SCAN THIS NEWS 7.17.2000

ACTION ALERT ON SSN ISSUE! Now is the time to act!

Attention is NOW being given in Congress to the issue of "mis-use of Social Security Numbers." If you've ever complained about, or objected to someone demanding a Social Security Number as a condition to your participating in some activity, NOW is the time to state your case and make it heard in Congress!

U.S. Representative Clay Shaw from Florida has been holding hearings this month (July) on the "mis-use" of Social Security Numbers. Bills are currently being consideration in Congress that would (in their words) "limit" or "restrict" the uses that can be made of SSNs.

One of the government representatives invited to testify before Mr. Shaw's Committee was Barbara Bovbjerg, Associate Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues. Her pro-big-brother response oozed with honey. Ms. Bovbjerg had nothing but good and kind things to say about government-mandated universal identification schemes made possible by the SSN (see excerpts below).

Many people have become totally jaded by the disconnect between Congress and the American people -- understandably so. However, if we take this opportunity to rebut Ms. Bovbjerg's government line, and state our objections LOUD AND CLEAR, we may actually get Congress to hear our complaints.

It has been often observation that much of the legislation put forward as "protecting privacy" actually serves to grant government agencies and businesses access to private information. For this reason, any legislation which purports to "protect our SSNs" should be viewed with close scrutiny and a healthy degree of skepticism.

Remember, Rep. Shaw is favorable towards "limiting" the uses that can be made of SSNs. Unfortunately, however, he does not as yet fully understand many of the legitimate objections. And, as you can see below, the Committee hears some very one-sided views from some very pro-government, government employees who get paid by government to testify before Congress about why government needs a universal identifier!

A direct email address was not available for sending electronic correspondence to Representative Shaw. There was, however, a web page link where messages can be sent to him. In order to do spell check, it is usually better to compose your message elsewhere (such as your email program or word processor) then paste it into the web-based messaging window.

I suspect that if we were to flood Representative Shaw with messages and letters, and phone calls, telling him how much we object to SSNs being used for identification, he and his Committee would see through Ms. Bovbjerg's duplicity.

How to Reach Congressman Shaw-

Write Representative Shaw electronically by going to: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Enter-

State: Florida Zip: 33301-4000

If I find out about a direct email address I will send it to the list.

Other contact information: http://www.house.gov/shaw/

Washington Office Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr. 2408 Rayburn House Office Building Washington D.C. 20515 202-225-3026

Ft. Lauderdale Office Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr. 1512 East Broward Blvd. Suite #101 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-522-1800 Fax 954-768-0511

Palm Beach Office Congressman E. Clay Shaw Jr. 222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 162 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-832-3007 Fax 561-832-0227

Dade and Palm Beach Counties toll-free telephone number: 930-7429

---

It should be noted that Shaw's official web page has a section dedicated to "Saving Social Security" -- not an agenda we at SCAN are concerned with.

--- [My letter to Shaw]

Dear Representative Shaw:

I just finished reading the very misleading letter posted on the GAO Web page written by Barbara Bovbjerg, Associate Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, who recently testified before your Committee.

Ms. Bovbjerg has done a terrible injustice to those of us who genuinely object to the universal identification made possible by the government- issued national identifier, the SSN. The half-truths contained therein are unconscionable.

For example, Ms. Bovbjerg says that:

"States vary in whether they require an SSN as part of the application for non-commercial driver licenses. Some require it for inclusion in a database, some do not, and in some states it is optional."

I submit that Ms. Bovbjerg knows full well that she is attempting to mislead your Committee with her distorted assertions. The fact is that in 1996 Congress passed a multitude of new federal laws which now force individuals to submit their SSN as a condition to being licensed. And I don't mean just driver licenses. This SSN-for-license requirement includes driver licenses, hunting and fishing licenses, occupational and professional licenses, marriage licenses, birth certificates, death certificates, and in fact, all other state-issued licenses as well.

The U.S. Code, section 231.302, provides as follows:

"(c) To assist in the administration of laws relating to child support enforcement under Parts A and D of Title IV of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 601-617 and 651-669): (1) each licensing authority shall request and each applicant for a license shall provide the applicant's social security number."

Section 666 of that Title has been periodically revised over the last several years. On August 22, 1996, Congress adopted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, P.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, which amended many of the sections noted above, including '666 via '317 of this act (110 Stat. 2220). After this amendment, '666 read in part as follows:

"Sec. 666. Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement

"(a) Types of procedures required-

"In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws requiring the use of the following procedures, consistent with this section and with regulations of the Secretary, to increase the effectiveness of the program which the State administers under this part:

.........

