Talk:Social Security number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>The number is divided into three parts. >* The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region.

so how are readers supposed to know what an area number is? they can only _guess_ that it's one of the parts... but which...?

This article has a serious structural problem. This article was written as if it is an article on National Identification Number, yet the title is called "Social Security Number". Even though half of the article named many other national ID#s around the world, none of them actually called SSN. Why do they belong in this article? I would suggest that this article splits into two articles, one purely on SSN and the other on national IDs around the world.

Besides, almost all other national ID numbers are used for national security, which is quite different from the American "social security". If I am not mistaken, the "Security" part in SSN stands for the financial security for retire persons.

In my opinion, this article is a mess.

The structure section on USA SSN's is confusing. First it says that before 1973, SSN's were issued out of local offices, and since 1973 they have been issued centrally. The section goes on to talk about "before 1972" and "after 1972" (with no reference to "during" 1972). So when did SSN's start being issued out of a central office? 1972 or 1973? According to this Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility webpage, it was 1972 that SSA began issuing numbers through a central office, in which case the section should use the terms "before 1972" and "since 1972". Does anyone know if that's correct? Walkiped 23:59, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Found an official source confirming March 1972 as the month that the change occured. Social Security Administration website - Walkiped 03:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have tried to correct many of the problems inherent in the article. First, I separated out the "international" examples into a new national identification number. Second, I corrected some of the stylistic problems (incorrect use of headers, sloppy linking). Third, I removed the interwiki links to national ID numbers in other countries since this is an article about the US SSN. (Therefore it would be inappropriate and confusing to have an interwiki link to the German Wikipedia about their national ID number.) Darkcore 20:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the interwiki links in all three wikipedias, we should be left alone now from those same, ever-appearing interwiki links. I guess the mess is now cleaned. —kooo 12:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mark of the Beast

This article could use a discussion of the various oppositions to requiring US citizens to have a Social Security number. For example, there are a number of cases in which people have challenged the social security number requirement as a violation of their First Amendment right to free practice of religion (they believe that the social security number is the Mark of the Beast from Revelation).

See Number of the Beast.

So, wait.. are these non-Christians who believe SSNs are the mark of the beast, a Christian concept, and so do not want them? Isn't that a little round-about? Let's avoid this type of discussion, because they're stupid. 68.211.101.156 17:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US Citizen designation on sample card

I have never seen a current social security card that identified whether someone was a US Citizen or not. My own card just has my name and number.

Cards belonging to temporary non-immigrant workers such as H visa holders, as well as cards belonging to persons who have a temporary Employment Authorization Card (I-688B) while on some non-immigrant visa (F and K visas, for example) have the designation "not valid for work without INS authorization."

But I have not seen anything else that indicated immigration or citizenship status on social security cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjairam (talk • contribs)

I agree that the sample card shown in this article is either a counterfeit designed to be used by illegal immigrants or it was of an obsolete format. Perhaps the card was like that years ago, but I doubt the SSA ever printed the word "US Citizen" on the card. Searching the official www.ssa.gov website does not show this sample card. On the front page of ssa.gov, the tiny iconic SSN card looks quite different from this sample. Kowloonese 00:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers reissued/expire?

Are SS numbers ever reissued? If no, are they going to run out after a while? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.156.66.196 (talk * contribs) .

No, Social Security numbers are not reissued. And no, they are far from running out of Social Security numbers. — Walloon 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is incorrect (at least to my knowledge), for the record. SSNs are reissued, and there is a shortage. Consider that there are ~ 300 million people in the United States and 1 billion SSNs to allocate. Some of these are reserved, and a certain amount of sparseness in key spaces is always good (3/10 usage is way too high already; you want to have "room" in each classification to add more people), so the actually usable amount without the system breaking is more like 900 million. We're already re-issuing dead people's SSNs, but it's good practice to let the dead person keep their number for at least 10 years or so to clean up any outstanding records. As more people are born and the population transitions, we'll need to more aggressively step up the re-issuing of dead SSNs. SnowFire 15:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that 3/10 is way too high. If the SSN system were properly designed (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight :-), it would include a "check digit" to help immediately detect common, innocent errors. With 300 000 000 people in the US, that requires a minimum of 10 digits (9 digits for the unique number, and 1 check digit). Another digit to give growth room would probably be a good idea.
For example, a bank refused to give a friend of mine an account, because someone else with the same SSN but a completely different name already had an account at that bank. My friend was a little frightened at the "identity theft" implications, and a little upset at the implication that he was the identify thief.
As far as I can tell, that "someone else" had accidentally swapped 2 digits in his SSN when filling out the forms starting an account at that bank. That kind of minor, innocent accident is exactly the sort of thing a "check digit" would have immediately uncovered, when it could have easily been fixed, rather than later when it caused my friend far too much hassle.
--68.0.120.35 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually SSNs are never reissued. There is a chronological order and they never go backwards. If someone 25 years old is found using an SSN that was issued in 1965 for example that is one way to determine fraud. Illegal immigrants sometimes use deceased persons SSN’s with same or similar names (typical use would be an SSN not found in the SSA death index but originally issued to an individual who is deceased). BPS 04:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
See question #20 at Social Security History: Frequently Asked Questions. They do not reissue numbers, have issued over 420 million numbers as of January 14, 2008, and the current number system will last for "several generations into the future". —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valid SSNs

