Cordant, Inc.
jepstein@cordant.com
------------------------------
From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)
Date: 7 Jan 1994 17:28:50 GMT
Subject: SSN reqd by public schools; DL reqd with credit card
Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180 USA
The local grade schools are now advertising the times the new parents
in the district can register their kids. The required documentation
includes in addition to the medical record etc, the kid's SSN.
Not having kids, I've not tried to see how hard it is to waive that,
but it sounds illegal.
----------------
The local Service Merchandise requires the driver's licence for some
people paying by credit card, like those who refuse to give an
address. (They're tougher than Radio Shack at wanting addresses and
phones.) Then they write the DL number on the slip. I called them
later, and this is their policy when the card is not signed or they
suspect fraud. Apparently not giving your address is a badge of
criminality to them.
Note: A "badge of criminality" is an act, that is legal in itself, but
that is considered by the legal system so illogical that only a
criminal would do it, and if you do, you've demonstrated criminal
intent, and are guilty until proven innocent. An example is opening a
safe-deposit box under another name.
------------------------
Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261
ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
------------------------------
From: hibbert@netcom.com (Chris Hibbert)
Subject: Social Security Number FAQ (long)
Date: 7 Jan 1994 00:00:37 -0500
Organization: CPSR
Archive-name: ssn-privacy
If you have comments on the following, please send them to hibbert@netcom.com |
This posting is available via anonymous ftp from rtfm.mit.edu in the file
/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/answers/ssn-privacy. It's also available from |
mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu by sending a mail message containing the line "send
usenet-by-hierarchy/news/answers/ssn-privacy" (without the quote marks) as |
the sole contents of the body. Send a message containing "help" to get
general information about the mail server, which also has many other FAQs.
What to do when they ask for your Social Security Number
by Chris Hibbert
Computer Professionals
for Social Responsibility
Many people are concerned about the number of organizations asking for their
Social Security Numbers. They worry about invasions of privacy and the
oppressive feeling of being treated as just a number. Unfortunately, I can't
offer any hope about the dehumanizing effects of identifying you with your
numbers. I *can* try to help you keep your Social Security Number from being
used as a tool in the invasion of your privacy.
Surprisingly, government agencies are reasonably easy to deal with; private
organizations are much more troublesome. Federal law restricts the agencies
at all levels of government that can demand your number and a fairly complete
disclosure is required even if its use is voluntary. There are no comparable
Federal laws restricting the uses non-government organizations can make of
it, or compelling them to tell you anything about their plans. Some states
have recently enacted regulations on collection of SSNs by private entities.
With private institutions, your main recourse is refusing to do business with
anyone whose terms you don't like. They, in turn, are allowed to refuse to
deal with you on those terms.
Short History
Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935.
They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program.
In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies
to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS
began to use it as a taxpayer ID number. The Privacy Act of 1974 required
authorization for government agencies to use SSNs in their data bases and
required disclosures (detailed below) when government agencies request the
number. Agencies which were already using SSN as an identifier before
January 1, 1975 were allowed to continue using it. The Tax Reform Act of
1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or
motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to
establish identities. The Privacy Protection Study Commission of 1977
recommended that the Executive Order be repealed after some agencies referred
to it as their authorization to use SSNs. I don't know whether it was
repealed, but no one seems to have cited EO 9397 as their authorization
recently.
Several states use the SSN as a driver's license number, while others record
it on applications and store it in their database. Some states that
routinely use it on the license will make up another number if you insist.
According to the terms of the Privacy Act, any that have a space for it on
the application forms should have a disclosure notice. Many don't, and until
someone takes them to court, they aren't likely to change. (Though New York
recently agreed to start adding the notice on the basis of a letter written
by a reader of this blurb.)
The Privacy Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-579) requires that any federal, state, or
local government agency that requests your Social Security Number has to tell
you four things:
1: Whether disclosure of your Social Security Number is required or
optional,
2: What statute or other authority they have for asking for your number,
3: How your Social Security Number will be used if you give it to them, and
4: The consequences of failure to provide an SSN.
