[sigmoid10]

Not everyone has (or can have) a driver's license and a social security card literally says it is *not* for identification because it lacks even the most basic aspects. But since the US never managed to come up with an actual system, companies started using SSNs like an identity verifier, because it is the one thing everyone has across every state. But that also makes identity theft or credit fraud trivial in the US compared to other countries.

[dylan604]

> a social security card literally says it is not for identification

It no longer says this, and has not for a long long time. My parent's cards did, but mine does not. Also, I'm old (for this forum at least), so this isn't a recent change.

[zimpenfish]

> It no longer says this, and has not for a long long time.

Don't know about "a long long time" but the feds have been treating Social Security Cards as identification since 1943 (military, some agencies) or 1963 (IRS) (cf [0])

[0] https://www.straightdope.com/21341325/why-does-my-old-social...

[dylan604]

I think you're misunderstanding why they are requesting an SSN. You cannot use an SSN to do an in person ID like a photo ID. Same reason a birth certificate cannot be used as an ID. These documents can be used to look up information about you, and a lot of places might use your SSN as a database unique ID, but that kind of info is not identification when someone shouts "papers!" at you.

conflating the two meanings of identification feels deliberate at this point

[zimpenfish]

> companies started using SSNs like an identity verifier

Probably because USGOV said it is[0]

"In 1943 a presidential executive order directed the military and other government agencies to use the number for identification purposes, and in 1961 the Internal Revenue Service began using the number for taxpayer identification."

[0] https://www.straightdope.com/21341325/why-does-my-old-social...

[ibejoeb]

That's correct, but what does a driver license have to do with it? A state-issued driver license is one document that can serve as identification. There are plenty of others, including those that are solely for identification. Are you unintentionally conflating them, or are you suggesting that there a eligible people who are unable to get an identity document?

[dotancohen]

  > identity theft

Identity can not be stolen.

Some financial institutions may not have proper fraud prevention policies, but that is a problem both caused by and to be resolved by the financial institution, not the consumer. Pretending it's the consumer's problem may protect the financial institution, but leads to entire categories of new problems far more devastating. Don't pretend some nebulous concept of identity has been stolen. Say it like it is: the financial institution was defrauded due to their own lax policies.

[abustamam]

Identity theft is commonly understood to be exactly what you just mentioned. Obviously no one can steal me (which is exactly what I thought when I first heard the term as a broke college kid; who wants to be me anyway?)

We aren't "pretending" it's a consumer problem. It is a consumer problem. When someone opens up a credit card or loan in my namd, whose life gets messed up? Not the banks! Pretending it's not a consumer problem is dangerous and can lead to a lot of messed up financial lives.

Personally, I freeze my credit with all major bureaux, and I shred any mail that has my name on it. It's annoying, yes, but the alternative is even more annoying.

[dotancohen]

The only reason _you_ have a problem when somebody defrauds the bank, is because the banks sufficiently marketed the term Identify Theft. In reality, nothing of yours was stolen. In reality, the actual illicit act was somebody lying to the bank, and the bank not properly verifying who that person is.

[abustamam]

You say nothing of mine is stolen but they hypothetically just racked up $10k debt on my identity. This is stuff that affects real things like my ability to get a mortgage, and I am also on the hook for that money unless I find a way to cancel that card. No matter the case, it very much is my problem, and they successfully took money from someone else (the bank) and made me pay for it. That's theft.

> the actual illicit act was somebody lying to the bank

Yes, this is known as fraud, and the entire concept of identity theft.

[dotancohen]

No, they defrauded a bank for $10k. But the bank successfully convinced you that it's your problem, not theirs.