Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 September 12

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 12

How many small claims courts are there in the US?

It has been suggested that people affected by the Equifax breach sue Equifax individually in small claims court. (Apparently they can do that in addition to joining the class-action lawsuit, but as I am not a lawyer I will not speak to that.) Apparently there are 143 million people affected. If all of them sued Equifax in their local small claims court, how many people would have to go through each courtroom and how long would each case take? How long would it take before everyone was done with their suits? I tried to look up the number of small claims courts in the US using Google, Wikipedia, and the Reference Desk archives and got nothing. PointyOintment (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the United States, every state has a small claims court system. And, within that system, there are various court houses. The small claims court is typically a "division" or "branch" of the "regular" court. The "regular" court has different names in different states. The main criteria that distinguishes a claim in "small claims court" versus "regular court" is that the amount of money sought by the plaintiff is less than a specified value. (Typically, the claim must be less than $5,000.) So -- essentially -- there are as many small claims courts as there are "regular courts" in the US. Hope that helps somewhat. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

For example, here is the "scheme" of the court system in West Virginia: [1]. Every state has some similar structure. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

To answer some of your other questions: each case is different. A "typical" small claims case might take only 5 minutes; it might take perhaps 20-30 minutes if it were more involved and complicated. Each case is different. But, generally speaking, it's like an "assembly line" and the judges (magistrates) try to get through things very quickly. I referred to a time frame of either 5 minutes or perhaps 20-30 minutes. That refers to the time in court arguing the actual case. Oftentimes, there are many delays, continuances, postponements, etc. So, a small claims case may take months -- even several years -- from start to finish. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The legal system allows litigants to pool their resources. See Class action. 81.139.183.197 (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

... as mentioned by the OP, but the link is useful. Dbfirs 11:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to be clear, it's not normally possible to have a class action lawsuit in small claims court AFAIK. This source for example, mentions that you may be able to coodinate etc, but each claim will still have to be considered separately although in some cases multiple cases could give credibility http://www.nolo. com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/small-claims-book/chapter7-12.html. The class action lawsuit will be separate from any small claims case. Note that I'm not sure it's always possible to take a small claims court if you join a class action lawsuit. These sources [2] [3] for example covering a different matter suggests you opt out of a class-action if you want to take a small claims court although that's relating to a class-action lawsuit with a settlement. (Our article does cover opting-out albeit without many sources.) Note that there were concerns the case could affect the class action settlement [4] but it ended up being successfully appealed by Honda [5]. (Actually while I did find one source claiming you can take a small claims court case while continuing with the class action in relation to the Equifax example, I didn't find any sources actually talking about how this works. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess it can get somewhat complicated and involved. But, at the end of the day, no court system (in the USA) is going to allow the complaining party (the plaintiff) more than one chance to argue their case (or their grievance or their dispute). That would be duplicitous. It could also lead to contradictory results. So, courts do not engage in that. It would also allow parties to keep re-litigating issues forever and ever with no end in sight. And, it would hardly provide closure or resolution. And it would not offer us (the general public) any legal precedent by which all of us can be "on notice" and abide by. In other words, it would throw the state of the law into constant flux and confusion. Which is the exact opposite of "resolving" a dispute. That being said ... perhaps it is possible to have two different cases in two different courts (e.g., one case in the class-action lawsuit and its court; and one case in the small claims court). But, the "issues" would probably have to be defined and delineated and "crafted" in such a way as to make them be, legally, two separate and different claims or issues. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Two questions about climate change denial

I have two questions about climate change denial:

1. Why does it seem that climate change denial is rather prevalent among populist and far-right political circles? Disregarding the Republican Party in the United States, populist and/or far-right parties in Europe such as the UK's UKIP, Germany's AfD, and Switzerland's Swiss People's Party either deny climate climate or at the very least are skeptical about the scientific consensus on it. I know that in the US, denial is common due to the funding of conservative think tanks by the oil industry, but this does not seem to explain the popularity of the concept among the far-right in Europe, who as far as I know do not seem to have links to the oil industry.

