4 recommendations |
Shamayim
Premium Member
2017-Oct-3 7:34 pm
Yay! a new number to leak (Medicare only) from 2018 MC Handbook |
MC is issuing new personal numbers next year, replacing the SS# that now appears on everyone's MC card. Not a bad idea . . . I suppose. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
10 recommendations |
I'm trying to picture all the medical software that expects a Medicare number to be xxx-xx-xxx format with all digits and the chaos this will cause until all the programs get updated. Unfortunately, I can't.
Then there's all the databases that will persist in carrying both the old number and the new one "for continuity" of patient history... when (not if) those get hacked, they will make a handy-dandy cross reference which will negate the new number's 'security improvements'. |
|
DonoftheDeadOld diver Premium Member join:2004-07-12 Clinton, WA
9 recommendations |
to Shamayim
It wouldn't surprise me if the new numbers wound up on the dark web before we even get them. |
|
3 recommendations |
to Shamayim
Let's see.. uh.. (three ss number)(add two of the new number)(add half ss number and half the new number)
But, but.. that is my number, what do you mean you can't find me...what card? Oh, the one I left at home? |
|
dave Premium Member join:2000-05-04 not in ohio
4 recommendations |
to Blackbird
said by Blackbird:I'm trying to picture all the medical software that expects a Medicare number to be xxx-xx-xxx format with all digits and the chaos this will cause until all the programs get updated. I view that as a upside - maybe it'll teach a few programmers not to wire assumptions deep in their code. The medicine may taste bad but it'll do them some good. |
|
5 recommendations |
to Shamayim
Meh, it will just be another government number that they "promise" will never be used as a universal identifier. And that promise will be broken also. |
|
1 recommendation |
to Shamayim
the VA did that a few years ago. unfortunately, when i get my VA flu shot at Walgreens, i have to put my SSN on the form. so what's the use of having a member id number? |
|
4 recommendations |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2017-Oct-4 10:46 am
From what I've seen from the TV ads and the above announcement this is only intended to prevent theft of SSN's from actual physical Medicare cards.
Presumably those with such cards lose them, leave them lying around, etc.
So the new cards either are intended to
• Counteract a real issue (theft of SSN's from cards).
• The US Govt. (Medicare) is spending a lot of money that doesn't address the real issue. |
|
|
AsherN Premium Member join:2010-08-23 Thornhill, ON
2 recommendations |
to dave
said by dave:said by Blackbird:I'm trying to picture all the medical software that expects a Medicare number to be xxx-xx-xxx format with all digits and the chaos this will cause until all the programs get updated. I view that as a upside - maybe it'll teach a few programmers not to wire assumptions deep in their code. The medicine may taste bad but it'll do them some good. Knowing the length, format and validation routine for and field, especially what becomes a key identifier and likely the primary key to the database, is just good programming. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
3 recommendations |
to dave
said by dave:said by Blackbird:I'm trying to picture all the medical software that expects a Medicare number to be xxx-xx-xxx format with all digits and the chaos this will cause until all the programs get updated. I view that as a upside - maybe it'll teach a few programmers not to wire assumptions deep in their code. The medicine may taste bad but it'll do them some good. Unfortunately, the way it actually will work is that it will make a number of software companies a lot of money as the result of necessary program upgrades that will be sold to accommodate the new mandated format. Since the change would be the result of a revised government requirement, it would ripple down as a financial reward for wiring in similar assumptions in the future. Such a process illustrates the Law of Unintended Consequences. |
|
Kilroy MVM join:2002-11-21 Saint Paul, MN
3 recommendations |
to Shamayim
I want to say that they have been on the other medical insurance providers to not use your SSN for medical insurance information for over a decade, about time the government caught up. |
|
dave Premium Member join:2000-05-04 not in ohio
3 recommendations |
to Blackbird
Well, the smart way is to wire in the current format at a single point of truth, quote 1 man-year to fix it at large cost, and make an enormous profit on your half-hour of work. Quality programming is not incompatible with massive profiteering! |
|
dave |
to AsherN
Perhaps, but the usual reason such things are hard to change is that 746 individual pieces of code all independently "know" the structure. And the hard part is locating those 746 routines.
(The important word in my posting, I suppose, was "deep") |
|
1 edit
2 recommendations |
to Shamayim
Most important thing to note however - the new number can't be used to get credit cards or loans as you and THAT is the large issue with the SSN on the Medicare care (that should have never been there). |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
2 recommendations |
to Shamayim
Considering that way back at the beginning, the SSN itself was to be simply a retirement account number for each citizen and never to be used for anything else, the path for it to become effectively a national ID number turned out to be slippery - and politically inevitable. As such, any new Federal-level, citizen-related numbering scheme has similar potential and must be watched carefully to prevent its misuse in the future. |
|
2 recommendations |
StuartMW
Premium Member
2017-Oct-5 1:37 pm
I think the next big push won't be for a National ID card (i.e. a SSN card with a photo) but an embedded, at birth, identifier (e.g. like an RFID tag).
