SHOCKING NEWS: Big Banks Not Ready For Mobile
-
and has consistently shown all the signs of Clue****strong text.
Phylip Doughty did it, in the Bank Vault, with a Sack of Quarters
-
In theory, it's illegal to use SSNs for 99.9% of the stuff they're used for here.
IIRC, that's recent legislation. Like in the 00s.
SSNs used to be free-game. The reason everybody used them was everybody (by which I mean really stupid people) assumed the Federal Government made some effort to ensure every person had a unique one. Which has never been a safe assumption. Even when they were brand-new in the 30s.
So now we're in this shitty mode where the US has no national identity number, but a thousand morons who wrote databases assume it does, so they use a number which is extremely unsuitable to be used as a national identity number.
Ironically, we do have State identity numbers (it's on your driver's license or State ID card), and pretty much every State (if not absolutely every State) ensures they give a unique one to every citizen, but nobody uses those. For some reason.
-
IIRC, that's recent legislation. Like in the 00s.
Actually, I don't think it's a thing at all.
...and go down to the section "Expanding Uses of the SSN." There's a lot of stuff in there about the government using it for more and more things, but nothing really about restricting its use.
-
Maybe it was debated and not passed?
I definitely remember discussions in the 00s about restricting the use of SSNs, but who knows. It could have just been debated, maybe it was just some think tank recommending it. My memory's too vague and a quick Google isn't turning up anything.
EDIT: I did find this document from 2008 listing States with SSN protection laws:
Press Releases
Placholder page, edits to the the title will change the title of the press releases page
It refers to a 2007 GAO study, which might be what I'm thinking about-- I bet it got a lot of press coverage at the time. Anyway.
-
Ironically, we do have State identity numbers (it's on your driver's license or State ID card), and pretty much every State (if not absolutely every State) ensures they give a unique one to every citizen, but nobody uses those. For some reason.
Because people move across state lines all the time, thus getting new state IDs. The "engineers" who designed the systems which use SSNs probably don't want to figure out how to match up the different state IDs in those scenarios.
Not only that, but it breaks their precious "government ID is a lifelong, unique ID" rule. Changing to state issued ID numbers would mean that they couldn't use government issued ID numbers as immutable keys!
Disclaimer: I am not saying that these are good excuses, just that they are likely excuses.
-
I remember hearing about it too - but maybe that's because I'm in CA and that's listed in the link you posted...
-
In theory, it's illegal to use SSNs for 99.9% of the stuff they're used for here. Or at least, that's what they were originally. By now, everyone's SSN has been spread around all over the place, it's hardly worth considering private.
Heh. We recently switched from JMBG to OIB here. The main reason for the switch was that the JMBG was constructed as
DDMMYYYXXXNNC where
- DDMMYYY - date of birth, yes, that's 3 digits for the year, because of course the first one is a 1, who ever heard of year 2000, that will never happen
- XXX - code of your place of birth
- NN - something either random or sequential, not sure
- C - a checksum digit
So yeah, given some basic information on myself you could guess it in a maximum of, I believe. 90 tries (never saw a 0N number, though if they existed bump it up to 99).
So it got replaced by a random secret OIB, for security reasons. It's supposed to be:
- random - check, got that one, as far as I can tell
- secret - to this day there's a web page where I can enter my name and JMBG and get my OIB. Or is it my ID card number? Even better if latter since it contains almost ALL of the needed info
- not printed on any documents - it's on my national healthcare card. Also, I think it's on newer driver's licences, mine's a few years old
- should be never given out expect for the tax service and... something else I think? - it's on 99.9% of all the forms I ever had to fill out
Business as usual.
Also, holy balls, I just said recent and it was like, 8-10 years ago. Where's my cane...
-
DDMMYYY - date of birth, yes, that's 3 digits for the year, because of course the first one is a 1, who ever heard of year 2000, that will never happen
Hah, we can one-up you - PESEL begins with YYMMDD, except MM can have 80 added to it if you're born before 1900, or 20 after 2000 (or 40 after .2100, or 60 after 2200, and after 2300 we're moving to stardates anyway so who cares).
Also it encodes your gender with even/odd on the 10th position or so (how the SJWs aren't up in arms about it is beyond me...). So, given that there are 11 digits including one checksum, it's ready for at most 5000 births of any given gender on any given day.
-
Hah, we can one-up you - PESEL begins with YYMMDD, except MM can have 80 added to it if you're born before 1900, or 20 after 2000 (or 40 after .2100, or 60 after 2200, and after 2300 we're moving to stardates anyway so who cares).
Ouch!
Also it encodes your gender with even/odd on the 10th position or so
Oh! Right! Correction! XXX part is a code for place of birth AND sex. It's stuff like 325 is male born in city X, 344 is female born in the same city. Or is it hospital level? What if you were born in a village without a hospital? NFC.
-
NN - something either random or sequential, not sure
What happens if a large hospital births more than 100 (or 90) children of the same gender?
Not as likely as a city birthing 100 total but still...
-
What happens if a large hospital births more than 100 (or 90) children of the same gender?
Actually not sure. I think the XXX part ticks over? Hence the codes for male and female not being sequential?
Anyway, it's not being used any more, so the point is
now.
-
it's ready for at most 5000 births of any given gender on any given day.
You say that as if it’s (soon to be) a problem. Last year there were [url=http://www.stat.ee/29946]375160 children born in Poland[/url], or 1027 per day. Presumably this was split approximately 50/50 between boys and girls, so the system has a capacity some ten times what’s currently required. On average, of course, but I doubt that with an average of 1027 there’d be peaks of 10000+ a day.
-
-
Fucking Polish!
Yes, that is how they manage to get 375,160 children per year. Next question?