In a discussion at The Daily WTF, some of the comments say the section is incorrect (for instance, the 800 series being used for some purposes). --cesarb 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the SSA's own website added. Looks like this one's correct to me. If you can find something reputable that says the opposite, feel free to add it, but I'm afraid that a comment on a website doesn't cut it, even though I'm a fan of that one as well. -FunnyMan 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, now that we have a source there's no doubt anymore. A link which can be found at that reference is even better: [1] seems to list all series ever issued (you can even notice the missing series number in the middle of the sequence). --cesarb 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This section can readily be misunderstood as is conflates "currently unallocated" ranges with ranges that are reserved to never be allocated. The reference material makes this clear - eg quoting from the reference "No SSN's with a 00 group number or 0000 serial number have been assigned" verses "No SSNs with an area number of "666" have been or will be assigned." The difference is significant between attempting to validate a presented number compared to creating an apparently valid number that will never represent a real person (the range reserved for advertising being very small). 193.32.3.83 (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] legal code mismatch

under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). Which section is it? Ojcit 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, guess I don't know my way around the legal system. Ojcit 00:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ojcit: Actually, you asked an excellent question! The answer in this particular case is that both section numbers are describing the same thing. For some background, see United States Statutes at Large, United States Code, and Codification.

The reference to section 205 is a reference to the way the law was enacted by Congress and published in the United States Statutes at Large, which is a set of bound volumes of all Federal statutes in the chronological order in which they were enacted, starting over 200 years ago and up to the present day. These prints are useful, but usually not as useful as a reorganized method of presentation called a Codification. Section 405 in this case refers to section 405 of title 42 of the United States Code.

In other words, we're talking about two different places the same law is published. All Federal statutes are published in the United States Statutes at Large. Many but not all of those statutes are also reorganized topically and published in the United States Code. For lawyers, judges and other people who study statutes quite a bit, it is just useful to have the laws published both ways.

I hope the above explanation makes sense. Yours, Famspear 03:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio in section on SSNs in advertising

The section talking about Mrs Hilda Whitcher and the Woolworths SSNs is taken verbatim from the SSA page at http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/misused.html - I'll grovel through the history and notify the "author". Eric TF Bat 11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question? What's the code for on the back of a social security card? And why all CAPS on my name?

I can't find any reason.

[edit] "invalid"

Why does the article claim that "SSNs used in advertising have rendered those numbers invalid." ?

Those numbers still refer to only one (living) person, right? Wouldn't the same logic say that other unique identifiers, once they become widely known -- such as "George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush" -- would also become "invalid" ?

My understanding is that it is incorrect for me to claim *any* SSN other than my own -- whether or not that number has been used in advertising is irrelevant.

Or am I missing some obscure point of U.S. law?

--68.0.120.35 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It means that due to its use in advertising, the SSA officially "retired" the SSN in question to prevent it from being used in any capacity. Its invalidation was not the result of a natural process but rather a preventative measure by the SSA. -216.138.38.86 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide view needed

Which seems best? Either rename this article to something like "US Social Security number" and create a stub for "Social Security number" with a general blah-blah and a link to this one, or else discuss all countries' social security numbers on this article (this might imply rephrasing many statements). Question zero: which countries have social security numbers? (I know France and Canada have them, but I have no idea whether it's the exception or the rule.) --Gro-Tsen 03:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I started to internationalize this article, but have undone my changes because I no longer agree that it is necessary. The "See also" section includes links to equivalent numbers in other systems, which all seem to go by different names than this one. I don't think there's any actual conflict, unless another country also calls its identifiers "Social Security numbers" --Sapphic 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The official name for the French number may be "numéro INSEE", but I've always heard of them referred to as "numéro de sécurité sociale" (even on forms they are called that way), and I very much doubt that not a single country has a national identifier which goes by a direct translation of "social security number". Besides, both of us found it unclear that there were other articles talking about other countries: this suggests that at least something should be done (just having a "See Also" section at the end is not enough). I think the simplest thing to do is rename the present page to add "(United States)" at the end of the title and create a "Social Security number" disambiguification page pointing to the various articles for various countries. Alternatively, mention at the beginning of the article that it deals with the US Social Security Number and link to the other pages or to a disambiguification page. --Gro-Tsen 01:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSN purpose

Wiki mentions taxation purposes within the first paragraph. A better description might be for benefits and record keeping.

