From roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com Fri Jun 9 19:48:40 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 k5A1mejb015400; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:48:40 -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 k5A1mcD2005507 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:48:38 -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 k59NCtFI019073 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:12:55 -0400 Received: (from roots-in@localhost) by roots-l.rootsweb.com (8.12.10/8.12.8/Submit) id k59NCtCm019072 for roots-approved@rootsweb.com; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:12:55 -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 k59Fc6FI012366 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:38:06 -0400 Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists5.rootsweb.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) id k59IDbe7026746 for roots-in@roots-l.rootsweb.com; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:13:37 -0600 X-Envelope-From: genealogistinal@yahoo.com Fri Jun 9 12:13:37 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 k59IDbjb026735 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:13:37 -0600 Received: from web54008.mail.yahoo.com (web54008.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.36.232]) by mail.rootsweb.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id k59IDYEH018615 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:13:35 -0600 Received: (qmail 70208 invoked by uid 60001); 9 Jun 2006 18:14:13 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=oK9ZIEmaoBJm2MpH2DriBHtk1AhwnwsVlOlNYt+AHZFILtHc90fK07x1GEtAa0AkSrOEXaasPLgjU2bjvQseX3cJnVP9YtT7cAAwGP0+dE4H9DCnHFRGJJqCdPvxhJAKsDoSEIbTbn+KlNZOwg3iqwylumaR4i6Cq5TSdDnQc3U= ; Message-ID: <20060609181413.70206.qmail@web54008.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.244.174.226] by web54008.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:14:13 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:14:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Melissa Hogan Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] San Diego TV station seeks to have government censor SSDI To: ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com In-Reply-To: <200606091726.k59HQUx7001355@lists5.rootsweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 Colleen I am sure many other will reply with all the ways the SSDI prevents identify theft. I will say that companies use the SSDI file to verify that the SSN used when someone is applying for credit is NOT for a deceased individual - that it is valid. If the index were NOT out there and companies were unable to check, think of the identity theft ramifications... What really prompted me to reply though was your comment " To be quite honest, I haven't found much value in the SSDI itself other than finding death dates . . ." then later you added "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." I use the SSDI almost every day. Without I would not have made the progress on my family lines that I have made thus far . . . to date I have requested only one SS-5 (for my great-grandfather, no one had a clue about the identity of his parents). I use it to confirm or narrow death dates . . . I can then go to the local newspaper and look for an obituary to confirm the identity of that person. I have also done the reverse narrowed a death date for an individual based on obituaries . . . and don't get me started on the birth date information . . . without SSDI I would not have much more than an approximate year for a lot of individuals. And yes I know that the birth (and even death) information can not be assured to be 100% accurate - I alway cite that the information was taken from the SSDI. You're right, not everyone is in the SSDI. But it is still a valuable resource for those more recent ancestors and cousins. Melissa Birmingham, Alabama ------------------------------ X-Message: #14 Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 07:10:10 -0700 From: Colleen Subject: Re: [ROOTS-L] San Diego TV station seeks to have government censor SSDI 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).