Nov 30 2010
True or False? Using Someone Else’s SSN is a Crime
Posted by hmark
Privacy, Regulations and Laws, Risk/Fraud
No Comments
Logic would tell us the answer to that question is certainly true. Social Security Numbers (SSN) are assigned to individuals for a variety of reasons, some advocated by conspiracy theorists and some that are more prosaic in nature. At its core, the SSN provides the government the ability to track consumption of government benefits, originally social security benefits. Rationally, it would seem that using someone else’s SSN to derive some benefit would be illegal. But a number recent court decisions indicate that using one’s own name in conjunction with someone else’s SSN is not necessarily a crime.
Bob Sullivan’s Red Tape Chronicles admirably details several cases in which people were charged with identity theft for using another person’s SSN. In each of the cases, the courts found that identity theft had not actually been committed. In one case, an individual had simply made up a nine digit number for use as a social security number. In another, a SSN was used to obtain financing for a car. What is particularly troubling here is that consumers are hearing two radically different stories.
- You must protect your SSN – the SSN, at the end of the day, still provides almost unfettered access to almost every facet of an individual’s life. Bank accounts, jobs, mortgages and auto loans, school admissions. All of these things can be tracked, or compromised, using one’s social security number.
- The fraudulent use of your SSN is not always a crime – the courts in these cases found that if an individual makes up a number, s/he doesn’t really know if it belongs to someone else and can therefore not have intentionally committed identity theft. In another case, the courts found that because the SSN was used, but not required, to obtain financing no identity theft had occurred.
What is interesting here, is that these court decisions are in contradiction to state laws that have been drafted to protect individuals from the unauthorized use of their personally identifying information. Texas, for instance, has legislated that a person may not “possess, transfer, or use personal identifying information of another person without the other person’s consent and with intent to obtain a good, a service, insurance, an extension of credit, or any other thing of value in the other person’s name.” Fines for doing so can range from $2,000 to $50,000. Virginia declares the unauthorized use or disclosure of a social security number to be a class 5 felony. Similarly, Hawaii classifies the unauthorized possession of “personal, confidential information” as a Class C felony. It will be of great interest to watch the interplay between these court decisions and the laws of the states in terms of the protection of consumers.
It would seem that, for consumers at least, the lesson here is clear. The social security number is arguably the most vital piece of personal information available and the courts are demonstrating a reluctance to afford it appropriate protections. As courts become more lax, identity thieves may become more bold. That means that consumers must become hyper-vigilant in the protection of all personal data.
Dr. Heather Mark, PhD; SVP of Market Strategy