"(13) Recording of Social Security Numbers in certain family matters. Procedures requiring that the social security number of -

"(A) any applicant for a professional license, commercial driver's license, recreational license, occupational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application;

"(B) any individual who is subject to a divorce decree, support order, or paternity determination or acknowledgment be placed in the records relating to the matter; and

"(C) any individual who has died be placed in the records relating to the death and be recorded on the death certificate.

"For purposes of subparagraph (A), if a State allows the use of a number other than the social security number 'to be used on the face of the document while the social security number is kept on file at the agency', the State shall so advise any applicants."

It should be noted that the first iteration of 666(a)(13)(A) required submission of SSNs only for "commercial" driver licenses. However, in a deliberate slight-of-hand, the driving forces behind the SSN requirement came back the following year and, claiming it was only a "technical correction", had Congress delete the word "commercial" from the law thereby causing the SSN requirement to be imposed upon all 180 million non-commercial drivers in the US!

See Deception by Legislation: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page1/fp-deception.html

Ms. Bovbjerg goes on to say:

"Limits on the use of SSNs could make it harder for health care service providers to track patients medical histories, make it less easy for employers to do background checks, and lessen the certainty with which credit information could be matched to specific individuals."

What business is it of Congress is it to facilitate these privacy- invading tasks? The obvious answer is: None! But even more-clearly stated, it is these very activities that are at the heart of the objections to universal SSN identification for privacy reasons.

Ms. Bovbjerg also states:

"While recent reports indicate that the [data-mining] companies have generally complied with the agreement to limit their sale of SSNs that they obtain from nonpublic sources, it should be noted that the SSNs contained in the records they acquire are more likely to come from public sources, according to an information broker."

Obviously these "public sources" are one of the biggest problems. They (state agencies) first mandate the submission of SSNs from the public, then make their records available to "information brokers" -- all associated with the person's SSN. This can only be viewed as deceptive, manipulative and coercive!

But perhaps the greatest attempt at deceiving Congress comes where Ms. Bovbjerg tells your Committee:

"Some states have taken steps to protect individuals privacy by changing whether they display SSNs on driver licenses. For example, according to driver license officials in Georgia and Massachusetts, these states no longer automatically use SSNs as driver license numbers. They give drivers the option of using a state generated license number, instead of their SSN. Similarly, driver license officials in Ohio told us that the state previously printed SSNs along with state-assigned numbers on driver licenses, but now allows drivers the option of not having SSNs printed on their licenses. According to an American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators official, only Hawaii still requires that SSNs be used as a drivers license number, but the state plans to discontinue this requirement next year."

I submit to you that both Ms. Bovbjerg and the AAMVA know full well that this is smoke and mirrors. Please see my web page dedicated to this subject: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page4/fp-04-page4-winners-losers.html

To say that "the states are not publishing SSNs 'on the licenses'" is pure hogwash. The point is that the states' are mandating and demanding that applicants for new and renewal driver license must submit their SSN as a condition to their being issued a license.

The issue your Committee needs to address is with regard to the social activities which now necessitate use of the ubiquitous, government- issued, universal identifier -- the SSN -- as a condition for participation. As a result of recent Congressional acts, these activities now include driving, working, banking, obtaining Postal Money Orders, obtaining insurance, enrolling in school or college, claiming children on tax returns, obtaining a passport, trading securities... just to name a few.

Today, there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of Americans who drive without licenses because they object to using their SSN for identification due to religious beliefs. The requirement for the submission of an SSN as a condition for their receiving a license prevents them from obtaining. How can this be considered "American"? What is your Committee going to about these travesties of justice?

Scott McDonald

IMPORTANT NEW CONGRESSIONAL REPORT ON THE USE AND MISUSE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS: http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page2/fp-gao-report-analysis.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Social security is the bane of individual liberty. - SAM

-- (sis@home.zzz), July 18, 2000

Answers

Sis, I went with my son to get him his driving permit TODAY, and they required his social security number. I didn't even think twice about it either, just coughed it up. They don't put them on the driver's license here, so I wonder what they even needed it for? Sheesh.

(PS..help, my little baby boy is going to be driving...help!)

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), July 18, 2000.