Newsstand - Opinion: Use Social Security numbers for security

Denver Post Editorial (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~158~1687980,00.html)

"Asa Hutchinson, federal undersecretary for border and transportation security, recently announced changes to an airline passenger screening system that the Transportation Security Administration hopes to use.

The plan raises questions about security and privacy. The agency has gratuitously decided not to require travelers to give their Social Security numbers, as if that would protect privacy."

Counsellor Miller, you're a d@mn fool. ID does nothing to improve security. Additionally, a terrorist doesn't need a fake ID or identity theft to skirt such a lame system: they just have to trade IDs with someone else. No GA or TSA person is going to know the difference, 3 ID checks or not.

------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

This guy Wynn Miller is a stinkin' fool.

I'd love to have his SS # to do some online "security checks" thru my favorite retailers...

------------------
"If life doesn't offer a game worth playing, then invent a new one."
-Anthony J. D'Angelo

Once they start using your SS# for ID, they'll never stop. The justification will be that your information will be *private*, and will only be disclosed to authorized parties. Yeah, right. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif For years GA used SS #s as the drivers' license #. After concerns with identity theft and general unease, we now have the option of a random DL #.

Why do we think and kind of ID is going to make us safer?

Fake IDs are easy to get.

Real IDs are no big deal if you plan on killing yourself.

Until the bad guys start joining a public club that puts stickers on their IDs as bad guys, why are we so nuts to chekc IDs?

Stop the lunacy.
By the way, the guys on 9/11 used their real IDs.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NoStressHere:
Why do we think and kind of ID is going to make us safer?

Fake IDs are easy to get.

Real IDs are no big deal if you plan on killing yourself.

Until the bad guys start joining a public club that puts stickers on their IDs as bad guys, why are we so nuts to chekc IDs?

Stop the lunacy.
By the way, the guys on 9/11 used their real IDs.</font>

CAPPS II is that public club, public at least so far as law enforcement goes. By matching various criminal and public databases against traveller information, it greatly mitigates each and every one of the risks you mention, though not eliminating them entirely. Perfection is not achievable, but neither is that an excuse to do nothing at all.

Thanks for pointing out the effectiveness of a mulilayered approach to travel security.

Actually, CAPSII may make it easier for bad guys to fly.

The bad guys now can try one of the following:

A) Do all the right things to become CAPSII certified, or whatever the term is. Then they can fly through security with TSA thinking they are all okay.

B) Use a fake ID of someone that is already CAPSII certified.

C) Be part of the millions that are not in the CAPSII database and do their thing anyways.

Meanwhile, the rest of us give up one more little bit of our privacy and freedom, THINKING we are safer.

Fools. All of us.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NoStressHere:
Actually, CAPSII may make it easier for bad guys to fly.

The bad guys now can try one of the following:

A) Do all the right things to become CAPSII certified, or whatever the term is. Then they can fly through security with TSA thinking they are all okay.

B) Use a fake ID of someone that is already CAPSII certified.

C) Be part of the millions that are not in the CAPSII database and do their thing anyways.

Meanwhile, the rest of us give up one more little bit of our privacy and freedom, THINKING we are safer.

Fools. All of us.</font>

On what basis do you allege this, other than wishes and beliefs?

CAPPS II hasn't even been internally finalized yet, much less any such final details publicly proposed.

Until it is, your hypothesis is, well, hypothetical.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
On what basis do you allege this, other than wishes and beliefs?

CAPPS II hasn't even been internally finalized yet, much less any such final details publicly proposed.

Until it is, your hypothesis is, well, hypothetical.</font>

On what basis?

Let's see........

Back in the late 60's the government unleashed the "war on drugs". We were told that in no time, the menace will be wiped out from the face of the earth. All the government needed was some cooperation of the citizens of our great country, combined with new tactics of the law enforcement, and poof, we will win the war.

35 years later: Drugs are still if not more prevelent on any street corner of any US city. So what has changed? Well, the one good thing, maybe, is that millions are employed because of the war on drugs. It helps the government keep the citizens happy. And now for the bad. We have given up many rights, which I doubt very much we will ever get back. In some instances such as property seizure, the government was able to shift the burden of proof to the accused. I believe that one of the biggest individual rights that the founding fathers wanted to protect, was in fact our right to be innocent, till proven guilty, which was the governments responsibility, not the individuals. The seizure anti-drug laws took care of this. We could go on and on and on, but my basic point is this, what have we won???

Do you think that some time in the future, somebody like Osama bin Laden will need a valid ID to explode a dirty bomb in LA? a small nuclear device in Chicago? a chemical weapon in DisneyWorld? If you think ID's make us even a little more protected, you are dreaming my friend. The only thing it does, it allows the government to keep track of us, not them! It does surprise me that ordinary liberty loving Americans still fall for this government propaganda.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Brian:
On what basis do you allege this, other than wishes and beliefs?

CAPPS II hasn't even been internally finalized yet, much less any such final details publicly proposed.

Until it is, your hypothesis is, well, hypothetical.</font>


They want to collect information on American citizens for a purpose that will not be met.

i.e. - They THINK they can catch terrorists that want to blow up airplanes, but this will not stop them. So, leave Americans alone.

Actually - the Privacy Act prevents the collection of SSN by agencies other than the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

It is unlawful for banks, credit agencies and other institutions to demand your SSN. Many states have faced several finacial penalties for having a person's SSN on their drivers license.

But laws don't seem to matter to our Torquemada of the Constitution - John Ashcroft.

in this day and age, any dippy system that doesn't use strong public key encryption and all it entails is just plain stoopid.

