|
|
Phony
ID for DG
AgentsLimited Identification Basic Field
TacticsToo Many ID
CardsFake ID Necessity in Oddly Mixed
CellsArranged Death of Agents upon
ReclutationReassigning Agents to Other
AgenciesManufacturing Fake Identities the CIA
WayComments on Basic Field
TacticsFake IDs as a Useful Way to Limit
ParanoiaWhat if a DG Team gets caught by the
Feds?More About Running in the
FedsInutility of Fake IDs on Already Targetted
CharactersSocial Security Number
BreakdownSSN and Drivers Licence
NumbersFurther Notes on SSN
NumbersEverything You Need To Know About SSN
And
a
ClarificationConsecutive SSNs and the Hoffa
FamilyConsecutive SSNs and Trekkies
From: Marco
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 02:32:48
-0500 (CDT)
I am going to make a number of assumptions in the course of this post, so feel free to correct my misconceptions.
I have never seen it stated that DG agents used phony IDs, but I wonder if it might not be a common practice. If a cell/team were investigating a strange occurance, and they came from three agencies that seemed a rather odd combo, say a INS agent, someone from the CDC, and an Air Force OSI agent investigating the disappearance of adolescent girls in an area nowhere near an Air Force Base, where no disease was in evidence, even not very bright npcs might suspect something a bit odd was up.
If such an odd team questioned _me_, I might well call one or more of these agencies, and ask if these guys were legit. I might imagine their non-DG supervisors might be rather interested in their peculiar investigations. I might imagine internal affairs in their agencies might look into their doings also. M12 might even catch wind eventually if the same odd trio repeatedly cropped up at or near weird phenomenon. Heck, even other territorial LEOs might look into things if their jurisdiction seemed threatened.
It seems to me that even if you claimed that the investigators were part of a joint task force, you might have more than one person (partners?) from each agency involved, at least in real life. Would a team maybe all obtain a false ID of an agency that might really have a legitimate interest (such as the FBI in the case of the lost girls).
Might this not perhaps have even worse results, if the real FBI were asked about "agents Smith, Jones, and Doe?" What happens when the real FBI agents hear "some of your fellow agents just asked me the same question earlier," when there were no other agents on the case?
Any thoughts about odd multi-agenct teams, phony IDs, or avoiding complications? Why is this not a regular problem with the teams?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:31:12 +0100
From: Phil
Ward
> I am going to make a number of assumptions in the course of this
post, so feel free to correct
> my misconceptions.
Nope, sounds like a very good question to me; just how do DG agents get away with what they're doing?
My take on the situation:
1. They don't tend to interview and ask questions in groups, even though your simulations might tend to stick together just for safety, in real life (TM), your agents are going to be spread thinly trying to get as much information together as possible in the shortest time. At the worst, operate in pairs, with only on agent showing his badge, and introducing the other one. One agent asks the question, and the other takes notes, and gauges responses. If the interview is performed correctly, then it's possible the witnesses may hardly even notice the 2nd agent.
2. You're not only going to be using agents, friendlies are going to be involved in these investigations. Friendlies might be locals, or they might be people with legitimate interests in the 'incident'. These people will not be so noticeable. Remember, DG agents also come across 'problems' in the course of their legitimate investigations, and may come across many red-herrings before they ever find any evidence of 'occult involvement'. These missions are just as important to the cause, and should be pursued just as vigorously, Removing false leads from our field of interest is also vital work.
3. In order to cultivate deniability, agents should be prepared to use a large number of DG friendlies, all of whom have _no-idea_ that they are doing work for DG. In fact, I would propose a new classification for these people, DG-puppets perhaps? Although the name should probably be changed, so as not have so many negative connotations, in order to avoid problems with signal-intercepts.
4. A senior agent within their cell, or perhaps the cell they report to is often a member of the same organisation, but with a higher clearance/rank. That senior agent can often make things a lot easier for them by arranging secondments and paid vacation-time or 'undercover work'. Otherwise, agents will have to be extremely careful about pursuing their 'little hobby' in work time, so as above, DG friendlies are the ideal option.
