Why YSK: If you are a US Resident, don’t lose your Social Security card more than 10 times, or else you might need to respawn 💀

Excerpt from Wikipedia:

In accordance with §7213 of the 9/11 Commission Implementation Act of 2004 and 20 CFR 422.103, the number of replacement Social Security cards per person is generally limited to three per calendar year and ten in a lifetime.

    • ansiz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      It’s important to remember social security numbers were created ONLY to track Social Security benefits. And the Social Security Bureau continually advised everyone to please not use them for a way to teach other things, but no one listened so here we are. The Bureau readily admits it’s not designed to do anything else . https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19697506/#%3A~%3Atext=Abstract%2Cas+a+nearly+universal+identifier.

      • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        But they’re shit even for that. Part of tracking Social Security benefits is tracking taxes paid to Social Security. Unlike other forms of ID, like credit cards, SSNs have no check digits or other means of error prevention. Take a valid SSN. Change on of the digits. That new number is also a valid SSN. Any random 9-digit number can be a valid SSN.

        What this means is that all it takes to screw up any form with an SSN on it is to have illegible handwriting on a single one of the digits. You make a single easy error on an employment form, and now your SS taxes are registered under the wrong number.

        I’m also skeptical of the Social Security Bureau’s stance on insisting it wasn’t intended as a broad identifier. OF COURSE it was going to be used as an identifier! It’s the only single ID number that the federal government gives out to everyone. OF COURSE it’s going to be used for that. Such a number is of such obvious and great utility that of course it was going to be used for broader purposes. If you create something of such obvious utility, you have an obligation to make sure it’s made well.

        It also really strains credulity when Social Security has an entire system dedicated to allowing third parties to verify SSNs. It’s literally called The Social Security Verification Service.

        If the Social Security Administration really didn’t want SSNs being used for purposes other than Social Security, then they could have easily prevented them for being used for such purposes. Think about how your SSN works with your bank. You apply for a bank account. They ask you your SSN. You tell them. But how do they know that this information is accurate? Your bank contacts Social Security! The bank has a form you sign that gives permission for them to as the Social Security Bureau to confirm your SSN. And the Social Security office happily obliges.

        The Social Security Administration doesn’t just tolerate the use of SSNs for third party uses. It actively facilitates such third party uses of SSNs.

        • ansiz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 hours ago

          You’re noticing all the things that have happened since the Bureau have up trying to prevent the usage. Remember there was no way to electronically do anything like this for decades after the SSN was created. And the Bureau has no authority to enforce any kind of prevention, but was forced to support it’s usage as a result of the Federal government lack of action to come up with any other system for the last 90 years.

          • _stranger_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I was going to say the first thing we’d recognize as a computer didn’t get built until over a decade after SSN’s were established.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Any random 9-digit number can be a valid SSN.

          Not true - there are whole ranges that specifically aren’t in use (mostly specific values for the first three digits that are intentionally not used). Outside those ranges though, yeah, basically any 9 digit number. Add one to the last digit of your SSN and if you were born before 2014 you likely get someone born in the same hospital on the same day.

      • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Yup. It’s ridiculous that it’s snowballed into this precious secret that you have to give to most employers 🤦🏻

        • ericatty@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          In slight fairness, your employer has to set up payroll so that part of your paycheck automatically goes to Social Security. So they kind of need it, since there’s not another way to track that you get proper credit for paying in to Social Security. Unless you are self employed and you send the money directly in yourself.

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Why? Because the system itself is arcane and could be done smarter? Or because the government has no business being able to distinguish between people with the same name? I need to understand this before going into a discussion with you.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Or because the government has no business being able to distinguish between people with the same name?

        Seems like an objectively terrible approach, considering people with the same name have gotten the same SSN before.

        Such an ID would have to be unique.

        • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          That would fall into the first category… Also, wtf? How can the same SSN be issued twice?!? It’s a frigging serial number, not a condom at a whore house.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Roughly 1/7 SSNs are issued twice. SSNs are recycled, used multiple times, all that good stuff.

            This is why it’s incredibly dangerous when people assume they are unique.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Sometimes there’s a limited supply of condoms and an endless need ….

            SSN is 9 digits long, one billion possibilities. While that sounds like a lot, that’s less than triple the number of Americans currently alive, and there’s a continuous progression of new births and older people passing requiring a continuous flow of new SSNs being used. In an 80 year average lifespan where you are holding an SSN,that continuous usage goes through the available numbers all too quickly.

            Even worse, numbers used to be allocated by area, meaning there were a lot of wasted numbers where growth didn’t match expectations, and corresponding shortages where numbers needed to be re-used because of local scarcity