Skip to main content

View Diary: Data Grab? Experian now controls web access to Social Security Admin (322 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's your choice... (0+ / 0-)

    to be an ignorant fool or not.

    I know this information firsthand. How I know that is my business.

    Here is what the public SSA website says (Obviously you haven't bothered to read it):

    •  Why don't you step away and come back when (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, triv33, gustynpip

      you can converse with people without being so insulting.

      It's your choice to be an ignorant fool or not.
      I choose not to believe someone as rude as you've been.
    •  Totally unnecessary arrogance and nastiness. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      triv33, DRo

      This site is not big on the "believe this because I said so" route.  It is big on asking for verification - usually.  I will grant you that we seem to accept the outrageous much more readily than the reasonable.  However, even when providing the reasonable, it's much wiser to do so with some degree of courtesy and a lot less arrogance.

      I do, however, appreciate your having responded to my question and providing the information you provided.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:44:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, the truth is nasty. Spare me. (0+ / 0-)

        I've taken a sizable portion out of my day trying to correct what is a damaging mis-perception about how SSA protects your personal information. Educating the public is indeed part of my job, but I am not sure my boss wants me hanging out here. So I will maintain my anonymity, thank you very much.

        It is partly SSA's fault for not making the answers to these questions crystal clear right up front. That said, most of it is on their website and I liked to that repeatedly.


        If the diarist had read this in the first place, I could have saved a lot of time.

        I  have a lot of firsthand information about how this works, why decisions were made etc.. and I have no intention of compromising those sources. You can choose to believe me or not. That is on you, not me.

        •  your link provides the agency's respresentation (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, triv33, poligirl

          of the matter, that's all it is. Hardly impartial.

          Your continuing authoritarian assertions of "facts" do not make them factual.


          The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

          by ozsea1 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:21:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You'd make an excellent climate change denier nt (0+ / 0-)
            •  Your argument is that this is great, and we (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              triv33, poligirl

              shouldn't worry about it, because trust the people managing the SSA, that's why.

              This is about opinions.  

              If your job is to browbeat citizens and spit talking points when they disapprove of their government enriching corporations, all I can say is that I prefer being unemployed and wondering how the hell I'm going to pay the power bill.

              Sometimes, calling it your job just can't ever make it right.

              "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

              by JesseCW on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:34:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No it is not. (0+ / 0-)

                My argument is that SSA is not giving any protected information to Experian. Experian has no access to your Social Security records. Yes they get your name, and probably address, but SSA does not protect that, and of course Experian already knows it.

                My argument is that SSA thinks they need Experian's identity verification service to properly authenticate people in real-time, online. (note: they do not think they need anyone's help to authenticate you in person). I find that as surprising as many people, considering they used to just put this stuff in the mail. I find it amazing that it has taken them years to catch up to banks for example. But that was their decision.

                So those two things are facts. Not opinions. And those are important facts to get out there when some one is publicly insinuating the opposite is true.

                If anything SSA is being too cautious with our data and making it hard for the average citizen to do their business. That's my opinion.

                If your problem is merely that SSA contracts with for profit entities then the deal with Experian is small potatoes. (This is a contract in the tens of millons not hundreds). But SSA also enriches Verizon, Microsoft, Staples, Dell as well as ADP and Lockheed Martin (who provide SSA with huge amounts of programmers). Are you outraged that SSA employees need to use phones?

        •  I have no interest in outing you, but here's the (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          triv33, poligirl, Willa Rogers, gustynpip


          Arguments from authority aren't worth a damn.  You can graduate from Harvard Law and still be an idiot who thinks Dredd Scott was well decided.

          There are people with M.D.s who insist HIV is unrealted to AIDS.

          That aside, it's just fucking goofy to think that anyone will accept an argument based on authority when you choose not to disclose from what source you think this this authority derives.

          Your argument is going to have to stand on its merits, not bashing those who disagree with the scam you're defending, and not on some "trust me, because I'm important in ways I cannot describe" bullshit.

          "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

          by JesseCW on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:32:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  When did I say I was important? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I'm a fly on the wall, but my information is first hand and collected over a number of years. I think the information publicly available backs up what I am saying. The diarist, by contrast, is  "deducing" things, he has no first hand knowledge. But his conjectures are simply false.

            You can look around  this site and check my record. I surely have opinions about things like everyone else, but I have factual knowledge about Social Security that I think stands up pretty well. ( I do make mistakes, from time to time also)

            I was under the illusion that people would find it helpful to know that in fact SSA was not giving your protected information away, despite the fevered imagination of the diarist. You apparently don't care. Good for you.