2. Who and what are examples of prominent climate change denialists (people and organizations) in Asia? According to an article I read, climate change denial used to be common in China, but the movement pretty much died out there by 2011. Are there any current prominent climate change denalist people and organizations in Asia? Our articles related to climate change denial don't seem to discuss the concept in much detail when it comes to Asia.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

For your second question, I looked at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming there's an ugly article name... I only gave it a cursory glance, but there didn't seem to be any Asian-looking name on the list or Asian universities listed. That could, of course, be the result of non-neutral editing - since this is the English Wikipedia, most of the editors are less well-versed in Asian scientist's beliefs. You could compare that list to List of climate scientists, I suppose; neither seems to have many stereotypically-sounding Asian names on it, suggesting one or both are woefully incomplete. Maybe this or this provides some perspective? Matt Deres (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

For the first - you're describing Right-wing populism. That is generally anti-elitist, nationalistic, anti-globalization, anti welfare state, traditionalist, pro social difference and pro industry whether it affects people's health or the environment. And they only tend to accept information from people they believe support their values rather than because of reason. And their aspirations are to become one of the rich. How does any of that fit in with accepting climate change? It is a global problem, it requires change, talking about the long term future is seen as an elitist activity, it isn't kind to the idea of rich people dashing round the world in airplanes or even driving SUVs, and it seems to dash hopes of a bright future through more and more gas guzzling industry and to portray a miserable future for their children. It is a rejection at the gut feel level without any thought of what that means. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, anti-elitism ("It's a conspiracy") and anti-intellectualism ("these ebony-tower scientists with their theories don't understand anything better than I do with my common sense") are major factors. Most of the populist voters lack the education (and inclination) to read and understand scientific theories, and, as Dmcq wrote, they dislike all change. That makes it easy and convenient to discount the consensus. Some of the leaders may understand the science, but they play to their audience, no doubt rationalising this ("for the greater good", "it's probably not that bad", "it will primarily hurt brown people in faraway places, not the ones I feel responsible about"). The 2011 edition of The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society [6] has a chapter on Organized Climate Change Denial with a section on climate change denial outside the US, explaining a lot of international denial as export from the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Two states headed by climate change deniers have been hit with huge (and very costly) storms. Good luck thinking that their attitude might change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please consult a climatologist... the severity of individual storms are not the result of climate change. There have been large storms throughout history. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite right. You cannot reliable link any sinlge weather event to climate change, but, according to our current understanding, climate change will increase the average strength of hurricanes. If you play Russian roulette and keep increasing the number of loaded chambers, you cannot tie any individual loss to that process (well, unless you have all chambers filled ;-), but it would be misleading to say that that change has nothing to do with the increased frequency of replacing players. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The analogy I use is dropping an anvil on your head. When you drop an anvil on your head, it makes no sense to ask "which atom of iron killed me." After all I can drop a spoon on my head, and the iron atoms in that spoon don't kill me. That must mean my death wasn't caused by the iron atoms, right? Just as no one storm can be said to be caused by climate change, but we CAN say that we should get more storms of higher intensity. Likewise, just because the anvil hasn't yet hit my head doesn't mean I can't see it coming when it will. Ultimately, these mistakes are caused by the same sort of cognitive dissonance caused by Zeno's paradox; the incorrect assumption that a continuous phenomenon (climate) can be reduced to individual elements (weather) and that analysis of those individual events is sufficient to explain the continuous phenomenon. --Jayron32 13:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There would have to be a number of years of that before it became strong evidence of anything. But I suppose 'common-sense' just about might consider them as that - until next Winter when some place is cut off by snow. They are never going to be swayed by the long-term scientific evidence, only if some respected Republicans and churchmen accept it will they change their stance. Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Something to keep in mind here... there is a difference between climate change denial and opposition to climate related policy. It is quite possible for a politician to agree that climate change exists... and yet to oppose proposed laws designed to deal with it. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

If only political decisions had some sort of basis in rationality rather than rationalization, but when did you last see a politician basing a decision on something that worked out well somewhere else or even properly testing out their ideas before implementing them wholescale? - far too often that is just Minimisation (psychology) which is a form of denial, or they go in for denying blame or responsibility saying somebody else should act first. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

One over the eight

Last Tuesday the June Bank Holiday (Creation) Bill 2017-19 was presented in the House of Commons. It is next expected to be considered on Friday, 15 June (this is a Private Members' day and there may be a lot of Bills in the queue). It will increase the number of bank and public holidays in England and Wales to nine (depending on whether time is devolved it may apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well).

