Which Is Safer: A National Digital Identifier System or Social Security Numbers?
Social Security numbers are now used as a proxy for an identifier by many businesses, but recent breaches have revealed their downsides.
December 04, 2017 at 08:00 AM
4 minute read
Recent high-profile breaches illustrate the need to protect Social Security numbers by businesses. But some say the way to protect them is by not using them at all, and instead move toward using some other kind of identifier. Still, beyond the benefits, there are some drawbacks if the U.S. was to start using a national digital ID system, according to data security lawyers.
Basically, a digital ID, which should be encrypted and secure, is a way to replace the Social Security number for use in the private sector. But Behnam Dayanim, an attorney with Paul Hastings, told Legaltech News that the idea of a national identifier has always been “controversial.”
Social Security numbers have “come to be used as a proxy for an identifier,” Dayanim explained, adding that for companies, this was never supposed to be the case. However, many companies no longer store Social Security numbers in electronic records, given the risk of them getting released in a breach. Once actors get hold of a Social Security number, they can use it to get access to all sorts of information, Dayanim said.
Still, Social Security numbers are so ubiquitous that “that number is with us for the foreseeable future,” he said. And, given the number of breaches, “I don't think anybody can regard their Social Security number as truly secure at this point.”
But a digital identifier would pose issues as well, given that it would become an important piece of information and thus be sought after by hackers. “No matter what you do, you will have to protect the identifier,” Dayanim said.
He said that even with another identification system in place, there will still be the risk of lawsuits, as “you are never going to get away from that.” There is also the risk of enforcement actions, which will continue.
Also, if an identifier is used by the financial services sector, “you would need buy-in from the entire financial services industry,” Dayanim said. That means such organizations as banks and crediting-reporting agencies.
Dayanim said legal issues flow from some basic questions about the use of identifiers. He says these include:
• What form will the identifier take?
• How will it be protected?
• What are the consequences if it were to be compromised?
There are also proposals to use a biometric-based identifier, such as from a fingerprint or retina, which have the advantage that they cannot be changed, Dayanim said. But they too have limitations, as in his view, “biometrics cannot be viewed as a panacea.”
Laura Jehl, an attorney with Baker & Hostetler, noted that the use of blockchain technology is one option to remedy the concerns with identification getting stolen by hackers. The use of blockchain could “solve all sorts of problems,” she told Legaltech News. Blockchain is “immutable and transparent,” she added, also pointing out that by use of this technology users “only share information [they] need to share for that transaction.”
This is crucial, as consumer advocates and others often point out that credit-reporting agencies gather data on individuals whether the individual agrees to it or not. There is no requirement that the individual gives his or her permission to gather the data.
In response to some of these concerns, the Sovrin Foundation has come up with an identity network. It is not an identity provider, the foundation says, but “a global identity network which allows people to securely store identity information over which the individual has total control.”
The foundation adds, “This is called 'self-sovereign' identity. We envisage that it will be used by IDPs [identity providers] and many other services at the request of individuals who need to prove their identity.”
These issues, though, will need to be confronted sooner rather than later. There are further upcoming regulatory issues, such as the European Union's forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which includes the right to be forgotten. This allows individuals living in the EU to request personal information be deleted from company records.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250