Online access to Social Security Death Index (SSDI) numbers in the United States is currently under threat, due to concerns over identity theft of the recently deceased, with thieves apparently able to make fraudulent claims using the social security numbers which have been placed online. Ancestry.com has removed its SSDI database completely from the Rootsweb platform and restricted access to numbers for those deceased in the last decade on its main site, whilst Genealogybank.com has also limited access. FamilySearch is currently reviewing its stance on the matter.
The SSDI database contains information on over 90 million former US residents, with entries typically listing forename and surname of the deceased (with middle initial from the 1990s), death date (mostly post 1962), birth date, social security number, place of issue, and details concerning the place of death. If a person is found in the database, his or her application for a Social Security card (Form SS-5) can be ordered from the US based Social Security Administration. This contains extra information, such as birth place, father's name, and mother's full maiden name - as such, it has been an invaluable tool for US based genealogists for decades. A form of the SSDI database called the Death Master File has been available for decades, as it is is considered to be a public document, though this is now being challenged by various US based legislators.
For more on the matter visit http://genealogy.about.com/b/2011/12/16/genealogy-sites-pressured-into-removing-ssdi.htm and www.salemnews.com/nationworld/x1759193632/Genealogy-sites-remove-Social-Security-numbers-of-deceased. Information on the SSDI itself is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Death_Index
Chris
The irony of it is that the SSDI is designed to tell organisations "These people have died, close their details". Anyone making a successful fraudulent claim has done it through an organisation that has actually IGNORED the SSDI. If they had used it as competently as the fraudster is alleged to do, the claim would have been detected. But no, the legislators prefer to react emotionally rather than actually think it through. By restricting a/v of the SSDI, they could actually become _accomplices_ to fraud.
ReplyDeletePoliticians. I love them.
ReplyDeleteBut I could not eat a whole one...! :)
Chris