5. Fake ID's are a necessity, particularly if they can be tied to someone completely different, but I would reccomend using fake names, and never letting any witnesses get to close a look at the badge, say close enough to discern a badge-number, etc. ID's siezed in other (legitimate) investigations may be extremely useful, if removed from evidence lock-ups without trace.
6. Problems with local law-enforcement are a great difficulty to our cause. I would recommend cultivating good relations with any law enforcement representative who may have a bearing on a current case. Providing them with credit for arrests, forensic data they may otherwise have to wait a long time for, and plausible explanations for any wierd occurences they may find will all go a long way to keeping local LEO's out of our business.
7. In our line of business, everything is a complication, trust no-one, see everything, and always keep one last bullet for yourself.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 05:58:41 -0500
From: William
Timmins
In my campaign, one of the major jobs of friendlies was to provide false IDs and manage security trails for DG agents, as well as responding to departmental inquiries about DG agents.
The joke was the big list of IDs that would spill out when they opened their wallets (I'm CIA... no, wait... FBI... no, wait... apparantly I'm the president of the Gay and Lesbian Association...)
Typically they ran under false names, though I never focused that much on it in my games.
From: Christian Conkle
I can tell you that in MY simulations, false ID's are used almost as a neccesity. T-Cell is comprised of a U.S. Marine sniper, a CIA Intel-analyst, with friendlies including a CDC researcher and a U.S. Postal Inspector (the Radio Psychic was killed). None of these people have any kind of business doing any kind of investigative work other than the Postal Inspector.
Therefore, I have them assigned fake ID's just to facilitate the adventure. In one scenario, the agents pretended to be FBI agents while the friendlies were merely consultants. In the next scenario, the PC's had to impersonate U.S. Army security specialists to gain access to a top secret Germ Warfare storage facility. The next week, they were FBI agents again to perform a prisoner exchange with NRO Delta personnel dressed as BATF agents. Those same NRO Delta agents posed as NSA agents a few scenarios ago.
That's one of the great things about being a part of a conspiracy, the obfuscation of your real identity. For media examples, look at Conspiracy Theory, the men from "UNCLE (that nobody talks about)" posed as FBI agents (and newspaper salesmen). In MIB, they posed as everything from INS agents to FBI to CIA. James Bond poses as all kinds of stuff, that's his job.
The creation of false ID's is left to unidentified friendlies within government organizations (see the Friendlies discussion a few weeks ago). ESPECIALLY when working with agents from other cells. You know of their CODENAME, you know of their alias, but you probably don't know their REAL name. And if you do, how do you know THAT'S not an alias?
In one of my sessions, I had Agent TIPPS (John Morsay, CIA analyst), while at the office, see another DG agent, one he THOUGHT was an FBI agent. He had known her as Special Agent Kiki (her codename, which was a mistake on my part), but was suprised that she had CIA credentials and a different name. He was new to DG and followed her a bit, eventually confronting her in the break room. She hushed him, looked around, shut the door, and they proceeded to whisper a short discussion over who she was and what she was doing. Yeah yeah, it's a breach of security and integrity of the cell structure and all that (see previous thread on Inter-Cell communication), but she didn't tell him her REAL name or for whom she REALLY worked for (of course, it's really the CIA, but he don't know that). Besides, it was just such a MOVIE thing to do.
I've said it before, often the truth is often the best misinformation.
From: Christopher Reeve
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 14:34:20
-0500 (CDT)
Greetings,
AS a DG Keeper, I thought I would share this wth The Group. I have two new (Fresh Meat!) players who I originally had working for the US Dept. of Agriculture. After some serious weirdness, I transferred them to the FBI. Since their first case upon graduating from the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA (Puppet Shows and Shadow Plays) brought them to the attention of DG, I had them "KLLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY" AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE MEDIA WAS CONCERNED AND HAVE NOW ISSUED THEM NEW IDS Your comments are most welcome.
At 02:32 AM 9/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Any thoughts about odd multi-agenct teams, phony IDs, or avoiding
>complications? Why is this not a regular problem with the teams?
In the new Harmsian campaign, the agents are temporarily re-assigned to the proper agencies as needed. In "Puppet Shows...", the group was temporarily re-assigned to the FBI, and was provided with the proper badges and credentials - even firearms. (A handgun was provided to the guy from the CDC, to help him fit in with the rest of the group; to his credit, he remained in character and never used it.) Another good idea I've adopted is giving each character a standard cover identity based on their code name; for example, Agent Quentin becomes Quentin Hall of (Agency of the week). That way the players and GMs don't have to get confused about which cover identity their characters are using at the moment, or what the other agents' code names are.
