News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by djsumdog on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @07:50PM (#15658725)
You said it in your comment and I've seen it in other posts here on HN. It shouldn't be called identity theft. It should be called fraud. That's what it is.

The idea of an identity, especially a permanent one that travels with you throughout your life, is a relative recent one. 200 years ago, you could escape your past sins, so long as you didn't have an identifiable face and could speak the language at your destination. (If you couldn't you ran the very real risk of becoming a slave, which is caused by removing a person from their context; e.g. family, language and community).

There is a deeper question of "What is an identity?" and we also have to realize that the digital identities have never existed throughout history. Not in the way they do today. It's hard for us to imagine a world before passports, before real borders and before permanent numbers and documents that follow citizens throughout their lives.

And the principal reason we have digital identities today? Debt. It is solely to trace debt. It has nothing to do with proving you went to x university or worked at y job. There are other ways to track that, which are terribly inaccurate when you really start to look at them. The principal reason for your SSN, your digital identity, is to track credit and debt. I highly recommend the book _Debt: The First 5,000 Years_. It really goes into depth on this concept.

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by Spooky23 on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @08:24PM (#15658920)
But remember that 200 years ago you couldn’t travel, were most certainly dirt poor, and worked to eat.

And you did have identity records. If you were rich enough to have checks, you’d appear in a city directory and banks would rate your creditworthiness. If you travelled, you’d have to have silver or gold in hand, as your Boston banknote was worthless in Virginia.

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by ravitation on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @08:39PM (#15659013)
200 years ago was 1817... I think you both need to go a little further back.
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by Spooky23 on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @08:41PM (#15659023)
My family was in Ireland. 1817 wasn’t much different than 1617.
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by Terr_ on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @10:19PM (#15659552)
Heck no, Ireland was going gangbusters in the later part of those 200 years! [0] It's what came shortly after -- around 1845 -- that erased all the progress.

> No matter what degree of culpability should be assigned to Britain, the consequences of the famine to Ireland are indisputable: it broke the nation in half. At a million or more fatalities, it was one of the deadliest famines in history, in terms of percentage of population lost. A similar famine in the United States today would kill almost forty million people. Only the famine of 1918-22 in the Soviet Union may have been worse.

> Within a decade of the blight another two million fled Ireland. Many more followed in subsequent decades, inexorably driving its population down. The nation never regained its footing. As late as the 1960s its population was half what it had been in 1840.

> Today Ireland has the melancholy distinction of being the only nation in Europe, and perhaps the world, to have fewer people within the same boundaries than it did more than 150 years ago.

-- Transcribed from the book "1493" by Charles C. Mann.

[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IrelandEuropePopulat...

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by cnlevy on Thursday November 09, 2017 @01:20AM (#15660287)
> At a million or more fatalities, it was one of the deadliest famines in history, in terms of percentage of population lost

That accounts to 20-25% of the population, including emigration [0]

I found out the Great Famine of Mount Lebanon under Ottoman rule during 1915-1918 was much worse : 50% of the population (of 400 000) died. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Mount_Lebanon

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by Xeoncross on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:30AM (#15663722)
The Turkish government instigated the Great Famine of Mount Lebanon during the time they were also committing the Armenian Genocide.

When few noticed, Adolf Hitler seems to have taken it heart[0]:

> "Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter -- with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me."

> "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

[0] http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hitler.html

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by eitland on Friday November 10, 2017 @10:57AM (#15670693)
Wow, thats seriously disgusting to read.

I've been quite aware of the history but to read how he takes inspiration of cruelty makes it even more disgusting.

(Oh, and yes I'm fully aware a number of others like the French terror reign, Pol Pot, Rwanda, China, former Yugoslavia, Japan/China, India/minorities, a number of colonies of Western countries, natives of south and north America but for some reason the Armenians seems to go unnoticed. Thanks for reminding.)

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by dredmorbius on Thursday November 09, 2017 @08:23PM (#15667232)
There are historical famines with as much as 90% fatalities among local populations. Losses of 20-50% are relatively common.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by AnkhMorporkian on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:10AM (#15660045)
That's a fascinating fact as an Irish descendant in America of emigrants who left because of the famine, but I have to wonder if it's cherry picked. Is the same true of any number smaller than 100?

If I don't get an answer, I'll try to find some demographics numbers and figure it out tomorrow.

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by heylook on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @10:32PM (#15659621)
Are you arguing that individual SSNs are the primary driving force of the economic development of the last 200 years?
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by Spooky23 on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @10:44PM (#15659671)
Nope.

I would say that post-war, consumer credit drove American economic success, and that the SSN became a key part of that system. Had it not existed, something else would have served that function.

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by cowsandmilk on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @11:17PM (#15659814)
Yep, we would likely have the equivalent of a DUNS number instead, controlled by some private company spamming you on a regular basis.
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by fapjacks on Thursday November 09, 2017 @08:07AM (#15662028)
Oh god, this should be criminal. Once Dun & Bradstreet have your business information -- because you can't do any contracting without one! -- you start to get really really scummy calls trying to trip you up and get you to sign up for their business "services". They will call you and it will sound exactly like some government agency doing some routine government communication and verification of your information -- not asking you to volunteer any of it, because remember, they have all your information already because it's a legal requirement to have a DUNS number, which only they can issue -- and if you're distracted at all or just not on your game, suddenly you'll be signed up for all this expensive shit which is as sticky as any other scumbag subscription "service" out there. They are scummy dirtbags. What a nightmare!
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by kevin_thibedeau on Thursday November 09, 2017 @12:39PM (#15664246)
If only we had laws prohibiting racketeering and officials sworn to enforce them.
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by adrianratnapala on Thursday November 09, 2017 @10:46PM (#15667787)
"racketeering" is a terribly vague term, and if that is what your laws are supposed to prevent then you must expect official discretion. Which means you must expect politically connected incumbents to not be much touched by it.
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by vt100 on Thursday November 09, 2017 @02:26PM (#15665125)
The point of parent is that there are two crimes (or at least a crime and a tort) here: - by the scammer against the bank, i.e. fraud - by the bank against the legitimate identity owner, i.e. what the parent calls "bank slander"
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by danans on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @08:15PM (#15658858)
And related to your prior point about slavery, the function of personal bankruptcy is to prevent debt slavery: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bankruptcy_law
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by moonka on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @11:23PM (#15659836)
Which makes the changes to the rules surrounding personal bankruptcy in 2005 even more ominous, especially when it comes to big ticket items such as student loans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_an...

Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by coupdetaco on Thursday November 09, 2017 @01:16AM (#15660273)
The primary changes were to do with credit card debt. If you make >40k then you are not able to do Chapter 11. Instead, you need to do Chapter 7.
Re:Senators push to ditch social security numbers in light o... by howard941 on Thursday November 09, 2017 @08:53AM (#15662320)
No no no no, none of this is correct. Income limits are based on your state's median income for your family size. Chapter 11 is always available; it doesn't make sense for most individuals because of quarterly UST fees. Chapter 7, and Chapter 13 plans based on actual expenses were means tested. Private student loans were made non dischargable. Times between serial filings yielding a discharge were increased by 25%. Pre and post filing counseling/edu were mandated.

Google BAPCPA for more because the bill Bush signed sucks. EDIT: Nevermind, the wiki link in the post before yours is great.