The Social Security number (SSN) was originally devised to keep an accurate record of each individual’s earnings, and to subsequently monitor benefits paid under the Social Security program. However, use of the SSN as a general identifier has grown to the point where it is the most commonly used and convenient identifier for all types of record-keeping systems in the United States.

examples:

  • Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans,
  • Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes,
  • States for the school lunch program,
  • Banks for monetary transactions,
  • Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number,
  • Department of Labor for workers’ compensation,
  • Department of Education for Student Loans,
  • States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction,
  • States for child support enforcement,
  • States for commercial driver’s licenses,
  • States for Food Stamps,
  • States for Medicaid,
  • States for Unemployment Compensation,
  • States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,
  • U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds,

If you would like to see the full description go to the social security website http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/

search: When am I legally required to provide my Social Security number?

patm1975~

[edit] Not legally required but...

I spoke to Social Security over the phone. Even though it is not legally required to have a SSN a US Citizen can not work without having a SSN. What is interesting is that you can own a business without having a SSN. The SSN is for a person only not a business. The IRS will provide you with a Tax ID for your business. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patm1975 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC). Don't be fooled by answers from the SSA. It is not against the law to work without a SSN. It is only required if both the employer and the employee agree to deduct SS payments for the employee's SS account. No employer is required to collect for the SS but they are made to believe they must. No one is required to participate in SS so it would be discriminatory to require the number for employment.Deu4:2

[edit] What the fields mean

the social security fields are: the first three numbers are area numbers which is based on the area you were born the next two numbers are group numbers which are based on the area in which the state you were born and the last four numbers are serial numbers which are the only four numbers that nobody else has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.170.199.100 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

No, this is wrong, the current description of the format in the article is correct. The group numbers are based on when the SSN was issued, not where. See http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=87 Callum 09:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but I think I'm wrong. I don't understand Callum -- the link he or she gave supports the notion that the numbers are based on where the SSN was issued, not when.Pschwiesow 15:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The format of an SSN is: AAAGGSSSS
AAA is the 3 digit area code -- this is purely geographic, which area of which state
GG is the 2 digit group number -- although not issued consecutively they're used in a specific sequence. Effectively, roughly, "when" can be infered from the group number (since they are issued in a sequence), but "where" cannot be.
SSSS is the 4 digit serial number
The link I gave above is quite clear -- could you clarify why you think that the group numbers are based on where the SSN is issued? As a (very) hypothetical example -- in two different areas (101, 202) having SSNs issued at the same rate it would be reasonable to expect that SSNs 10144xxxx and 20244xxxx would be issued at roughly the same time, but no information can be infered about the areas simply from xxx44xxxx.
Callum 08:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scalability

A discussion on the scalability of SSNs would be nice. How many can the system support? What percentage of the numberspace is in use? Are old numbers reused after someone dies? etc. Afabbro 05:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See question #20 at Social Security History: Frequently Asked Questions. They do not reissue numbers, have issued over 420 million numbers as of January 14, 2008, and the current number system will last for "several generations into the future". —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SSDI

If Social security numbers were issued beginning in 1937, how come the "Social Security Death Index" has numbers for people who died as early as 1899?--71.194.116.228 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I deleted the following link from the external links section:

The link was added to the article on June 7. The site purports to provide factual answers to questions about Social Security Numbers and privacy, but makes absurd claims such as "[the IRS is] willing to shoot you for resisting arrest. They have a separate court system, which follows a different set of rules and procedures." The site therefore fails to meet Wikipedia:External links criteria, as it misleads the reader by providing factually inaccurate material. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I forgot my social security number...

How do I find out what mine is without usinng credit cards? 216.165.236.141 04:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I heard a story that...

...the SSN was, initially and very briefly, a serial number. The storyteller said he knew a guy who was a child of a higher-up at the Social Security office at the time numbers stared to be handed out, and that his SSN was 7. Not 000-00-0007, but just the number 7, meaning the seventh person in the system. Anyone know if there's any truth to that? A2Kafir 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSN Area Code 957?

What does Area Code 957 mean? I (German) received a document with the title "Virginia Nonresident Income Tax Return" which says: Your Social Security Number: 957 - 70 - #### (replaced last digits with ####) I never lived in the US - I just did an investment there. 79.210.30.138 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)