And how does this work with how things might be done in real life? How the hell should I know? ;-)
From: Shane Ivey
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:00:20
EDT
In a message dated 98-09-15 03:35:23 EDT, you write:
<< Any thoughts about odd multi-agenct teams, phony IDs, or avoiding complications? Why is this not a regular problem with the teams? >>
As CO Conkle stated, false identification is the breath of life to Delta Green. When I was a player last year, my character was a CIA operative who may or may not have still been officially attached to the SEAL Team from which he was detached for black ops some ten years before; when the investigation began he bore credentials identifying him as an Army colonel conducting security for USARMIID, and within days he was posing as a DOJ investigator.
The CIA manufactures fake IDs constantly to support the sanctioned and unsanctioned missions of the Operations Directorate, complete with establishing correlated identities for the case officer's background references, past neighbors, past employers, and so forth, calling on other case officers to play these roles and routing the appropriate "local" phone numbers to them. And the CIA is hardly the only intelligence agency around which must equip its operatives with credible false histories. Delta Green is positioned to call on such resources to support its own black operations without compromising its security: the random CIA officer who is posing as a DG agent's past employer, for example, does not need to know anything about the DG agent in question except what is necessary to describe his or her false work history.
Agent Phil wrote plenty o' good stuff, including the following:
> At the worst, operate in pairs, with only on agent showing his
badge, and introducing the
> other one. One agent asks the question,
and the other takes notes, and gauges responses.
> If the interview
is performed corrrectly, then it's possible the witnesses may hardly
even
> notice the 2nd agent.
This is just how my players did it recently. One FBI profiler, one CDC viral researcher. The CDC guy rarely talked and never introed himself. While they were in a porn shop, he mostly hung out in the 25-cent movie arcade. (Didn't find much in the way of clues there, but he got some interesting propositions.) Anyway, the pair-work usually worked, as the CDC guy was rarely noticed until he would come up and suddenly ask a question to knock the interviewee off-balance.
>3. In order to cultivate deniability, agents should be prepared to
use a large number of
> DG friendlies, all of whom have _no-idea_
that they are doing work for DG. In fact, I
> would propose a new
classification for these people, DG-puppets perhaps?
> Although the
name should probably be changed, so as not have so many negative
connotations,
> in order to avoid problems with signal-intercepts.
Yeah, we might get a bad rep, especially after we take on that infestation in GB and some of us get turned into Shan puppets. I also have started using the idea of "Friend-of-a-friendlies," which is of course way too cumbersome. These are the contacts that the friendlies have, but who don't have any contact with DG agents at all, or no more than very brief contact. In need, the DG agents can start using them directly, at which point they become friendlies. They still probably don't know anything about DG.
>5. Fake ID's are a necessity, particularly if they can be tied to
someone completely different,
> but I would reccomend using fake
names, and never letting any witnesses get to close
> a look at the
badge, say close enough to discern a badge-number, etc.
> ID's siezed
in other (legitimate) investigations may be extremely useful, if removed
from
> evidence lock-ups without trace.
Another suggestion for creating a false ID: layering. Don't have a fake ID that, when uncovered, just reveals who you are, or, at the very least, who you aren't. Have another fake ID ready to toss to them. "All right, ya got me--I'm not really Special Agent Smithers of the FBI, I'm really...Lemming of the BDA (British Dental Association)!" sez Agent Carstairs of the CIA. Of course, you can't make it so easy (or so silly)--they have to work to find out your 2nd-layer fake ID. If they work hard enough, they may believe they've really found you out, and be satisfied and look no further. This could save your ass, or at least DG's collective ass.
>7. In our line of business, everything is a complication, trust no-one,
see everything, and
> always keep one last bullet for yourself.
Hey, can we carry those little suicide pills? Cool.
Hi,
The question of false id's has come up a lot recently.
Given the mix of DG and friendlies on any given operation I feel that the use of fake ID's is essential.