• What does the "2017-19" part of the title mean?

The Bill provides for a holiday on 23 June, or the following Monday if 23 June is a non - working day. So it doesn't provide for a long weekend, which is normal with these holidays. It adds to the clutch of bank holidays in the spring (it is only three weeks after the previous one).

• What is the significance of this date? (It's not the sponsor's birthday - I checked). 81.139.183.197 (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Anniversary of the Brexit referendum? Rojomoke (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was the idea. Some idiot (I've forgotten which one) called it a UK independence day. Dbfirs 15:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It was this one. --Antiquary (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes! Thank you. That one! I predict that the Bill will fail. Dbfirs 21:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I get it. That will be why it's limited to 2018 and 2019 - it will be a Monday in both these years. Harold Wilson did the same thing - he promised a holiday for May Day (1 May) starting in 1978 as an election gimmick. We duly had Monday, 1 May that year but then it moved to the first Monday in the month. 81.139.183.197 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The sponsor of this Bill, Peter Bone, is given the title of "Arch-Brexiteer" in yesterday's City A.M. I propose an amendment. Instead of a new holiday on 23 June abolish May Day (it's stupidly close to Easter) and the late spring bank holiday. In their place bring back Whit Monday which is a useful time for school half - term because it's always seven weeks after Easter and have a holiday on the following day as well. This would be named "Europe Day" and commemorate the date (5 June 1975) when Britain voted to REMAIN part of Europe. There is a precedent for this - five years ago 4 and 5 June were both holidays. The weather at the beginning of May is not up to much, but at the beginning of June it's much better. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

See Peter Bone. Alansplodge (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's not limited to those years - it makes June 23 a bank holiday in perpetuity, or the following Monday when it's a weekend. ("A Bill to make provision for a national public holiday on 23 June or the subsequent weekday when 23 June falls at a weekend; and for connected purposes.") Smurrayinchester 12:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• 2017-19 means that the bill was proposed in the 2017 parliament - if you look, all current bills have the same year reference (eg European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19). If it passes into law, it will be named the June Bank Holiday (Creation) Act 2017, or whatever year it happens to pass in. Normally, parliaments just have a one year span, but the government has decided to extend parliament for the length of Brexit negotiations, which is why it's 2017-2019. Smurrayinchester 11:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Small nit: what normally lasts a year is a legislative session. Each parliament refers to the parliament elected at an election until it is dissolved for another election. The current parliament is the 57th, but there have been many more legislative sessions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Smaller nit - pick: Those 57 are parliaments of the United Kingdom. Before the three - way union there were parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. Before the two - way union there were also parliaments of England and Scotland. There were also parliaments in Wales. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Equifax

The Equifax security breach would seem to me to have a simple solution—issue new social security numbers to every American. Wouldn't that go a long way to solving the problem? I think the social security number is a key piece of information without which it would be very difficult to open new credit lines. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it seem totally stupid that a 9-digit number is all that stands between an individual and a thief? I am not technologically-oriented but surely somebody with brainpower can come up with a system that is more brawny than that. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the logical consequence of (1) companies using the SSN as an ID, which they're not supposed to do; and (2) the all-too-lax security at companies where bean counters rule. Re-issuing SSN's could be a problem unless they totally change the scheme. The SSN has built-in meaning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: What do you mean by "the SSN has built-in meaning"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

For example, the 3-digit prefix indicates something about the state of issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, yes, I see what you mean. I think that the year of issue is somehow embedded in there, as well. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I would think that technology such as Multi-factor authentication and EMV, or "chip cards", would allow people to safeguard their identity so it couldn't be stolen to open new lines of credit. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the "solution" is going to be to put chips in us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

