Not everyone has (or can have) a driver's license and a social security card literally says it is *not* for identification because it lacks even the most basic aspects. But since the US never managed to come up with an actual system, companies started using SSNs like an identity verifier, because it is the one thing everyone has across every state. But that also makes identity theft or credit fraud trivial in the US compared to other countries.

That's correct, but what does a driver license have to do with it? A state-issued driver license is one document that can serve as identification. There are plenty of others, including those that are solely for identification. Are you unintentionally conflating them, or are you suggesting that there a eligible people who are unable to get an identity document?

> companies started using SSNs like an identity verifier

Probably because USGOV said it is[0]

"In 1943 a presidential executive order directed the military and other government agencies to use the number for identification purposes, and in 1961 the Internal Revenue Service began using the number for taxpayer identification."

[0] https://www.straightdope.com/21341325/why-does-my-old-social...

> a social security card literally says it is not for identification

It no longer says this, and has not for a long long time. My parent's cards did, but mine does not. Also, I'm old (for this forum at least), so this isn't a recent change.

> It no longer says this, and has not for a long long time.

Don't know about "a long long time" but the feds have been treating Social Security Cards as identification since 1943 (military, some agencies) or 1963 (IRS) (cf [0])

[0] https://www.straightdope.com/21341325/why-does-my-old-social...

I think you're misunderstanding why they are requesting an SSN. You cannot use an SSN to do an in person ID like a photo ID. Same reason a birth certificate cannot be used as an ID. These documents can be used to look up information about you, and a lot of places might use your SSN as a database unique ID, but that kind of info is not identification when someone shouts "papers!" at you.

conflating the two meanings of identification feels deliberate at this point

  > identity theft

Identity can not be stolen.

Some financial institutions may not have proper fraud prevention policies, but that is a problem both caused by and to be resolved by the financial institution, not the consumer. Pretending it's the consumer's problem may protect the financial institution, but leads to entire categories of new problems far more devastating. Don't pretend some nebulous concept of identity has been stolen. Say it like it is: the financial institution was defrauded due to their own lax policies.

Identity theft is commonly understood to be exactly what you just mentioned. Obviously no one can steal me (which is exactly what I thought when I first heard the term as a broke college kid; who wants to be me anyway?)

We aren't "pretending" it's a consumer problem. It is a consumer problem. When someone opens up a credit card or loan in my namd, whose life gets messed up? Not the banks! Pretending it's not a consumer problem is dangerous and can lead to a lot of messed up financial lives.

Personally, I freeze my credit with all major bureaux, and I shred any mail that has my name on it. It's annoying, yes, but the alternative is even more annoying.

The only reason _you_ have a problem when somebody defrauds the bank, is because the banks sufficiently marketed the term Identify Theft. In reality, nothing of yours was stolen. In reality, the actual illicit act was somebody lying to the bank, and the bank not properly verifying who that person is.

You say nothing of mine is stolen but they hypothetically just racked up $10k debt on my identity. This is stuff that affects real things like my ability to get a mortgage, and I am also on the hook for that money unless I find a way to cancel that card. No matter the case, it very much is my problem, and they successfully took money from someone else (the bank) and made me pay for it. That's theft.

> the actual illicit act was somebody lying to the bank

Yes, this is known as fraud, and the entire concept of identity theft.

No, they defrauded a bank for $10k. But the bank successfully convinced you that it's your problem, not theirs.

You must not live in the US or have very odd patterns, I'm positive a majority of the US population have free credit monitoring due to the multiple SSN data leaks.

The situation is so bad that the SSA has to explicitly state: "Social Security card is not an identification document" https://www.ssa.gov/blog/en/posts/2023-03-23.html

Ah, yes, I'm sure the crap that they make up next week won't ever leak anything.

I think they're talking about proving your identity to a non govt entity. A few things that come to mind are any platform with a KYC, they require you to upload your ID and assure you they're secure with a little lock icon.

Even proving your identity to a government entity is non-trivial, as can be seen by the administration trying to use that as a new poll tax.

When I needed to get my newborn daughter's social security card I went to the local SS office, only to be turned away because I did not have an appointment. So I went home, finally got an appointment after an hour on the phone, trying to explain why I didn't have her SS card (apparently "it never arrived" did not compute), went back the next day with my passport card to provide as proof of identity. Only for them to say "we don't accept passport cards as ID. We can use your license though!"

Baffling.