CAPPS 2 as you clearly stated Brian hasn't been finalized, therefore how could you state that it solves the problems? The issue with CAPPS 2 is that if you are mistakenly tagged as a terrorist you can NOT fly and probably are unable to leave the US at all until it's cleared up. If you've read much about identity theft you'd realize it can sometimes take years and multiple long distance trips for someone to begin to clear up their identity mess. SSN is not necessary and neither is CAPPS 2.

The problem is that you can not stop a crazy person. Laws are based on reasonable man doctrine in this country, and let's be honest what reasonable man blows himself up? The USA Patriot Act, CAPPS 2 and the rest of the post 9-11 laws are just stealing from Peter to pay for Paul -- Privacy looses to some perceived risk/fear. Let's not forget that the airlines did not want to pay for more thorough screening and in the 90s were raking in the cash with high priced fares.

------------------
Ships are safe in port, but that's not what they were built for.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kb0fhp:
It is unlawful for banks, credit agencies and other institutions to demand your SSN. </font>

What's your cite on that? I have never been able to open a bank account without a SSN.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kb0fhp:
Actually - the Privacy Act prevents the collection of SSN by agencies other than the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

It is unlawful for banks, credit agencies and other institutions to demand your SSN. Many states have faced several finacial penalties for having a person's SSN on their drivers license.

But laws don't seem to matter to our Torquemada of the Constitution - John Ashcroft.</font>

Thats not true. The "privacy act of 1974" requires that those taking your SSN tell you what they are going to do with it. ANY company or bank can use your SSN for identification purposes. I recently moved to another state and had to supply it to the local electric, water, and cable companies. Every single form I ever filled out in the USAF had the statement on the bottom. It simply says what it is being used for and that disclosure is optional, but without the information being provided, the form will likely not be processed and your request/application will be denied.

I am surprised that the statement is not on similar forms used in the civilian world, afterall, the act is not limited to gov't entities.



------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kb0fhp:
...It is unlawful for banks, credit agencies and other institutions to demand your SSN...</font>

Not so, at least as regards interest-bearing bank accounts. Anyone who pays you interest is required to send you and the IRS information about it each year, since it is potentially taxable income. They need your SSN to comply with this law. They are not only allowed to demand it, but are required to - and should not open an account without getting it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by kb0fhp:
Actually - the Privacy Act prevents the collection of SSN by agencies other than the IRS and the Social Security Administration.
</font>

My daughter applied for a passport today and the form required her social security number.

(Incidentally, the Consul in Haifa told me he was notified last week that State Department funds can not be used to mail out passports -- as was always the case in the past.

(State, of course, did not tell him if he is authorized to collect the postage from us, or if we will have to drive 80 kilometers to pick up the passport when it is ready.

(The passport cost $85 -- as only new passports are being issued, none of the old ones can be renewed, which would have saved us $30. But it is good to know that State will save the 50 cents needed to mail it to us.)

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by BostonTravel:
CAPPS 2 as you clearly stated Brian hasn't been finalized, therefore how could you state that it solves the problems? The issue with CAPPS 2 is that if you are mistakenly tagged as a terrorist you can NOT fly and probably are unable to leave the US at all until it's cleared up. If you've read much about identity theft you'd realize it can sometimes take years and multiple long distance trips for someone to begin to clear up their identity mess. SSN is not necessary and neither is CAPPS 2.</font>

The two problems I see with CAPPS II are:

(1) Seems unlikely that it is going to make us any safer

(2) Seems very unfair to the people. We're going to have all of our information tracked, then some formula is going to be run and is going to give us a score. If it's too high, we lose our right to travel, and we may or may not be able to get it back, but certainly not without a lot of fighting. (There are only a few thousand people on the no-fly lists, and they're having a heck of a time getting off, when this CAPPS II starts flagging 30,000 people a day, as the TSA says it will, those people will effectively and indefinitely lose their right to travel. I can imagine it taking a year or more to get off this list, as it will be a secret why you're on it in the first place, and I doubt the government is preparing any kind of way to clear people off it either.)

The reason this is unfair to the population is that you're going to have information such as which books you buy or what Web sites you go to determining whether you're allowed your rights or not. This is absurd and really opens up the door to abuse (there are already charges of people being put on a no-fly list because of their poltical views, despite the fact that they are non-violent).

We end up with a situation where making some international phone calls and buying the "wrong" book all of a sudden might mean you lose your rights. This is unacceptable in a free society. Unless we've decided we don't want a free society anymore, this is unacceptable in the US.

d

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Doppy:
The two problems I see with CAPPS II are:

(1) Seems unlikely that it is going to make us any safer

(2) Seems very unfair to the people. We're going to have all of our information tracked, then some formula is going to be run and is going to give us a score. If it's too high, we lose our right to travel, and we may or may not be able to get it back, but certainly not without a lot of fighting. (There are only a few thousand people on the no-fly lists, and they're having a heck of a time getting off, when this CAPPS II starts flagging 30,000 people a day, as the TSA says it will, those people will effectively and indefinitely lose their right to travel. I can imagine it taking a year or more to get off this list, as it will be a secret why you're on it in the first place, and I doubt the government is preparing any kind of way to clear people off it either.)

The reason this is unfair to the population is that you're going to have information such as which books you buy or what Web sites you go to determining whether you're allowed your rights or not. This is absurd and really opens up the door to abuse (there are already charges of people being put on a no-fly list because of their poltical views, despite the fact that they are non-violent).

We end up with a situation where making some international phone calls and buying the "wrong" book all of a sudden might mean you lose your rights. This is unacceptable in a free society. Unless we've decided we don't want a free society anymore, this is unacceptable in the US.

d</font>

As long as cash and commodities with value exist in the world and we don't try a left-wing/communist/fascist/right-wing/totalitarian techno-approach to eliminating free markets, there will be ways for the nefarious and not-nefarious to stay under the radar screen.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited 10-16-2003).]