In addition, the Act says that only Federal law can make use of the Social
Security Number mandatory. So anytime you're dealing with a government
institution and you're asked for your Social Security Number, just look for
the Privacy Act Statement. If there isn't one, complain and don't give your
number. If the statement is present, read it. If it says giving your Social
Security Number is voluntary, you'll have to decide for yourself whether to
fill in the number.
Private Organizations
The guidelines for dealing with non-governmental institutions are much more
tenuous. Most of the time private organizations that request your Social
Security Number can get by quite well without your number, and if you can
find the right person to negotiate with, they'll willingly admit it. The
problem is finding that right person. The person behind the counter is often
told no more than "get the customers to fill out the form completely."
Most of the time, you can convince them to use some other number. Usually
the simplest way to refuse to give your Social Security Number is simply to
leave the appropriate space blank. One of the times when this isn't a strong
enough statement of your desire to conceal your number is when dealing with
institutions which have direct contact with your employer. Most employers
have no policy against revealing your Social Security Number; they apparently
believe that it must be an unintentional slip when an employee doesn't
provide an SSN to everyone who asks.
Public utilities (gas, electric, phone, etc.) are considered to be private
organizations under the laws regulating SSNs. Most of the time they ask for
an SSN, and aren't prohibited from asking for it, but they'll usually relent
if you insist. Ask to speak to a supervisor, insist that they document a
corporate policy requiring it, ask about alternatives, ask why they need it
and suggest alternatives.
Lenders and Borrowers
(those who send reports to the IRS)
Banks and credit card issuers and various others are required by the IRS to
report the SSNs of account holders to whom they pay interest or when they
charge interest and report it to the IRS. If you don't tell them your number
you will probably either be refused an account or be charged a penalty such
as withholding of taxes on your interest.
Most banks send your name, address, and SSN to a company called ChexSystem
when you open an account. ChexSystem keeps a database of people whose
accounts have been terminated for fraud or chronic insufficient funds in the
past 5 years. ChexSystems is covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and
the bank is required to let you know if it refuses to open your account and a
report from ChexSystems was a factor. You can also send a letter to
ChexSystems directly and request a copy of your report.
Many Banks, Brokerages, and other financial institutions have started
implementing automated systems to let you check your balance. All too often,
they are using SSNs as the PIN that lets you get access to your personal
account information. If your bank does this to you, write them a letter
pointing out how common it is for the people with whom you have financial
business to know your SSN. Ask them to change your PIN, and if you feel like
doing a good deed, ask them to stop using the SSN as a default identifier for
their other customers. Some customers will believe that there's some
security in it, and be insufficiently protective of their account numbers.
Sometimes banks provide for a customer-supplied password, but are reluctant
to advertise it. The only way to find out is to ask if they'll let you
provide a password. (This is reportedly true of Citibank Visa, e.g. They
ask for a phone number but are willing to accept any password.)
When buying (and possibly refinancing) a house, most banks will now ask for
your Social Security Number on the Deed of Trust. This is because the
Federal National Mortgage Association recently started requiring it. The
fine print in their regulation admits that some consumers won't want to give
their number, and allows banks to leave it out when pressed. [It first
recommends getting it on the loan note, but then admits that it's already on
various other forms that are a required part of the package, so they already
know it. The Deed is a public document, so there are good reasons to refuse
to put it there, even though all parties to the agreement already have access
to your number.]
Insurers, Hospitals, Doctors
No laws require medical service providers to use your Social Security Number
as an ID number (except for Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) They often use it
because it's convenient or because your employer uses it to identify
employees to its groups health plan. In the latter case, you have to get
your employer to change their policies. Often, the people who work in
personnel assume that the employer or insurance company requires use of the
SSN when that's not really the case. When a previous employer asked for my
SSN for an insurance form, I asked them to try to find out if they had to use
it. After a week they reported that the insurance company had gone along
with my request and told me what number to use. Blood banks also ask for the
number but are willing to do without if pressed on the issue. After I asked
politely and persistently, the blood bank I go to agreed that they didn't
have any use for the number. They've now expunged my SSN from their
database, and they seem to have taught their receptionists not to request the
number.
Most insurance companies share access to old claims through the Medical
Information Bureau. If your insurance company uses your SSN, other insurance
companies will have a much easier time finding out about your medical
history. You can get a copy of the file MIB keeps on you by writing to
Medical Information Bureau, P.O. Box 105, Essex Station, Boston, MA 02112.
