1997-01-01 - Re: Internal Passports

Header Data

From: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
To: “Timothy C. May” <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Message Hash: d79676e1454b3c84b1c4f161802f446a1c875975feabe88660ed75be5a0252d9
Message ID: <v0300780caeefb53f8b00@[]>
Reply To: <199612311859.MAA01032@smoke.suba.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-01 21:43:31 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 13:43:31 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 13:43:31 -0800 (PST)
To: "Timothy C. May" <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Subject: Re: Internal Passports
In-Reply-To: <199612311859.MAA01032@smoke.suba.com>
Message-ID: <v0300780caeefb53f8b00@[]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

At 11:02 AM -0800 12/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote:
>There have been several reports cited here recently about changes in the SS
>laws to make the SS number more of an ID number. ...
>And concerns about "identity theft" when such a simple thing as an SS
>number is the key to so many records, rights, etc.

I don't see how you can have the SS number be both a public ID number and a
secret password.  Perhaps you could have it be one, but not both.  It seems
to me that parts of our society are trying have it be a password and parts
a public ID number.  (Perhaps the same parts?)  Doing both just won't work.

(Using SS as a password is subject to all the stealing and replay attacks
that make passwords a really bad idea for secure identification.)

Bill Frantz       | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | in Pittsburgh, Packets in  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | Pakistan. - me             | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA