It sounds like a bad breach, and I’m not arguing against that. I just want to point out my doubts that there were ever 2.9 billion Americans since the founding of the nation, let alone since social security numbers became a thing. Maybe if I bothered to read the article, it would make more sense.
Social security numbers being involved in a breach does not mean that the breach only affects Americans. Some records might not have an equivalent ID number associated with them at all, and some records could have similar ID numbers from other countries. They also list current address as part of the data leaked but the fact many people don’t have a current address didn’t seem to cause you any confusion. The original source lists “information about relatives”, if that was in this title would you have assumed only people with living relatives were included?
“I didn’t read the article” is a poor excuse when you’re commenting on the believability of the article. What happened here is you saw an article, immediately assumed it was about the US, realised that doesn’t make any sense, then dismissed the article without even bothering to check because the title doesn’t fit the US exclusively. It’s crazy to me that you wouldn’t even consider the fact it’s not an exclusively US-based leak.
I mentioned the not reading the article so people would not waste their time citing facts from the article that may explain the headline that suggested billions social security numbers were leaked. I made no assumptions about missing addresses, as the headline didn’t mention anything about missing addresses. I even mentioned that the event the article discussed was probably pretty bad – definitely not a negative against the article’s believability. I’m only guilty of judging a book by its cover, and in an existence of limited time, nobody has time to do any more than that except for limited exceptions. I did not choose to make this article an exception. The headline was mathematically deceptive, and my comment was about that. Nothing more.
If you see an article highlighting a breach of social security numbers and don’t assume it’s about the U.S., that’s crazy to me.
There’s something like 330 million Americans currently alive, give or take. Social Security began in 1935, so that’s 89 years ago. For the sake of making the math easy for a dumb Lemmy comment, let’s figure the population at the time was two thirds of what it is today at 220 million, and we can figure that within the margin of error virtually all of them are dead. Yes there are some Americans between the ages of 90 and 111 but they likely didn’t have social security numbers as children; the practice of assigning a SSN at birth happened later when they tied it to a tax credit for having kids; at first you got a SSN when you got your first job so anyone who was under the age of 15 or so in 1935 wouldn’t have been given one.
So let’s figure 220 million Americans who have since died, and 330 Americans who are still alive, have held social security numbers. That’s 550 million SSNs total. Rough back of the napkin math.
The SSN itself is limited to under 1 billion possible permutations anyway because the format is 9 total digits. (3 digits hyphen 2 digits hyphen 4 digits.)
And if I recall they also have something weird with the state you were born roughly corresponding to which 3 digit prefix you’re issued. Obviously that isn’t purely true either because that would only give you about 1 million unique numbers per prefix.
Either way they’ve gotta be close to the theoretical maximum of the format without recycling numbers.
It sounds like a bad breach, and I’m not arguing against that. I just want to point out my doubts that there were ever 2.9 billion Americans since the founding of the nation, let alone since social security numbers became a thing. Maybe if I bothered to read the article, it would make more sense.
Okay, but I’m not sure how revelant that is. The article doesn’t say only Americans were affected, it says the exact opposite.
Like I said, I didn’t read the article, but only Americans would have social security numbers.
Social security numbers being involved in a breach does not mean that the breach only affects Americans. Some records might not have an equivalent ID number associated with them at all, and some records could have similar ID numbers from other countries. They also list current address as part of the data leaked but the fact many people don’t have a current address didn’t seem to cause you any confusion. The original source lists “information about relatives”, if that was in this title would you have assumed only people with living relatives were included?
“I didn’t read the article” is a poor excuse when you’re commenting on the believability of the article. What happened here is you saw an article, immediately assumed it was about the US, realised that doesn’t make any sense, then dismissed the article without even bothering to check because the title doesn’t fit the US exclusively. It’s crazy to me that you wouldn’t even consider the fact it’s not an exclusively US-based leak.
I mentioned the not reading the article so people would not waste their time citing facts from the article that may explain the headline that suggested billions social security numbers were leaked. I made no assumptions about missing addresses, as the headline didn’t mention anything about missing addresses. I even mentioned that the event the article discussed was probably pretty bad – definitely not a negative against the article’s believability. I’m only guilty of judging a book by its cover, and in an existence of limited time, nobody has time to do any more than that except for limited exceptions. I did not choose to make this article an exception. The headline was mathematically deceptive, and my comment was about that. Nothing more.
If you see an article highlighting a breach of social security numbers and don’t assume it’s about the U.S., that’s crazy to me.
Lol, yeah “National Public Data” has records of over 3 billion people going back 30 years and these people live all over the world, so it seems.
There’s something like 330 million Americans currently alive, give or take. Social Security began in 1935, so that’s 89 years ago. For the sake of making the math easy for a dumb Lemmy comment, let’s figure the population at the time was two thirds of what it is today at 220 million, and we can figure that within the margin of error virtually all of them are dead. Yes there are some Americans between the ages of 90 and 111 but they likely didn’t have social security numbers as children; the practice of assigning a SSN at birth happened later when they tied it to a tax credit for having kids; at first you got a SSN when you got your first job so anyone who was under the age of 15 or so in 1935 wouldn’t have been given one.
So let’s figure 220 million Americans who have since died, and 330 Americans who are still alive, have held social security numbers. That’s 550 million SSNs total. Rough back of the napkin math.
The SSN itself is limited to under 1 billion possible permutations anyway because the format is 9 total digits. (3 digits hyphen 2 digits hyphen 4 digits.)
And if I recall they also have something weird with the state you were born roughly corresponding to which 3 digit prefix you’re issued. Obviously that isn’t purely true either because that would only give you about 1 million unique numbers per prefix.
Either way they’ve gotta be close to the theoretical maximum of the format without recycling numbers.
Why guess at the 1935 pop instead of just looking it up?
It was about 127 million.
Because it’s a dumb Lemmy comment.