        •  No, it wasn't the truth that was nasty. It was (0+ / 0-)

          you.  Don't blame your own nastiness and arrogance on truth.  

          It's always so convincing when someone says  "I have these fantastic sources but I can't provide those sources.  They're much too sensitive for peons like you.  

          Give me a break.  I was ready to, while not ready to rely on your statements, at least give them credence.  After your arrogance exhibitionism, I find your statements less than persuasive.  If your job is indeed to "educate the public", you're pretty bad at your job.

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:43:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your truth-o-meter is broken (0+ / 0-)

            My identity on Dkos is anonymous. If that's a problem for you then perhaps you should at least start posting under your own real name.

            I am offering you some information gthat I am personally privy to. SSA is not giving Experian access to your private records. I have linked to the places where SSA makes these points as well on their public website. No one else in this conversation is offering you any facts, they are just offering conjecture, supposition, suspicion, paranoia.

            You can believe who you want I guess, but that is on you, not me.

            •  You "offered" it in an arrogant and dismissive (0+ / 0-)

              manner.  No one has a problem with your maintain your anonymity here.  It's pretty standard.  What we do have a problem with is your arrogance in demanding that we accept your statements because you said them when all you are is an anonymous blogger.  We have absolutely no idea whether you're someone who knows what you're talking about or just someone trying to stir the pot.  When your arrogant and dismissive, it certainly seems more likely it's the latter.  And your arrogance continues in your determination that you've been justified in being offended that people haven't bowed down to your great wisdom and knowledge - even though to us you're just an anonymous blogger.

              It's not that we're demanding or expecting you to disclose who you are.  It's that you have choices.  You can either disclose either your identity or at least your source of information and make it likely people will accept what you say.  Or you can retain your anonymity and refuse to provide any verification of your offer of information and people will consider it the offerings of some anonymous blogger who refuses to provide any verification and so probably doesn't have any.  If you're not willing to provide some support for your assertions, you're probably as well off not bothering to provide them.

              I again will say that if you carry your arrogance into your job, and your job involves dealing with the public, I'd put money on it that you're not very good at it.

              "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

              by gustynpip on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:37:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  touchy, aren't we? (0+ / 0-)

      Extraordinary claims requre extraordinary proof, and all you've done set off the bs troll-meter, bigtime.

      The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

      by ozsea1 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:12:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Extraordinary (0+ / 0-)

        Writing a diary insinuating that Experian has access to your social Security data.

        Providing a link to the actual government privacy statements (that even explains the mechanics of how this whole thing actually works) that make it clear that is not the case is not trolling.

    •  Disregarding your condesection (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Willa Rogers, triv33

      Perhaps you should read your link.  It says nothing about the new, outside verified security program and has no date or back-link to which page this statement referred to (which is a bit odd from a web design standpoint - most gov sites are pretty rigorous about documentation and dates).

      Stating that:

      " ... we ask you to provide several different types of information and to answer questions that only you should be able to answer."
      says nothing about where the info comes from (Experian or SS data) and that is my point.

      "Curiouser and curiouser!"

      by TechBob on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:50:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  *ack* (0+ / 0-)

        (opens door)
        (slams door, walks off ... dammit, blew my exit)

        "Curiouser and curiouser!"

        by TechBob on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:05:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh jeez. (0+ / 0-)

        BUt you need to go down to the what we do with your information tab.
         "We verify your information against our records. Experian verifies your information against its records.
        We will not share your Social Security number with Experian."

        I agree that the website is not nearly as clear as it should be and that is precisely why I was chiming in with my personal knowledge. When I first tried to log on my reaction was WTF, as well. But I also had a chance to ask the people who designed the system what was going on.  So I am trying to help clarify for you. I will also try to get SSA to make their system clearer (something over which I have very little influence, but you never know)

        To clarify:

        The first screen you come to is SSA's and it asks for name SSN, address, phone number email. SSA checks that against their records. Only SSA knows for sure what names are supposed to match with what SSNs and birth dates (also birth places and mother's name--you had to show a birth certificate at some point to get a SSN). They check to make sure this matches their records. (ALmost certainly they did not previously have a telephone number or email from you. Their address data can be unreliable as well especially if you have moved recently and did not tell them.)

        Then SSA passes a name and I think address to Experian and asks them to run their verification screen. Can the user match the data that Experian has. Experian passes a yes or no to SSA. SSA is not capturing or storing the data in the Experian verification screen.

        But the bottom line is that at no time does Experian get access to the data about you that SSA by law has to protect. Hell there are making it difficult to let you see your own data.

        TO get more The SSA website says:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site