The identity issuer - the government - already has the your privacy. If you have a unique identifier from the government which websites can call the government with to verify your identity, you won't lose any privacy. All the websites get is just a unique string, no date of birth, no name, no address. This approach is the cornerstone of oauth/oidc.

> I'm not sure what's a mess about a driver's license, social security card

Neither of those are accepted by various states' voter id laws, nor can you reliably board an airplane with them since RealID.

The only foolproof identity card in the US appears to be a passport (which, you know, global federal identity card... exactly what the folks against universal ids dislike)

My drivers license is a real id and has been for like 5 years? This is a non issue if you went to the DMV instead of waiting until now.

A Real ID isn’t reliable proof of citizenship.

To clarify: in a number of states a Real ID doesn't include a citizenship indicator, and a Real ID in those states is not sufficient identification for voting purposes.

For the majority of existing Real IDs, they will not be valid proof of eligibility to vote.[1]

> While your REAL ID would count as a photo ID when voting, in only a few states would it be considered proof of citizenship. Only five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — offer the type of enhanced REAL IDs that explicitly indicate U.S. citizenship.

> Outside of those states, you would need another document to prove you were born in the U.S.

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5787733-woul...

> This is a non issue if you went to the DMV instead of waiting until now.

This is incorrect. RealID is optional on DLs. Assuming modern DLs are all RealIDs is wrong.

Well it’d be pretty time wastey to not get a real ID when they’ve been screaming about it for what a decade now?

DHS's own testimony that they've successfully gotten warrants issued on the basis of, is that real id is not realiable.

My research suggests that all U.S. states that require identification at the polls accept a driving license as a form of valid photo ID. Are you aware of any that don’t?

> My research suggests that all U.S. states that require identification at the polls accept a driving license as a form of valid photo ID.

Not today. However, there is a bill in the Senate, that the President is demanding to be passed, that would eliminate this reality.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2026/03/17/save-amer...

>Records from a federal citizenship verification tool show that just 0.04% of voter verification cases were returned as noncitizens in August 2025.

Seems like this is just one of those "feel-good" laws. A waste of time and money.

It's not about eliminating voter fraud - it appears to be about eliminating large swathes of legitimate voters, largely in correlation with how they are expected to vote.

The federal government is trying to create problems. For instance, a Real ID won't be good enough to vote this fall if SAVE passes:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2025/apr/18/byron-dona...

There are also a bunch of other gotchas: Original birth certificates and all currently-issued military IDs are not acceptable, for instance (even though the bill lists birth certificates and military IDs as acceptable, there are carve-outs to ban the common cases).

Good luck getting a passport between now and then.

> The federal government is trying to create problems.

All of the voter ID requirements in the SAVE Act are conservative wet dreams To deny undesirable populations the right to vote. see: https://fairelectionscenter.org/advocacy/save-act-2025/

Wikipedia has a great list of current and past methods of voter suppression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite...

To be clear, it's not required to vote. It's required for a new registration to vote. Which is typically done when you get a new ID, which already requires having those documents, more even because you have to show proof of current residence.

Lots of people have their registrations incorrectly purged due to seeming "suspicious", with those who are naturalized citizens or aren't white being disproportionately impacted. If the SAVE act passes, re-registering to vote will get much harder.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/30/gop-...

So there is no problem to solve?

What do you think the problem to solve is? Please use quantitative data in your answer.

I don't think there is any problem to solve, that was my point. It is already illegal to vote as a non-citizen.

In my state you can only get an ID mailed, and it has to be mailed to your primary residence. Except the mail doesn't go to many primary residences. The USPS straight up refuses to mine and gets real nasty if you ask them to, as they ask for made up paperwork requirements (certificate of occupancy) that isn't even issued for some houses in my county (this paper only needed if you want to follow certain increased scrutiny building options and plan on getting a mortgage, in my case there is no legal way for me to get one). Now if you're actually homeless you can use a shelter as a legal residence for your ID, but if you have a real legal residence USPS refuses to then you are shit out of luck.

A couple decades ago they used to print the ID then and there, IDs were far more accessible back then. For some god forsaken reason they stopped that most everywhere.

> Neither of those are accepted by various states' voter id laws

You've made this up.

> nor can you reliably board an airplane with them since RealID.

That sounds like a problem that they created, and can choose to uncreate. I don't need to know the identity of people on planes any more than I need to know the identity of people in trains, buses, or taxis. "RealID" itself is dumb, and was the result of wearing down popular resistance for decades.