Talk:DEA number

Wikipedia & ethics of "sensitive" information

While researching the article on medical prescription, I stumbled across information on what consistutes a valid DEA number (US government's Drug Enforcement Agency). That, is the number of letters and digits and the relationship of the digits and letters within the DEA number. While this information is clearly public, including it Wikipedia certainly aids criminals in prescription forgeries. Should I include it in an article? (The same discussion would apply to credit card numbers, etc.) Samw 00:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these numbers (hey, an article about the numbers would be good) - what legitimate interest would someone have in finding these numbers in an encyclopedia? -- Finlay McWalter 00:48, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The information on how valid credit card numbers are constructed is already in Wikipedia, which I don't see as problematic. These are all very simple and openly published checksums, so relying on them to prevent fraud would certainly be foolish. If there is an article in which the DEA number information would be of interest, I would say go ahead and add it. --Delirium 08:38, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I recall that, at age 15, how to construct a valid credit card number was part of my school syllabus (if my memory can be trusted, they have certian prefixes and a mod 10 checksum). I don't see how a DEA number could be any more sensitive. Stewart Adcock 17:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No answers, but perhaps I can formulate some questions. The big question is, "is it legitimately of interest to someone who's interested in the subject of prescriptions?" Let's put it another way. We normally accept that encyclopedia articles are of legitimate interest to somebody who is not a professional in the field described by the topic. If we truly believed that "A little learning is a dangerous thing/Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring" there would be no point in having an encyclopedia at all. Your article on medical prescriptions (which looks very good, by the way) already contains information about prescription forgeries. I find this information interesting to know, even though I've never forged and never intend to forge a prescription. Normally we assume that the inclusion of information is not tantamount to an enticement to abuse. Personally, I think that information about the internal consistency check algorithm for a valid DEA number is legitimate, while, say, Bill Gates' social security number is not.

I tend to agree with those who deprecate "security through obscurity." There was a recent research paper by some computer security gurus who looked at the structure of an ordinary cylinder lock with master-key system. They saw analogies to well-known security issues in computer systems and were surprised to find that the system was extremely insecure. Their publication created a minor flap—but then it emerged that the security issues had, in fact, been known to locksmiths and criminals literally for over a century. The only people that hadn't known about them were the people that relied on the security of these locks.

The second question is: can you get in trouble yourself or get Wikipedia in trouble by including some piece of information? I think I'm not going to even try to guess on this one. Dpbsmith 15:01, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input. I've added a description of the checksum algorithm to Drug Enforcement Administration. Samw 21:39, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Samw--thank you for adding to this post! I very quickly made the page late last night because "DEA number" is mentioned in another of the pages I've been working on (and I wanted to link it). I'm glad more actual susbtance has been added. The information is very interesting, and I'm glad to know it. I am a Nurse Practitioner and had no idea that's how the number was generated. Even though I could see some soccer mom recently hooked on Lortab finding the information a little too useful, I suspect it won't in reality create any harm. Thanks again! ARA 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First letter

The information given for determining the first letter of the DEA number is incorrect. These are business activity codes that the DEA uses for recordkeeping purposes in their files, but they do not corrolate to the first letter of the DEA number in most cases.Erockrph 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and update the article. Preferably, you can cite your reference. Samw 00:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first letter on my script is an m, what the fudgenuckle. me

First & second Letters of DEA Number

Information on the first letter of DEA Number seem to be wrong. And the information on the second letter of the DEA number is correct for the Doctors. It may not be true for the DEA Numbers of the pharmacies, hospitals etc.

There is no intelligence built around the first letter of the DEA. DEA uses an alpha character business activity code to identify various categories of registrants. For example, business activity code "C" indicates a "Practitioner".

Skinnai (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to a similar post at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#Format of DEA number. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New DEA #'s from an unreliable source?

I question the validity of the listing that was taken from here: http://www.deanumbers.org/dea-numbers-definition-and-construction

The above page cites no sources. Below is more credible IMO:

From the https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugreg/:

"New DEA Number Series

DEA is announcing that, effective immediately, DOD personal service contractors will be issued a new DEA registration number that begins with the letter "G". This new first character will be in addition to the current first characters A, B, F of the DEA registration for practitioners. The G series DEA registration number will be listed in the database provided to NTIS and available on the DEA website validation query system.

Registrant type (first letter of DEA Number):

A/B/F/G – Hospital/Clinic/Practitioner/Teaching Institution/Pharmacy

M – Mid-Level Practitioner (NP/PA/OD/ET, etc.)

P/R – Manufacturer/Distributor/Researcher/Analytical Lab/Importer/Exporter/Reverse Distributor/Narcotic Treatment Program" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.236.43 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GEA and politicians making painkillers hard to get for people who have a legitimate pain morons

What are you assholes going to do next make aspirin a class one or class to move or schedule one schedule two drug you’re a bunch of morons there’s people with legitimate pain out here that need painkillers and can’t get them 96.92.55.18 (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]