People in these five states can (currently) refuse to play that game. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect one of the ideas the vote-fraud commission will come up with is that anyone who wants to vote in a federal election will have to get chipped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then any subject who wants to buy or sell things will play along. But for now, there are legal hurdles and a general feeling of "nuh-uh". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A question back to the original poster. Let's say that we do change everyone's SSN. So, what? How does that solve the problem? A year from now, or 5 years from now, or 3 weeks from now, we would have to change them all over again. No? How does that solve the problem? In other words, changing everyone's SSN would be a band-aid, not a "real" solution. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why would we "have to change them all over again"? Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The next time they get hacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Essentially, Bus stop, you are proposing this scheme: The numbers get hacked; so we issue new numbers. The numbers get hacked again, so we issue (more) new numbers. The numbers get hacked again, so we issue (more) new numbers. And so on. I can't imagine that is a "solution". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a great solution, Joseph A. Spadaro, you just fail to appreciate its simplicity and effectiveness. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bus stop: OK. You may think that it's a great solution, simple and effective. And I disagree. So, we are free to disagree. (I suspect 99% of the population would also disagree, to be honest.) Let's leave the issue of "disagreement" aside. So, you did not answer the question that I asked. After we change the numbers, and there is another hack, then what? We change the numbers again? And, after there is yet another hack, then what? We change the numbers yet again? Please answer that question. If we are constantly changing numbers, ad infinitum, how is this "effective"? And how is that "simple"? I would now have to remember 28 different SSN's that I have? And which time-frame corresponded with which SSN? You consider that "simple"? Actually, sounds like a nightmare. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Another very simple solution: Publish everyone's name and social security number on a monthly basis in a very easy to use public database. Then, nobody will assume that your SSN is a secret in any way. They will ask for some other form of secret information to verify that you are who you say you are. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And the new secrets will stay secret yet verifiable, somehow? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If Bitcoin is possible then protecting the identities of human beings should be possible. Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that "we can put a man on the moon"-style encouragement, or is there an actual clue here? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not an actual clue, as I don't have a clue... Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal by a not-for-profit organisation in Palo Alto, CA, called Democracy Earth, to use a Bitcoin-like system called Sovereign (no article as yet) to enable completely verifiable and uncorruptible means of voting (amongst other things): it's also being advocated by a political group (the Net party) in Argentina. There's an article about it on pp 8–9 of this week's (9 Sept 2017) issue of New Scientist. If such a system could be used for voter identification and verification, it could no doubt be adapted to other things requiring proofs of identity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.137.12 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that the banks have biometric identification measures possible - though these suffer from the clear flaw that if someone can inject false output as obtained from the reader then they have wide open access (i.e. if the car dealer needs your fingerprint to get a loan, then a dishonest car dealer can get a file of downloaded fingerprints and take out billions in loans, then vanish. It would nonetheless seem rather inexpensive for the actual lender to require, say, a live conversation over a company certified phone, backed by facial recognition, conducted with video broadcast from in and near the actual house used as collateral (as confirmed by Google Maps view). But -- it would be a pain in the ass, and they'd lose customers, and since fraud isn't really that common, it makes more economic sense for the bank to suffer fraud than to suffer lost customers. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: You stated: and since fraud isn't really that common. Huh? Wasn't that exactly the topic at hand here? Fraud? And, seriously, isn't "fraud" pretty common? Or are you saying that while a security breach may be common, any subsequent ensuing fraud is not? Isn't that the whole point of a hack like this – precisely to facilitate some form of fraud? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In this country the National Insurance Number is the key to collating all an employee's contributions for the purpose of calculating pension entitlement. If all the numbers were changed how could this be done? 92.8.216.51 (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Social Security Numbers

