From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Fri Jun 9 09:40:11 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k59FeBjb007978; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:40:11 -0600 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l.rootsweb.com [66.43.16.22]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k59Fe9W4000759 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:40:09 -0600 Received: from roots-l.rootsweb.com (roots-l [127.0.0.1]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k59D4TFI012006 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:04:29 -0400 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k59D4TGC012005 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:04:29 -0400 Received: from lists5.rootsweb.com (lists5.rootsweb.com [66.43.27.41]) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k59BYjFI011777 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:34:45 -0400 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k59EAF2h027663 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:10:15 -0600 X-Envelope-From: omchodoy@gmail.com Fri Jun 9 08:10:15 2006 Received: from mail.rootsweb.com (mail.rootsweb.com [192.168.65.34]) by admin.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k59EAFjb027654 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:10:15 -0600 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.172]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k59EAAg2029230 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 08:10:11 -0600 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j40so1308434ugd for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:10:11 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=kmX8yxdOpMeJ3N+shKayYQbT7GuVaO400mXj+gq0FNLDt0A5b+WpON4MnhR/SFlXpIeX3dtlHjL64ELbi9AI+0/Do1tjAJh6QfDzRIH3UjIlgJdIPNXBRacRVSn91m/kP3WlrYLmY1rEkUTt/8mJ62nXbCjdOjwX+jPKASrQh0A= Received: by 10.67.100.12 with SMTP id c12mr2547777ugm; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.248.5 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:10:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:10:10 -0700 From: Colleen To: "Diane C. Russell" Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] San Diego TV station seeks to have government censor SSDI Cc: ROOTS-M@rootsweb.com In-Reply-To: <14cf9eb40606081910g4a95e877he52cbc6ff72f5052@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <17077864.1149818708024.JavaMail.root@blb37.blogger.com> <14cf9eb40606081910g4a95e877he52cbc6ff72f5052@mail.gmail.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 192.168.65.34 Sender: roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com I understand the concern about the quality of the reporting and the information relayed to the public. But how is information in the SSDI a tool in preventing identity theft? Also, identity theft is the buzz word these days, and if it IS true that unscrupulous people could find use for the SS #'s in their thievery, then I can easily see it being removed. To be quite honest, I haven't found much value in the SSDI itself other than finding death dates, which I've rarely found there anyway (since most of my perplexing ancestors never had a SS #). If there's multiple listings for someone in the same area (or if we don't know where they died) with the same name, it's almost useless without ordering the actual SS-5(?nbr?) card. Somehow if it were to come down to the value of removing the SSDI to prevent ID theft or the value of keeping it there for genealogists, I suspect the first would win. Rightly so (again, if it is feasible for the deceased people's #'s to be used for ill gain). On 6/8/06, Diane C. Russell wrote: > San Diego television station KGTV, channel 10, wants Congress and the Social > Security Administration to take the Social Security Death Index off the > Internet. > > "Identity Thieves Prey On The Deceased" is a semi-hysterical scare piece > absolutely devoid of balance, short on facts, and lacking any documentation > for the report's basic premise--that identity thieves are using the Social > Decurity Death Index and obituaries to steal the identities of deceased > people. > > The report quotes one relative of a deceased individual and two > self-proclaimed privacy and identity theft experts to make. > > Nowhere in the report is there any mention of the legitimate uses of the > Social Security Death Index or obituaries for historical, biographical, or > genealogical research, nor any mention of the value of the information for > actually preventing identity theft. > > No research users of the data were quoted in the article, nor was there any > indication that the Social Security Administration was consulted. > > It is no wonder that many people seem to have an increasing distrust of the > press and broadcast "news" media. > > In an attempt to be fair and balanced, I asked KQTV officials for their > comments before posting this. They did not respond. > > The video of the report is at: > http://www.10news.com/video/9332142/index.html > with a narrative summary atL > http://www.10news.com/news/9331792/detail.html > > Contact information for KQTV: > > General Manager, Derek Dalton > **derek_dalton@10news.com > > News Director, Michael Stutz > michael_stutz@10news.com > > Viewer Feedback > kgtv_10viewertalkback@10news.com > > Station Troubleshooter > tshooter@10news.com > > Related commentaries by The Genealogue : > http://genealogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/truth-is-so-boring.html > http://genealogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/they-smell-pulitzer.html > > -- > Posted by D. C. Russell to Enemies of > Genealogyon > 6/08/2006 > > -- Colleen www.omchodoy.blogspot.com www.onlyingenealogy.blogspot.com