Pennsylvanians might take note, action too

[alan]

Shades of Stollenwerk.

For those who may not recall the Stollenwerk case, retired Lt. Col. Stollenwerk filed suit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia over a then existing Pennsylvania State Police “requirement” for the Social Security Number of a prospective gun purchaser or applicant for a CCW, as they are known.

The U.S. District Court above mentioned ruled FOR Mr. Stollenwerk, citing existing Federal Privacy Legislation, and the following specification. That might not be the proper legal term for it, but in any event, the court made reference to the following. No government agency, the State Police are such, may deny services to the individual on the basis of the individual’s refusal to furnish a Social Security Number. The State Police, formerly known as the Coal and Iron Cops, have talked of an appeal however I do not know if an appeal has actually been taken.

Interestingly, it seems that the lesson of Stolenwerk has been lost on another state agency, this time it’s PennDot, and the problem arises from their routines regarding the RENEWAL of Pennsylvania Drivers Licenses. The following was confirmed by me yesterday, in the course of a phone conversation with PennDot, when I called them to verify the facts of the situation. In order to renew a drivers license, the person renewing must bring with them, the following, a Social Security Card, presumably their own, or some document that shows their Social Security Number. Alternately, they can quote, “off the top of their head” the lady I spoke with told me, their Social Security Number. Absent the above, unless I misunderstood, and we went through the story a couple of times, the drivers’ license will not be renewed, or so the story went.

PenDot is a “government agency” is it not, and the issuing and renewal of drivers licenses is a “service” they provide to the public, isn’t it? Do they believe, or are they in fact somehow exempt from the requirements of existing federal law, and if they are, how come. Might this contretemps merely be another case of bureaucratic misunderstanding, one wonders. Might it be that bureaucratic aggrandizement is still in play, and or that PenDot simply hasn’t learned? Again, one wonders.

Readers might take a look at their own Social Security Cards; mine carries the following 7 word admonition. FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION. Anything really difficult to grasp about those 7 words? I didn’t think so, so how come it is that people at government agencies are, by so simple an admonition, placed in such a quandary? Readers might consider bringing this matter to the attention of their state “elected things”, who one would hope could straighten PenDot out. Such action would be a whole lot simpler than again going into Federal Court, which should be a last, but sometimes necessary resort.

In conclusion, regarding what appear to be a significant number of data base “security breaches”, given PennDot’s ongoing collection of Social Security Numbers, it all being for your own good we are told, what happens when, note I said when not if, PennDot’s data security, assuming they have any, is breached, or develops leaks, as data bases seem to do, or might it be that the people in charge become “leaky“..

 

[Sage of Seattle]

This, I believe, may answer your question.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html

1976
Tax Reform Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-455) included the following amendments to the Social Security Act:
To allow use by the States of the SSN in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver's license or motor vehicle registration law within their jurisdiction and to authorize the States to require individuals affected by such laws to furnish their SSNs to the States;

These other links, I hope, will also prove helpful as general information.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/ssn/

http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm

 

[alan]

Sage of Seattle:

Thanks for the references and the links. I had thought that this Social Security Number rubbish had been based on 1972 legislation.

Re this, the following are additional comments I posted elsewhere.

Looking at federal law, which authorized/allowed the states to use Social Security Numbers for non Social Security purposes, Social Security is a federal program anyhow, the relevant legislation was a terrible example of the legislative process, one might take it that the collection of Social Slave Numbers, as they are sometimes known was O.K. One serious problem remains, even granting this assumption, which I do not. Simply because some action is authorized or allowed, is neither valid nor good reason for undertaking that particular action. Re the collection of Social Security Numbers, by government agencies having no legitimate interest therein, this admonition seems a particularly good fit.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I agree with you alan and it sometimes amazes me at how much grief I get (even from family members) over my rather pointed questioning of who gets my SSN and why.