I'm going to have to start checking on the other forty-nine states, now. You're right: that Social Security number is just about ubiquitous, and I'm remarkably stubborn about sticking hard-and-fast to the "Social Security purposes ONLY [my emphasis]" and not giving it out. The public library doesn't need it and in fact shouldn't ask for it. My state used to require it on one's motor vehicle operator's license, but enough people protested that, in this age of identity theft, that we've finally made it a foolhardy option. Credit card companies insist on it, but I can't see any reason why they should have it. I can see where they find it *useful,* but not that they should have it. Employers do need to have it. They are paying into either Soc. Sec. or to FICA , whichever applies, for their employees. Ask yourself: if you were living under this system of government, and a medical care facility requested your SS number and, barring an actual emergency, was going to withold treatment until you told it to them...how long would you hold out?
Regarding voter registration, I made an error in fact: I said that no one who is not a registered voter may vote. That's incorrect: the State of North Dakota does not require its residents to register for voting and is the only state which does allow voting without voter registration.
Re: privacy issues. I agree: combining databases does raise privacy issues. "For the benefit of---" would be the most likely and likely the most immediate response, and "just party affiliation and SS number, and we'll allow the following categories of health care providers access to those records, et cetera." Right now I have no solutions to this, not even half-baked ones; or at least, I have no succinct ones.
You're welcome, and I hope I haven't forgotten *too* much since my days of Civics and US Government classes...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2009-08-30 02:48 pm (UTC)You're right: that Social Security number is just about ubiquitous, and I'm remarkably stubborn about sticking hard-and-fast to the "Social Security purposes ONLY [my emphasis]" and not giving it out. The public library doesn't need it and in fact shouldn't ask for it. My state used to require it on one's motor vehicle operator's license, but enough people protested that, in this age of identity theft, that we've finally made it a foolhardy option. Credit card companies insist on it, but I can't see any reason why they should have it. I can see where they find it *useful,* but not that they should have it.
Employers do need to have it. They are paying into either Soc. Sec. or to FICA , whichever applies, for their employees.
Ask yourself: if you were living under this system of government, and a medical care facility requested your SS number and, barring an actual emergency, was going to withold treatment until you told it to them...how long would you hold out?
Regarding voter registration, I made an error in fact: I said that no one who is not a registered voter may vote. That's incorrect: the State of North Dakota does not require its residents to register for voting and is the only state which does allow voting without voter registration.
Re: privacy issues. I agree: combining databases does raise privacy issues. "For the benefit of---" would be the most likely and likely the most immediate response, and "just party affiliation and SS number, and we'll allow the following categories of health care providers access to those records, et cetera."
Right now I have no solutions to this, not even half-baked ones; or at least, I have no succinct ones.
You're welcome, and I hope I haven't forgotten *too* much since my days of Civics and US Government classes...