Harder to fake (but possible), economic (i.e cheap), and able to replace everyting else. No need for DL's, passports, etc (just scan the person and check a database). |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
3 recommendations |
to Shamayim
Positive identification has always been challenging, even back when it was via in-person, visible, Q/A criteria. Replacing the actual person with a symbolic representation of whatever kind has only made the problem worse, and symbolic representation is what computers and digital communications are all about. Technology comes and goes, as does its effectiveness for aiding positive identification... but the ID problem will probably never really be 100% resolved, no matter how many multi-factor mechanisms, recognition schemes, or chip-implants are invented. In the meantime, the eternal threats to individual freedom and privacy involved in any approach to national ID will remain. |
|
|
StuartMW
Premium Member
2017-Oct-5 3:25 pm
One could use an ID based on a persons DNA (the unique part) which would be really hard to fake. One could always verify the ID by taking a DNA sample.
Of course it may become possible to read a persons DNA very quickly in which case no other kind of ID will be required. |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
said by StuartMW:One could use an ID based on a persons DNA (the unique part) which would be really hard to fake. One could always verify the ID by taking a DNA sample. ... The ID problem would especially still remain for remote personal identification (online, etc). There's not even a conceptual mechanism for live-testing a person's DNA remotely, and anything like some future sampling mechanism as part of a user computer would be inherently subject itself to potential tampering or fakery as are all such mechanisms. Whatever symbols stand in for a human being are subject to counterfeiting or impersonation, given the well-demonstrated array of human cleverness. |
|
Hitron CDA3 (Software) OpenBSD + pf
|
to StuartMW
said by StuartMW:One could use an ID based on a persons DNA Yes, DNA is completely unique but the equipment used to test, analyze and measure them are highly vulnerable. |
|
R2R Not MVM join:2000-09-18 Long Beach, CA 1 edit |
to Shamayim
You mean our government lied to us??! I remember my parents’ SS cards had this on them. By the time I got mine (decades ago), that statement was gone. Look at all the problems that created! Who decided to do this?? And is facial recognition the answer? Can’t I just buy a Donald Trump mask at the local ‘Joke and Magic Shop’ - and then can I run the country? Hey, I might do a better job! (Oh, sorry - didn’t mean to give this a political twist!) |
|
dave Premium Member join:2000-05-04 not in ohio |
dave
Premium Member
2017-Oct-6 7:39 am
said by R2:You mean our government lied to us??! It's the card that is not for identification. Possession of the card does not identify you as "R2". "The government" cannot control whether some for-profit company decides to use your social-security number for identification. Well, they could have made a law against it, but they didn't. Compare a credit card. That's not for identification, either, but it says nothing about the use of the number on the card. Yours for accuracy in use of language! |
|
R2R Not MVM join:2000-09-18 Long Beach, CA 3 edits |
R2
MVM
2017-Oct-6 9:27 am
I have always chosen to use language as it fits me. Is that not correct?
The only thing on the card is the number (well, that and your name). So it stands to reason that they were referring to the number. It also stands to reason that that is why they removed that statement (i.e., people were using the number for dedication purposes). Otherwise the statement would still be there… Wouldn’t it?
Fun fact: the number appeared on the cards from 1946 to 1972. It was never meant to be used in the national identifying number, but that’s what happened anyways. And now that certainly has caused a lot of problems… |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for Speed Premium Member join:2005-01-14 Fort Wayne, IN
6 recommendations |
to Shamayim
A very brief history of how we got here with Social Security and Medicare cards follows:
In August 1935, Roosevelt signed Social Security into law. Its original purpose, made clear in the Congressional debates on the Act, was strictly limited to: tracking a US citizen's lifetime earnings to calculate his retirement benefits, collect payments to the SS Fund, and make payments to retirees. After SS was signed into law, the Social Security Board came into existance and began registering both US employers and workers using a 9-digit account number.
In 1943, an executive order required Federal agencies to use SSNs to identify people in any new records systems. In 1946, the "Not for ID" notification was added to the card to prohibit it being used for over-the-counter ID (this was removed in 1972). In 1965, Medicare came into existence and began using SSNs for identification. In the early 1970's, the SS Act was amended to assign SSNs to legal noncitizens and to anyone applying for Federal benefits. Then came legislation authorizing use of SSNs in administering taxes at state and local levels, as well as on drivers licenses and vehicle registrations. In the 1980's came legislation allowing use of the SSNs for military draft registration, CDLs, and store operators redeeming food stamps; likewise came the requirement to register children for their SSNs by age 5 (since lowered to age 1). In the 1990's came the requirement for employers to send individual SSNs to the SSA upon hiring. FWIW, the card itself has been revised at least 34 times from inception until 2007 (the last data I could find).
The mission-creep of making a Federally issued citizen "account" number into a national citizen ID number is self-evident from this. In recent years, with the resurgence of privacy concerns and increases in data theft, there has been a modest reduction in the usage of SSNs required in a number of areas, Medicare being the latest. Unfortunately, the horse is long gone out of the barn and over the far mountains... SSNs of one format or another aren't going away and will remain as citizen IDs for all intents and purposes as long as the databases and cross-references remain. |
|