New one to me: Want the Social Security No. of a dead person?

[AAA]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 415 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

[JoeH]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
[quote=JoeH]
[quote=Filliam H. Muffman]
SSN's are NOT unique numbers.

One of the reasons that credit companies sometimes will not tell you who is using your SSN is that it might just be a mistake on the name.

They are supposed to be unique, there have been very few duplicate numbers issued to two different individuals. So, sorry, your statement that they are not unique is mostly false. Also, none have been reissued once the original holder died. It will take several decades to exhaust the unused areas of the number sequence that remain.
So you don't really know how numbers are assigned, right?
Actually I do. The SS Administration publishes that information for any to read, and have for a long time. They picked an algorithm that was suited for the intended use, ID'ing a person paying into Social Security and possibly paying taxes on earnings. The intent is for the number to be unique, absent the occasional glitches in assigning them, the overwhelming majority are. They were not intended, and are not actually suited to be an universal identifier. Unfortunately they became a de facto one by businesses and other government organizations latching onto their use because they were ubiquitous and mostly unique.

[JoeH]

freeradical wrote:
[quote=AAA]
I was of the understanding that social security numbers are re-usable.

They're not supposed to be reused, but it does happen on occasion despite JoeH's protestations.
I did mention there were occasional errors. However, the rate is very low, the highest estimate I have seen puts it well under a tenth of a percent.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=Filliam H. Muffman]
[quote=JoeH]
[quote=Filliam H. Muffman]
SSN's are NOT unique numbers.

One of the reasons that credit companies sometimes will not tell you who is using your SSN is that it might just be a mistake on the name.

They are supposed to be unique, there have been very few duplicate numbers issued to two different individuals. So, sorry, your statement that they are not unique is mostly false. Also, none have been reissued once the original holder died. It will take several decades to exhaust the unused areas of the number sequence that remain.
So you don't really know how numbers are assigned, right?
Actually I do. The SS Administration publishes that information for any to read, and have for a long time. They picked an algorithm that was suited for the intended use, ID'ing a person paying into Social Security and possibly paying taxes on earnings. The intent is for the number to be unique, absent the occasional glitches in assigning them, the overwhelming majority are. They were not intended, and are not actually suited to be an universal identifier. Unfortunately they became a de facto one by businesses and other government organizations latching onto their use because they were ubiquitous and mostly unique.
So how many unique numbers are there in any region... 999,999? How many times must a number be reused when 5,000,000 people live in that region? The combination of a name and SSN makes a unique identifier but not the SSN alone.

[JoeH]

FHM wrote:
So how many unique numbers are there in any region... 999,999? How many times must a number be reused when 5,000,000 people live in that region? The combination of a name and SSN makes a unique identifier but not the SSN alone.

They do not do it that way. The SSA assigns additional area numbers (the first 3 digits of the SS#) to states whose numbers of applications require it. So for example, Texas initially was assigned numbers in the block beginning with 449-467. The additional area number blocks beginning with 627-645 have since been added to the group assigned to Texas.

Beyond that, they do not reuse numbers intentionally. They currently have a pool of around 400 million unused numbers, and region/area numbers above 770-something have not even been assigned for use. There are other area numbers in the range below 770 that have also not been assigned for use yet either.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

And why haven't there been numbers above 770-something assigned? Because they are reusing numbers. I met someone that was a victim of identity theft and she found that two other people were using her SSN, both legally.

[JoeH]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
And why haven't there been numbers above 770-something assigned? Because they are reusing numbers. I met someone that was a victim of identity theft and she found that two other people were using her SSN, both legally.

Possibly legally, but not by the intent of the way the SSA assigns numbers. Get this through your head, they do not intentionally re-use numbers. There have been glitches and errors over the years where numbers that had been used were unintentionally listed as available for assignment and were given out to the next group of applicants. There have also been a number of instances where a person lost track of their number and on application for a replacement card were given the number of another person with the same name. They did not notice the number was not what they had originally, or because it had been assigned when they were a child did not know the original number.

As for the 770+ area numbers, they have not been assigned because they were not needed to be assigned yet. The nine-digit SS# gives around 990 million possible numbers after the reserved ones and the all-zero numbers for each grouping are removed from availability. So far the SSA has issued SS#'s to just over 500 million individuals. If you examine the demographics for the 73 years since they started issuing numbers, that is about what should have been issued based on the population who lived in that period. As stated, that leaves over 400 million unused.

[OWC Jamie]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
And why haven't there been numbers above 770-something assigned? Because they are reusing numbers. I met someone that was a victim of identity theft and she found that two other people were using her SSN, both legally.

I rather doubt identity theft is an authorized method of obtaining a SSN. :-)


Was it this one ? :

[RAMd®d]

Get this through your head, they do not intentionally re-use numbers.

I can't tell if he is just yankin' your chain or is trying to split a red pubic hair.

He doesn't speak to intentions, just a couple of data points that certainly seem to be unintentional.

Personally, with regards to another post, I've never understood SSNs (the numbers) to be re-usable.

Certainly ne'er do wells have reused them, but I believe that violates the EULA.

[JoeH]

RAMd®d wrote:
Get this through your head, they do not intentionally re-use numbers.

I can't tell if he is just yankin' your chain or is trying to split a red pubic hair.

He doesn't speak to intentions, just a couple of data points that certainly seem to be unintentional.

Personally, with regards to another post, I've never understood SSNs (the numbers) to be re-usable.

Certainly ne'er do wells have reused them, but I believe that violates the EULA.

Go back to his earlier post. He specifically states they have to be reusing numbers, such as this statement of his:

FHM wrote:
So how many unique numbers are there in any region... 999,999? How many times must a number be reused when 5,000,000 people live in that region? The combination of a name and SSN makes a unique identifier but not the SSN alone.

All his comments show a near total miscomprehension of the system used to assign numbers. Someone else posted they thought numbers from deceased persons were reused, and he seemed to buy into that as well. So he can point to a few cases of duplication, but to extrapolate from that they are re-using numbers because they need to is a major failing of logic, and a misunderstanding of the relatively simple math needed to show it was not necessary.

Now if he really wanted to know how numbers are assigned, he could read the wiki article. It does a fairly good job of condensing the information from the publications of the SSA. I first started to have to read through those back in the early '80's in connection with use of the numbers in computing. So I have a fairly good idea of how the system works and why it is so totally a bad ID number to use in a lot of database work. But the intent is for each to be unique, the failure rate is very low on that other than from fraudulent uses.