From an article by Decla McCullagh on CNET.com:
Some members of Congress, like Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, have been warning about the dangers of SSN misuse for years. The surprise now is that some key congressional figures are agreeing.
Rep. Joe Barton, another Texas Republican who happens to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said last week that he plans to “outlaw the use of Social Security numbers for any purposes other than government purposes.”
Correct. Directly on point. Yep, that’s it.
I remember going to the bank in the early ’70’s and being required to give my SSN as a “personal identifier” to open an account. Up to that time that number had been relatively protected – contained – for use by Federal/State government use only. I thought it strange that the USAF [military in general] was switching from the old standard “AFXXXXXX” serial numbers to SSN. Shoulda seen it coming then.
At the height of the invasion of my privacy by private business, Bank of America in 1972 demanded I provide my SSN, and a thumbprint before I could cash a payroll check. Realize that most businesses keep payroll accounts specifically to insure payment for employees. Literally cash in the bank. I refused to provide my SSN or the print.
The teller called the manager over. The twit in the suit, fresh from a 24-hour customer service seminar no doubt, told me in his precise “bankese” that failure to provide means no money. I asked whether funds were available: yes. Does the company have a payroll account with this bank? Yes. Is a California driver’s license a valid form of identification? Yes. Then what’s the problem? Bank policy. Sorry, no exceptions.
I stalked out of that bank and directly into the bosses’ office. I demanded payment in cash by any means necessary. He thought it was funny as hell, and just asked me to endorse the check. He laughed all the way to the bank. When he came back he wasn’t laughing anymore. He ended up threatening to close all his accounts with the bank unless the policy was changed. See, they asked him to provide his SSN and a thumbprint. (The thumbprint policy lasted less than a month because of the public outcry.)
Snapback. Year 2005. SSNs are required to buy a roll of toilet paper.
The fix will come through a coalition of very strange bedfellows indeed: privacy advocates and someone McCullagh categorizes as “idiosyncratic”; a congressman from Texas for crissake. But he gets it. That number was designed to administer a federal program, expanded to include most federal (and State) agencies. I consider those legitimate uses. The only legitimate uses.
I’ve already called and written to support Rep. Barton’s position, and any legislation he may submit to restrict SSN’s to legitimate government use. The issue is non-partisan, and I’d suggest that those who value what little privacy we have left likewise let the man know. Contact him here.
Others in congress, including Feinstein, are submitting thumb-in-the-dike bills. Barton is willing to build a new dam. He deserves and will need support on this one.