In a recent DG scenario things went pear shaped and there was a falling out between the PCs. In fact two PC's (Including mine, Richard Bateman) suspected the other two of being controlled or at the very least, likely to be controlled by some alien entity that they had been exposed to.
As a result DG would no longer have anything to do with the two friendlies.
However the friendlies can identify the DG agents. In the event of an official investigation they owe no loyalty and would expose the others to cover their own backs. Perhaps blackmail would be DG's response.
Additionally if you don't use fake ID's any run ins with rival agencies (eg MJ12) would expose the DG agents to sanction at a latter date. Not a very noce thought.
Richard Bateman (my character) wishes he had used a fake id, he would certainly feel more comfortable upon returning to New York knowing that he was unlikely to be linked to the deaths in Arizona by either the authorities on the MIB with the stealth copter.
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:11:55 +0100
From: Phil
Ward
<<Still, one part of the question remains unanswered. Does a DG team have to worry about running into other feds? Do they have to be careful to dodge the official agents, assuming the investigation is of a crime the law is aware of? Or do the higher ups always have enough juice to make it exclusively a DG op?>>
Was that what the question was? Typical gamer, answer the question you want instead of the question that was actually asked :)
OK, odds are the DG can provide them with an official reason to investigate crimes in their 'local area', so they don't have to dodge other LEO's who are involved with investigations. However, as the agents begin to speciailise in a particular type of activity, or if they already have knowledge on specialist subjects, then they are gonig to be called out of their home turf and involved in other investigations. A _lot_ of these are going to be entirely unnoficial, and their 'meddling' in other LEO's investigations might lead to prosecution were they to be caught on the job.
Most of the time, it should be up to the individual team to cover up their involvment, to the point of throwing off other agency's investigations, and providing them with 'simple answers' to occult-related cimes...
It'll make for a more fraught and harrowing game if the PC's choose their own investigations and ahve to side-track and delay the regular police investigations too :-)
Only on Big and Important missions should their higher ups actually get them complete 'control' of an investigation.
> This last option seems unlikely, in this day of high-profile media,
and activists and politicians
> who often adopt sensational crimes
as issues and vote-getting opportunities.
Major opportunities there to give your players headaches ;)
DA's who require simple and scandalous answers. Mayors who need quick results so they can be tough on law and orer. Civil right's activists. Talk shows... hmm, talk shows could be a wonderful tool for getting agents involved with investigations...
"This week on Murtaugh: the father of my child lives in the sewers!"
"Next week on Claire; I was impregnated by aliens"...
If you can find a copy of Dark Conspiracy (cheap though, make sure it's cheap), there are some excellent recommendations in their for using Supermarket tabloids for adventure idea's....
heh
From: Christian Conkle
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:32:38
-0700
Delta Green is an illegal conspiracy after all, I would expect that, while operating with legitimate agencies, DG Agents have to be particularly careful to cover their tracks and mask their scents (so to speak). So, in answer to your queries:
1. A DG team only has to worry about other Feds if they are doing something patently illegal or illegitimate.
2. They ALWAYS have to be careful to keep their TRUE identities a secret from official agents, but as long as their cover (if any) is solid, then they can interact with legitimate agents.
3. Again, it depends. On a small-scale case, an X-files type of monster-of-the-week case, I'd suspect that the DG infrastructure would be able to keep other agencies out of it and claim exclusivity. If there is agency overlap, that becomes more difficult. Say, for example, a secret militia-cult was smuggling in high-power assault weapons, then the case might involve agents from BATF, the FBI, and, of course, local authorities. DG may be able to plant a few agents in the inter-agency task force, but not all. I have a feeling that DG would, in fact, TRY to put a few agents or friendlies into each of the cooperating agencies, but that's not always possible. In this case, the BATF DG friendly may be given instructions by their cell contact on how to recognize the DG agent or a secret code (masking tape triangle on their car window, whatever).
Ah, ain't hindsight wonderful? Unfortunately, fake ID's aren't always available. Not only that, but they're worthless if the friendly knows the Agent prior to their affiliation with Delta Green or if the Delta Green agent is working in an official capacity for their legitimate agency. Also, Fake ID's are worhtless if the PC's are identified by the forces of darkness before they are affiliated with DG, and most DG agents are recruited only AFTER they have a run-in with the forces of darkness.