Their phone number is (617)426-3660.
If an insurance agent asks for your Social Security Number in order to "check
your credit", point out that the contract is invalid if your check bounces or
your payment is late. They don't need to know what your credit is like, just
whether you've paid them.
Children
The Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) requires states to require
parents to give their Social Security Numbers in order to get a birth
certificate issued for a newborn. The law allows the requirement to be
waived for "good cause", but there's no indication of what may qualify.
The IRS requires taxpayers to report SSNs for dependents over one year of
age, but the requirement can be avoided if you're prepared to document the
existence of the child by other means if challenged. The law on this can be
found at 26 USC 6109. The penalty for not giving a dependant's number is
only $5. Several people have reported that they haven't provided SSNs for
their dependents for several years, and haven't been challenged by the IRS.
Universities and Colleges
Universities that accept federal funds are subject to the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (the "Buckley Amendment"), which prohibits
them from giving out personal information on students without permission.
There is an exception for directory information, which is limited to names,
addresses, and phone numbers, and another exception for release of
information to the parents of minors. There is no exception for Social
Security Numbers, so covered Universities aren't allowed to reveal students'
numbers without their permission. In addition, state universities are bound
by the requirements of the Privacy Act, which requires them to provide the
disclosures mentioned above. If they make uses of the SSN which aren't
covered by the disclosure they are in violation.
Why SSNs are a bad choice for UIDs in data bases
Database designers continue to introduce the Social Security Number as the
key when putting together a new database or when re-organizing an old one.
Some of the qualities that are (often) useful in a key and that people think
they are getting from the SSN are Uniqueness, Universality, Security, and
Identification. When designing a database, it is instructive to consider
which of these qualities are actually important in your application; many
designers assume unwisely that they are all useful for every application,
when in fact each is occasionally a drawback. The SSN provides none of them,
so designs predicated on the assumption that it does provide them will fail
in a variety of ways.
Uniqueness
Many people assume that Social Security Numbers are unique. They were
intended by the Social Security Administration to be unique, but they didn't
take sufficient precautions to ensure that it would be so. There have been
several instances when two different SSA offices issued the same number to
different people. They have also given a previously issued number to someone
with the same name as the original recipient, thinking it was the same person
asking again. There are a few numbers that were used by thousands of people
because they were on sample cards shipped in wallets by their manufacturers.
(One is given below.)
The passage of the Immigration reform law in 1986 caused an increase in the
duplicate use of SSNs. Since the SSN is now required for employment, illegal
immigrants must find a valid name/SSN pair in order to fool the INS, and IRS
long enough to collect a paycheck. Using the SSN when you can't cross-check
your database with the SSA means you can count on getting some false numbers
mixed in with the good ones.
Universality
Not everyone has a Social Security Number. Foreigners are the primary
exception, but many children don't get SSNs until they're in school. They
were only designed to be able to cover people who were eligible for Social
Security.
Identification
Few people ever ask to see an SSN card; they believe whatever you say. The
ability to recite the number provides little evidence that you're associated
with the number in anyone else's database.
There's little reason to carry your card with you anyway. It isn't a good
form of identification, and if your wallet is lost or stolen, it provides
another way for the thief to hurt you, especially if any of your banks use
the SSN as your PIN.
Security
The card is not at all forgery-resistant, even if anyone did ever ask for it.
The numbers don't have any redundancy (no check-digits) so any 9-digit number
in the range of numbers that have been issued is a valid number. It's
relatively easy to copy the number incorrectly, and there's no way to tell
that you've done so.
In most cases, there is no cross-checking that a number is valid. Credit
card and checking account numbers are checked against a database almost every
time they are used. If you write down someone's phone number incorrectly,
you find out the first time you try to use it.
Why you should resist requests for your SSN
When you give out your number, you are providing access to information about
yourself. You're providing access to information that you don't have the
ability or the legal right to correct or rebut. You provide access to data
that is irrelevant to most transactions but that will occasionally trigger
prejudice. Worst of all, since you provided the key, (and did so
"voluntarily") all the info discovered under your number will be presumed to
be true, about you, and relevant.
