Home > Identity Theft > The Government Is Doing a Bad Job Protecting Social Security Numbers

Comments 0 Comments

The Social Security Administration sent 352 million notices by snail mail in 2015. With volume like that — much of it containing valuable fraud-enabled information — you’d think the SSA would have a great system for protecting sensitive personally identifiable information from the constant threat of identity-related crime.

Think again.

Recently, the Office of the Inspector General of the SSA published a report entitled “Social Security Administration Correspondence Containing Full Social Security Numbers.” While it is akin to the Gobi desert on paper, there is one bit of terrible news in there that should, and really must, excite an apoplectically strong reaction. Of those 352 million notices sent out by the SSA in 2015, 223 million — a full 66% — included individuals’ Social Security Numbers. Not partials, not the last four digits but the Full Monty.

The reason the SSA had decided to include complete SSNs in correspondence was the most perplexing part. The logic is worthy of a Lewis Carroll story: “including the SSNs on notices is central to [the SSA’s] business processes because it supports the Agency’s current operational and systems infrastructure.”

Translation: the SSA is not going to lift a figural finger to avert a known threat — the use of SSNs in identity-related crime — because doing so would disrupt the way they do things, which, incidentally, is exposing individuals needlessly to the threat of identity-related crime.

Back in 2007, “The SSA considered removing SSNs from additional notices,” the report said. “It concluded that displaying the SSN on notices permitted instantaneous identification of a beneficiary and the location of his/her records in SSA’s computer systems. Additionally, removing the SSN would impede tele-service representatives’ ability to authenticate a caller.”

Got that? It’s easier.

The report also pointed to the fallibility of the U.S. Postal service, saying that they could not know how many of those notices actually arrived safely to their intended recipients.

One thing was abundantly clear from the Inspector General’s audit and investigation: More SSNs are included in the SSA workflow and paperwork than is necessary, a practice that creates a larger attackable surface for identity crime to take place. “However,” the report added, “we are not aware of any SSN misuse attributable to the SSN displayed on SSA notices.”

If only SSNs could have trackers that showed where they were stolen. In this era of constant threats, privacy and data security should not be a bolt on; it must be built into all processes. To not be actively working to protect people seriously ups the odds of a future crime — or, more to the point, a host of future crimes.

Disrupt This

Identity theft is no fallacy, and we know exactly where it comes from. There is an army of sophisticated, creative and extremely persistent criminals out there working every imaginable angle to get enough information to commit crimes using other peoples’ identities, and the Social Security number included in literally hundreds of millions of notices sent out by the SSA is the skeleton key to all their endeavors. Once your name can be tied to a particular SSN, your life, quite literally, is in the hands of a thief.

The rise of identity theft is undeniable at this point, and something I document at great length in my new book, Swiped. The SSA report goes into some detail regarding the way other federal agencies have handled the use of SSN in correspondence in light of the identity theft epidemic — the prime example being Medicare cards including the card bearer’s SSN — and the takeaway is that many of them are doing a better job than the SSA.

Identity theft is a disruption. One disruption breeds another until stability is reestablished. We are nowhere near that point yet.

The Inspector General has pointed out the error. There should be no more discussion. This is not a matter of how fast it can be done or how inconvenient it might be. There is no amount of human capital issues that can excuse the situation at the SSA with regard to correspondence containing SSNs. It doesn’t matter how much it will cost to fix the issue.

The government is supposed to serve us. It is not supposed to serve us on a platter for the nearest fraudster, lurking next to a mailbox so he or she can fleece this or that hapless individual who, because of institutional lassitude, has zero control over a life-changer (and not for the better) delivered by a letter carrier.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

More on Identity Theft:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team