I had this problem in MY campaign, where the PC's all met each other through the course of legitimate investigations for their day-jobs, BEFORE joining DG. The operation turned out to be a run-in with the Forces of Darkness (tm) that DG had arranged. Therefore, all the PC's knew each other before they were recruited. Not only that, but one of the PC's had an encounter with Adolph Lepus and the NRO Speedwagon boys.
This was really fun for the Players and bonded their PC's together, which is essential to ANY Role Playing Game's fun. It might not be realistic, but sometimes, realism has to be sacrificed for playability. If the PC's all distrust each other and the players aren't given any chance to trust the other PC's, then it becomes a bad scene for the game as a whole.
I don't know if this is of any help in the false ID, but how about a breakdown of the US Social Security Number.
The first group (of 3 digits) indicates the person's state of residence at time of SSN application. Each state has a bank of numbers assigned to it, and a table of that information can be found from many sources - including the Internet. The middle 2 digits signify the year and the last group has no significance - I believe that they increment from "0000" to "9999".
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:56:27 -0700
From: Alan L. Krause
rik kershaw wrote:
>The middle 2 digits
>signify the year and the last group has
no significance - I believe
>that they increment from "0000" to "9999".
The middle two didgits of my SSN are 04. Does this somehow map to 1969?
Hmm, yeah. Mine are 92. Does that map to 1970? 04 for 69? 92 for 70? Man, this code's tougher than we thought! I bet They threw in other numbers that match the same year too, just to keep us conspiracy busters off their trail! Damn them!
I know that Washington State Drivers Liscence numbers are figured that way. Mine used to be CONKLCW306N8. The 30 is the year I was born subtracted from 2000. The 6N8 were internal WADOT numbers. Pagan and others from Seattle care to substantiate this?
Georgia Drivers Liscences just used your Soc. Sec. # as their Lisc. #. How unoriginal. Oregon uses a wierd 7 digit code that I can't figure out.
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Christian Conkle wrote:
> Hmm, yeah. Mine are 92. Does that map to 1970? 04 for 69? 92 for
70?
> Man, this code's tougher than we thought! I bet They threw in
other
> numbers that match the same year too, just to keep us conspiracy
busters
> off their trail! Damn them!
Yup; my brother is sever years older, and our SSNs differ by one digit only, and by only one increment in that digit. (Middle two are 90, with me in '68 and him in '61.) Not to mention another brother and sister (both deceased) in between us. I'm sure it made sense to the Mi-Go, but they probably purged that logic long ago...
> I know that Washington State Drivers Liscence numbers are figured
that way.
> Mine used to be CONKLCW306N8. The 30 is the year I was
born subtracted from
> 2000. The 6N8 were internal WADOT numbers.
Pagan and others from Seattle
> care to substantiate this?
Looks about right. Mine gives 32, the last three digits are a mystery (except to the Mi-Go^H^H^H^H^HWADOT), but I've got an odd 9-digit (3 numbers/2 letters/4 numbers, doesn't ciper to SSN) set directly below the birthdate, but above the yellow line...
> Georgia Drivers Liscences just used your Soc. Sec. # as their Lisc.
#. How
> unoriginal. Oregon uses a wierd 7 digit code that I can't
figure out.
Montana uses (used?) SSNs as well, but if you refused to allow it (SSNs aren't *supposed* to be used in that manner) they'd issue you a newly generated number for that purpose. (Or so I heard. Might have been in the DMV handbook or something, as I seem to recall it being an "official" source.)
Folks,
After the last two or three posts concerning the structure of Social Security Numbers (as an offshoot of the Fake ID thread), I decided to do a little research on the Internet.
I've collected what is probably more than the Mi-Go, MJ-12, and the Illuminati would think I should know concerning how Social Security Numbers are assigned. Having done so, I decided, like a good Case Officer, to share it with other personnel so my gathered information doesn't die with me! :)
Considering the number of posts concerning these numbers, maybe this data ought to be stored in the Ice Cave, so future inquiries can be referred there... :)
Structure of Social Security Numbers
A Social Security Number (SSN) consists of nine digits, commonly written as three fields separated by hyphens: AAA-GG-SSSS.
