I took a DSST exam today to test out of a course. One of the questions they asked me before I got to the actual content of the exam was my Social Security number. This is not something that effects my taxes, or involves financial credit. Why do they really need it? It was even a required field, that I was not allowed to skip.
A unique identifier perhaps?
what’s DSST?
A typical example of where a unique identifier is coopted because it is available. The IRS/Social Security makes a serious effort to give everyone one and only one number - so other applications that want to uniquely identify people piggyback off this effort.
Many years ago I applied for a US Pilot license based on my Canadian license. They asked on the application for my SSN, but gave the option if I chose to not give one (an option required by law), they would make up their own unique number for me.
I assume the privacy legislation making it legal to opt out for situations other than SS either no longer exists or does not apply to private organizations?
But one’s SSN is specifically not supposed to be used for identification purposes except with government agencies, or private companies (such as banks) that need it for reporting to the government.
Pending the answer on what DSST is (it seems to be some independent agency for allowing college credits by passing exams) they may need it to coordinate with colleges requesting transcripts and course credit information. Since this is rather far removed from the usual uses of SSN, they should provide some explanation on the page where the SSN is requested.
Maybe to made sure you’re are really you ?
When I applied for services at the State Employment Office, I didn’t fill in the blank for SSN … so of course it was rejected and I complained … I stood my ground and the workers there did something so I could received services …
Sure enough, couple years ago I got a letter from the State Employment Office saying their computers were hacked into and everybody’s SSN was compromised … everybody’s except mine I guess …
Cite? Insofar as I can tell, that’s never been any kind of law or regulation. (The old “not to be used for identification” printed on cards meant that the CARD did not qualify as identification, not that the number wasn’t supposed to be.)
DSST stands for DANTES Subject Standardized Tests, and they originated in DANTES (Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support), a U.S. Defense Dept program. It was a way for soldiers/sailors to earn college credit by taking tests to prove they already knew the material. Civilians are allowed to take the tests now, but there is still some intertwining with the government, and since it originated as a government program, probably the SSN requirement got added back in the day and has never been re-examined.
Cecil explains Social Security numbers and ID.
Here’a an article from ConsumersUnion dated June 2008 “State laws restricting private use of Social Security numbers” …
Some states do, some don’t …
This is what I want to know. I’m an old fart, and I got my SS card when I was in junior high school (what does junior high school mean grandpa?) It clearly says: Not to be used for identification. Did they drop that idea formally, or nobody gives a shit. Like the Do Not Call list.
This is what I was using for information, specifically this part:
followed by a detailed list of exceptions, including the banks that I mentioned.
I realize that “you aren’t legally required to provide” is not the same as “they may not ask for.” However, since in the OP’s case they were requiring it in order to proceed, it seemed like a distinction without a difference for his purposes. Per your description of DSST, it may qualify on the list of exceptions.
You are confusing the number with the card on which it was printed.
As explained in Cecil’s column (above-linked), the idea of “Not to be used for identification” printed on the cards meant that nobody was supposed to accept the CARDS as proof of who you were. Because of the lack of rigorous standards in how the cards were issued, possession of a card did not mean that you were in fact Backwater Under Duck. (Until the 1970s, for example, you didn’t have to show a birth certificate or other evidence to obtain a Social Security card; you could walk into an office, fill out a piece of paper, and walk out with your card.) Therefore, the card did not qualify as government-issued identification, as for example drivers licenses do.
As far back as the 1940s, the feds were using the NUMBER to identify people; the IRS began requiring them for taxpayer id in 1961. There was never a federal policy that the number itself could not be used for identification, so there was nothing to drop.
The advent of tamper-resistant printed cards, along with tighter rules in how the cards were issued, meant that the newer cards are more likely to be validly issued, so now they are (sometimes) accepted as one form of government-issued identification.
At least in Kansas (one of the states cited as having such a law), the statute is not exactly watertight:
The statute goes on to say that internal administrative purposes, investigating or preventing fraud, and various other purposes are valid grounds for soliciting or requiring an SSN.
I should have, however, specified that I was referring to the absence of FEDERAL laws or regulations prohibiting using SSNs for identification. Some states do have them, as you noted, and the feds have some restrictions on releasing the numbers publicly, but for the majority of Americans, if a business really really wants the number and you refuse to provide it, they can lawfully refuse to do business with you.
You got that backwards: They make an effort to ensure every number is assigned to one and only one person, but one person can have multiple numbers, which does, indeed, happen.
If you use the SSN as a primary key in your database and one person has multiple numbers, you lose (assuming they actually tell you more than one of their numbers), because all of a sudden you might lose the property that all of the data related to one person is under one primary key, but the fact individuals do sometimes have multiple SSNs indicates that the Social Security Administration and the IRS have no fundamental problem with that assumption being broken. Take it as a sign that you need to ensure your own database consistency, and to use artificial primary keys.
Funny story - When I worked on payroll for a large corporation, the head systems analyst starting in the mid-80’s would get mail from Revenue Canada stating "“from now on, this person will use the following Social Insurance Number…”. Same idea as SSN. Especially on the east coast, SIN was used to track income and it could be applied to Unemployment Insurance, which in the east turned into a seasonal work subsidy. A number of enterprising people would apply for multiple SIN’s so they could collect UI on one number while working and building up points for UI on another. Revenue Canada back then made an effort to reconcile its database for uniqueness to remove duplicates. I take it the USA has not made a similar effort, based on the number of undocumented people who must be working with invalid SSN’s.
Bueller?
…
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
And that’s the real reason. For most of the Department of Defense’s existence, a servicemember’s service number (the “serial number” in “name, rank, serial number”) was their Social Security number. (From 1969 for Army and Air Force, and 1972 for Navy and Marines.)
Your SSN was your master record key for ALL your personnel records, including your educational records.
I didn’t realize they’d opened it up to civilians, but that would certainly explode the use case that “SSN == master identification number”, since that’s not a best practice in the civilian real world.