A major problem with the use of SSNs as identifiers is that it makes it hard
to control access to personal information. Even assuming you want someone to
be able to find out some things about you, there's no reason to believe that
you want to make all records concerning yourself available. When multiple
record systems are all keyed by the same identifier, and all are intended to
be easily accessible to some users, it becomes difficult to allow someone
access to some of the information about a person while restricting them to
specific topics.
Unfortunately, far too many organizations assume that anyone who presents
your SSN must be you. When more than one person uses the same number, it
clouds up the records. If someone intended to hide their activities, it's
likely that it'll look bad on whichever record it shows up on. When it
happens accidentally, it can be unexpected, embarrassing, or worse. How do
you prove that you weren't the one using your number when the record was
made?
What you can do to protect your number
If despite your having written "refused" in the box for Social Security
Number, it still shows up on the forms someone sends back to you (or worse,
on the ID card they issue), your recourse is to write letters or make phone
calls. Start politely, explaining your position and expecting them to
understand and cooperate. If that doesn't work, there are several more
things to try:
1: Talk to people higher up in the organization. This often works
simply because the organization has a standard way of dealing
with requests not to use the SSN, and the first person you deal
with just hasn't been around long enough to know what it is.
2: Enlist the aid of your employer. You have to decide whether talking
to someone in personnel, and possibly trying to change
corporate policy is going to get back to your supervisor and
affect your job.
3: Threaten to complain to a consumer affairs bureau. Most newspapers
can get a quick response. Ask for their "Action Line" or
equivalent. If you're dealing with a local government agency,
look in the state or local government section of the phone book
under "consumer affairs." If it's a federal agency, your
congressmember may be able to help.
4: Insist that they document a corporate policy requiring the number.
When someone can't find a written policy or doesn't want to
push hard enough to get it, they'll often realize that they
don't know what the policy is, and they've just been following
tradition.
5: Ask what they need it for and suggest alternatives. If you're
talking to someone who has some independence, and they'd like
to help, they will sometimes admit that they know the reason
the company wants it, and you can satisfy that requirement a
different way.
6: Tell them you'll take your business elsewhere (and follow through if
they don't cooperate.)
7: If it's a case where you've gotten service already, but someone
insists that you have to provide your number in order to have a
continuing relationship, you can choose to ignore the request
in hopes that they'll forget or find another solution before
you get tired of the interruption.
If someone absolutely insists on getting your Social Security Number, you may
want to give a fake number. There are legal penalties for providing a false
number when you expect to gain some benefit from it. A federal court of
appeals ruled that using a false SSN to get a Driver's License violates the
federal law.
There are a few good choices for "anonymous" numbers. Making one up at
random is a bad idea, as it may coincide with someone's real number and cause
them some amount of grief. It's better to use a number like 078-05-1120,
which was printed on "sample" cards inserted in thousands of new wallets sold
in the 40's and 50's. It's been used so widely that both the IRS and SSA
recognize it immediately as bogus, while most clerks haven't heard of it.
There are several patterns that have never been assigned, and which therefore |
don't conflict with anyone's real number. They include numbers with any |
field all zeroes, and numbers with a first digit of 8 or 9. For more details |
on the structure of SSNs and how they are assigned, use anonymous ftp to |
retrieve the file /CPSR/SSN/SSN-structure from the machine cpsr.org. |
Giving a number with an unused patterns rather than your own number isn't |
very useful if there's anything serious at stake since they're likely to be
noticed . The Social Security Administration recommends that people showing |
Social Security cards in advertisements use numbers in the range 987-65-4320
through 987-65-4329.
If you're designing a database or have an existing one that currently uses |
SSNs and want to use numbers other than SSNs, you should make your |
identifiers use some pattern other than 9 digits. You can make them longer |
or shorter than that, or include letters somewhere inside. That way no one |
will mistake the number for an SSN. |
The Social Security Administration recommends that you request a copy of your
file from them every few years to make sure that your records are correct
(your income and "contributions" are being recorded for you, and no one
else's are.) As a result of a recent court case, the SSA has agreed to
accept corrections of errors when there isn't any contradictory evidence, SSA
has records for the year before or after the error, and the claimed earnings
are consistent with earlier and later wages. (San Jose Mercury News, 5/14,
1992 p 6A) Call the Social Security Administration at (800) 772-1213 and ask
for Form 7004, (Request for Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statement.)