Regardless of whether the Equifax hack should be the reason, redesigning the Social Security Number and issuing new ones would be a good idea and will eventually be needed. When Social Security Numbers were introduced in the mid-1930's, less was known about the business of unique identifiers than is known now. It is true that the first 3 digits of the SSN are useful, and they should be perhaps kept. However, the Social Security Number doesn't include a check digit or any sort of check. As a result, if an SSN is off by 1, it is someone else's SSN. If a credit card number is off by 1, it is rejected as bad, and rejecting all single-digit errors is now known to be an input design constraint in any sort of unique identifier. The SSN really should be replaced with a 12-digit number, taking advantage of knowledge, some of which resulted from the mistakes of the SSN. Whether Equifax is the reason is another question. The rollout of the new SSNs should be done after adequate study, not just hastily because of Equifax. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I was following your argument, and it made a lot of sense. Until I came to the end. This part confused me. What exactly would be the difference if the SSN were 12 digits (as you proposed) or 9 digits (as is currently)? I don't follow that. I understand your point that there should be some "check", similar to credit cards. I don't see how 12-digits is a good SSN, while 9-digits is not. Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Joseph A. Spadaro - There need to be enough digits so that having a Social Security Number by wrong in one digit will not be a different person's SSN. That means that there have to be at least enough digits so that one of the digits is a "check", over and above enough digits just to cover the population. The population of the United States is estimated at 326 million, and babies now are issued SSNs when they are born, and SSNs are not reused by the dead, so that more than 400 million SSNs have been issued. That means 9 digits that have meaning, so that a minimum of 9 meaningful digits and a "check" is 10 digits. There are advantages to 11 or 12. It doesn't have to be a 12-digit number. It could be 11. 10 would be the absolute minimum, and 11 or 12 would be better. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Makes sense. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In Britain we used to have National Insurance cards, on which employers used to stick National Insurance stamps. When the cards were full they would be passed back to presumably the Inland Revenue and exchanged for new ones. To make the system manageable the cards did not all fill up at the same time. The numbers had a suffix "A", "B", "C" or "D" to denote the quarter at the end of which the cards expired. ("A" was 31 March and so on to "D" which was 31 December). When the stamps were done away with the numbering was not changed, so the suffixes were then allocated, as I understand, on a random basis. I am sure an algorithm could be devised so that these letters could function as a check digit. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There are often dichotomies and paradoxes (see for one example Mayfield's paradox) built into any system that often are unresolvable given different end goals of different entities. Security concerns often conflict with other concerns in ways that make it almost impossible to meet all requirements of a situation. For example: If you want to design a secure building, you give it ONE entrance/exit point, so you can control who comes and goes. But, if you want to design a safe building you want as many exit points as possible, so that people can get out in a hurry if needed. You can't have both a building where you can control access and which people can easily get out in a fire. Even locking doors from the inside isn't secure, people often prop them open or let people in. See, for example, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, where measures taken for security purposes resulted in deaths. These problems show up in many permutations. My son this year is required to wear a visible name tag to ride the bus, so the bus driver can make sure she has the correct kids on her bus, to prevent kids from taking the wrong bus home. Seems like a good idea, right? Until you realize that anyone know can see my kid's name, and then use that to gain his trust and do nasty things to him. We have live shooter drills in school every year and they are always changing up the requirements, because the security personnel and first responders can't agree on whose goals are more important. Security wants everyone to close their doors and cover all windows and hide (so such an attacker can't know where to find victims). First responders want to be able to know the condition of people in the room, so they know where to concentrate their efforts, so they want windows open and us to use a "colored card" system to identify safe areas and areas where there may be threats. But any method used to communicate with first responders also communicates information to the attackers we're trying to avoid. Similarly, take Password strength issues: if you have a password that you can easily remember, then it's easier to crack. If it is harder to remember, you're more likely to need to write it down somewhere, which can then be stolen. Security vs. safety came into direct conflict in the 2015 San Bernardino attack investigation and similar demands from law enforcement for IT companies to build in law-enforcement accessible backdoors and the like into security systems. However, just like with the fire exit example, any emergency back door can be "propped open" for anyone to access. If the police can get in, anyone can get in. The pervasive use of the SSN as a unique identifier is exactly analogous to these issues; ideally every interaction between a person and an organization would generate a different unique identifier. However, then you get the problem that people don't remember that identifier, so they need a physical copy, which then is insecure. So everyone defaults to a unique identifier they can memorize and use over and over again. Do you build your building with one door or many doors? --Jayron32 10:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

See trade-off. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For comparison's sake, my Swiss health insurance card has a 20-digit card number (specifically for healthcare) and a 13-digit person number (linked to other government services). Since I live in a country with only 8 million people, having this many digits seems excessive. Dragons flight (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A check digit would be nice. Mistakes do happen. I personally know two people who were declared dead because their SSN was accidentally added to the national deceased list. Obviously, the monkey typing in deceased SSNs typod. But, by law, the social security administration cannot be held responsible for accidentally declaring a person deceased and the person who typod the entry is not responsible and cannot be punished. So, it is up to the "dead" person to file paperwork and wait months for the issue to be cleared up while their car is repossessed, house is foreclosed, bank account is closed, all credit cards are closed, retirement is ended, insurance is cancelled, etc... 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

By "typod" I think you mean "typoed". Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am just very facetious. I also purposely write mispell as much as possible. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Social Succulency Administration ought to do something about it. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)