The first three-digit field is called the "area number".
The central, two-digit field is called the "group number".
The final, four-digit field is called the "serial number".
The process of assigning numbers has been changed at least twice.
Until 1965, only half the group numbers were used. Before 1972, numbers were assigned by field offices; since 1972, they have all been assigned by the central office. The order in which numbers were assigned was changed in the 1972 transition.
There may have been other changes, but it is difficult to get information on how things used to be done.
Area Numbers:
The area numbers are assigned to geographical locations. They were originally assigned the same way that zip codes were later assigned (in particular, area numbers increase from east to west across the continental United States, as do the Postal ZIP codes). Most area numbers were assigned according to state (or territorial) boundaries, although the series 700-729 was assigned to railroad workers regardless of location (this series of area numbers was discontinued in 1964, and is no longer used for new SSNs).
Area numbers assigned prior to 1972 are an indication of the Social Security Administration office which originally issued the SSN. Since 1972 the area number in SSNs corresponds to the residence address given by the applicant on the application for the SSN.
In many regions, the original range of area number assignments was eventually exhausted as the population grew. The original area number assignments have been augmented as required. (This is why a number of states have non-contiguous groups of Area numbers.) All of the original assignments were less than 585 (except for the 700-729 railroad worker series mentioned above).
Area numbers of "000" have never been issued.
001-003 NH
004-007 ME
008-009 VT
010-034 MA
035-039 RI
040-049 CT
050-134 NY
135-158 NJ
159-211 PA
212-220 MD
221-222 DE
223-231 VA
232-236 WV
237-246 NC
247-251 SC
252-260 GA
261-267 FL
268-302 OH
303-317 IN
318-361 IL
362-386 MI
387-399 WI
400-407 KY
408-415 TN
416-424 AL
425-428 MS
429-432 AR
433-439 LA
440-448 OK
449-467 TX
468-477 MN
478-485 IA
486-500 MO
501-502 ND
503-504 SD
505-508 NE
509-515 KS
516-517 MT
518-519 ID
520 WY
521-524 CO
525 NM
526-527 AZ
528-529 UT
530 NV
531-539 WA
540-544 OR
545-573 CA
574 AK
575-576 HI
577-579 DC
580 VI Virgin Islands
581-584 PR Puerto Rico
585 NM
586 PI Pacific Islands (Guam, American Samoa, Philippine
Islands, Northern Mariana Islands)
587-588 MS
589-595 FL
596-599 PR Puerto Rico
600-601 AZ
602-626 CA
627-645 TX
646-647 UT
648-649 NM
650-699 Currently unassigned, reserved for future use
700-728 Railroad workers through 1963, then discontinued
729-799 Currently unassigned, reserved or future use
800-999 Not valid SSNs. Some sources have claimed that numbers above 900 were used when some state programs (for blind, aged, and disabled) were converted to Federal control, but other sources report that current Social Security documents claim no numbers above 799 have ever been used.
Group Numbers:
The group number is not related to geography, but rather to the order in which SSNs are issued for a particular area. Before 1965, only half the group numbers were used: odd numbers were used below 10 and even numbers were used above 9. In 1965 the system was changed so assignments continued with the low even numbers and the high odd numbers. So, group numbers for each area number are assigned in the following order:
1. Odd numbers, 01 to 09
2. Even numbers, 10 to 98
3. Even numbers, 02 to 08
4. Odd numbers, 11 to 99
Group codes of "00" are not assigned
In each region, all possible area numbers are assigned with each group number, before using the next group number. This means the group numbers can be used to find a chronological ordering of SSNs within a region. When new group numbers are assigned to a state, the old numbers are usually used up first.
The Social Security Administration publishes a list every month of the highest group that is assigned for each SSN Area. For example, if the highest group assigned for area 999 is 72, then we would know that the number 999-04-1234 is an invalid number, because the "even" Groups under 9 have not yet been assigned.
Serial Numbers:
Serial numbers are assigned in chronological order within each area and group number as the applications are processed. Serial number "0000" is never used. Before 1965, when number assignment was transferred from field offices to the central office, serial numbers may have been assigned in a strange order. (Some sources claim that 2000 and 7000 series numbers were assigned out of order. That no longer seems to be the case.) Currently, the serial numbers are assigned in strictly increasing order with each area and group combination. (Social Security Numbers are currently assigned by computer in Social Security Administration headquarters in Washington, DC. There are relatively rare cases in which the computer system can be over-ridden by manual assignment --- such as a recipient refusing a number containing the sequence 666.)