When All Else Fails |
(Getting a Replacement Number) |
The Social Security Administration (SSA) will occasionally issue a |
replacement SSN. The most common justification is that the SSA or the IRS |
has mixed together earnings records from more than one person, and since one |
of the people can't be located, it's necessary to issue a new number to the |
other. The SSA tries very hard to contact the person who is using the number |
incorrectly before resorting to this process. |
There are a few other situations that the SSA accepts as justifying a new |
number. The easiest is if the number contains the sequences 666 or 13. The |
digits need to be consecutive according to SSA's policy manual, but may be |
separated by hyphens. You apparently don't have to prove that your religious |
objection is sincere. Other commonly accepted complaints include harassment, |
sequential numbers assigned to family members, or serious impact on your |
credit history that you've tried to clear up without success. |
In all cases, the process includes an in-person interview at which you have |
to establish your identity and show that you are the original assignee of the |
number. The decision is normally made in the local office. If the problem |
is with a credit bureau's records, you have to show that someone else |
continues to use your number, and that you tried to get the credit bureau to |
fix your records but were not successful. When they do issue a new number, |
the new recoreds are linked to the old ones. (Unless you can convince them |
that your life might be endangered by such a link.) |
There are a few justifications that they don't accept at all: attempting to |
avoid legal responsibilities, poor credit record which is your own fault, |
lost SSNm card (without evidence that someone else has used it), or use of |
the number by government agencies or private companies. |
The only justification the SSA accepts for cancelling the issuance of an SSN |
is that the number was assigned under their Enumeration at Birth program |
without the parent's consent. In this case, the field officer is instructed |
to try very hard to convince the parent that getting the number revoked is |
futile, but to give in when the parent is persistent. |
US Passports
The application for US Passports (DSP-11 12/87) requests a Social Security
Number, but gives no Privacy Act notice. There is a reference to "Federal
Tax Law" and a misquotation of Section 6039E of the 1986 Internal Revenue |
Code, claiming that the section requires that you provide your name, mailing
address, date of birth, and Social Security Number. The referenced section
only requires TIN (SSN), and it requires that it be sent to the IRS and not
to the Passport office. It appears that when you apply for a passport, you
can refuse to reveal your SSN to the passport office, and instead mail a
notice to the IRS, giving only your SSN (other identifying info optional)
and notifying them that you are applying for a passport. [Copies (in |
postscript) of the letter that was used successfully by one contributor are |
available by anonymous ftp from cpsr.org in /cpsr/ssn/passport.ps.Z. I'd be |
interested in hearing how the State department and the Post Office (which |
processes passport applications) react.] |
Results from Some Recent Legal Cases (3/24/93)
CPSR joined two legal cases in 1992 which concerned Social Security Numbers
and privacy. One of them challenged the IRS practice of printing Social
Security Numbers on mailing labels when they send out tax forms and related
correspondence. The other challenged Virginia's requirement of a Social
Security Number in order to register to vote.
Dr. Peter Zilahy Ingerman filed suit against the IRS in Federal District
Court in 1991, and CPSR filed a friend of the court brief in August '91. The
case was decided in favor of the IRS. According to "Privacy Journal", the
IRS plans to start covering the SSNs on its mailing labels.
The Virginia case was filed by a resident of the state who refused to supply
a Social Security Number when registering to vote. When the registrar
refused to accept his registration, he filed suit. He also challenged the
state of Virginia on two other bases: the registration form lacked a Privacy
Act notice, and the voter lists the state publishes include Social Security
Numbers. The Federal court of appeals ruled that the state of Virginia may
not allow the disclosure of Social Security numbers as a condition of
registering to vote. The court said that the Virginia requirement places an
"intolerable burden" on the right to vote. The case is officially referred
to as Greidinger v. Davis, No. 92-1571, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
March 22, 1993.
If you have suggestions for improving this document please send them to me
at:
Chris Hibbert
hibbert@netcom.com or 1195 Andre Ave. |
Mountain View, CA 94040
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #015
******************************
.