Invalid SSNs:
Any SSN conforming to one of the following criteria is an invalid number:
1. Any field all zeroes (no field of zeroes is ever assigned).
2. First three digits above 740
Duplicate SSNs:
Many people assume Social Security Numbers are unique. They were intended to be by the Social Security Administration, when the program began in 1935, but the SSA didn't take sufficient precautions to ensure that this would actually occur. They have several times given a previously issued SSN to someone with the same name and DOB (Date of Birth) as the original recipient, in the mistaken belief that it was the same person asking again.
The SSN 078-05-1120 was printed on "sample" cards inserted in thousands of new wallets sold during the 1940s and 1950s. A number of people who had -- for one reason or another -- not yet obtained an SSN apparently thought this was the number they had been assigned, and proceeded to use it as their SSN, to the confusion of the Social Security Administration. This number was so widely used in such cases that the IRS and the SSA will immediately recognize it as bogus -- but your average clerk probably hasn't heard of it.
Consecutive SSNs within a family might occasionally occur "naturally", but are _unlikely_ -- especially for parents and children. All the SSNs in a family being consecutive is sometimes a sign that the recipients are foreign defectors living under assumed names, or (slightly more often) clients of the Federal Witness Protection System, which has just slipped up.
(From what I've heard, after a few such clients were discovered through such means, and "taken out of the loop" on a permanent basis by representatives of the people looking for them, the Department of Justice has been more careful, lately...)
A pamphlet entitled "The Social Security Number" (Pub. No. 05-10633) provides an explanation of the SSN's structure and the method of assigning and validating Social Security numbers.
This description of the structure of the Social Security Number is based on messages written by Jerry Crow and Barbara Bennett. The information has been verified by its correspondence to the Social Security Administration's Program Operations Manual System (POMS) Part 01, Chapter 001, subchapter 01, which can be found at Federal Depository Libraries. (SSA Pub. No. 68-0100201.)
(It is also based on data at sites including:
http://snyside.sunnyside.com/cpsr/privacy/ssn/oldSSN/ssn.faq.html
http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page3/fp-ssn-info.html
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ssn.structure.html)
Michael Layne denied saying:
> 800-999 Not valid SSNs. Some sources have claimed that numbers
above
> 900 were used when some state programs (for blind, aged,
and
> disabled) were converted to Federal control, but other
sources
> report that current Social Security documents claim no
numbers
> above 799 have ever been used.
While true, it's somewhat misleading. Foreign people who work in the USA have to pay US income tax, and the IRS requires a SSN. Since non-citizens can't get an SSN, they are issued a TIN, Tax-payer Identification Number. I don't remember if the IRS uses 800-999 or 900-999, but other than the area range, they _look_ identical to an SSN. Sorry I can't provide any more info on the TIN. I just remember a few of these numbers from working in a tax prep office a while back.
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 17:35:26 -0500 (CDT)
From:
Don Juneau
On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Michael Layne wrote:
> Consecutive SSNs within a family might occasionally occur
>
"naturally", but are _unlikely_ -- especially for parents and
children.
> All the SSNs in a family being consecutive is sometimes
a sign that the
> recipients are foreign defectors living under assumed
names, or (slightly
> more often) clients of the Federal Witness Protection
System, which has
> just slipped up.
D'oh! 517-##-XXYX and 517-##-XXZX, in my brother and I's case. (Y being his lower digit.) Defectors seems a little more plausible, IMO, as I don't think the Witness Protection system was functional by '61... I may be wrong, we could be the secret Hoffa family.
Although, you'd think they wouldn't tempt defectors by placing them in the middle of the Montana missile-fields..
Sorry to interject some Star Trek into the mix, but....
On the SF Channel's "Star Trek Special Edition" dealie, Grace Lee Whitney (Yeoman Janice Rand) mentioned that her children had been extras on the episode "Miri" and had gotten their SSNs that day so that they could get paid. She also noted that their SSNs were one number apart.
