Posted on 09/15/2011 9:30:24 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple
Gender Removal from the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS)
The verification of gender is an optional part of the verification process since the release of SSNVS in June 2005. Effective September 24, 2011, Social Security will no longer use gender as part of the SSNVS verification process.
For direct input users, the gender input fields will no longer appear on the SSNVS SSN Verification input screen.
The file format for users sending electronic files will not change. If a value is included in position 54 of a file, we will remove the value and replace it with a blank before processing. All results files returned will have a blank in position 48, even if a value was included on the original file.
For all results, we will no longer use verification codes 2 and 4. We will reword verification codes 3 and 5 and verification codes 1 and 6 will not change.
Social Security Number Randomization
Social Security changed the way Social Security numbers (SSN) are issued. This change is called "randomization". Social Security developed this new method to help protect the integrity of the SSN. SSN Randomization will also extend the longevity of the nine-digit SSN nationwide. Social Security implemented the new assignment methodology on June 25, 2011.
SSN randomization affects the SSN assignment process in the following ways: •It eliminated the geographical significance of the first three digits of the SSN (known as the area number) and no longer allocates the area numbers for assignment to individuals in specific states.
•It eliminated the significance of the highest group number and, as a result, the High Group List was frozen but can be used to validate SSNs issued prior June 25, 2011.
•Area numbers previously unassigned have been assigned--excluding area numbers 000, 666 and 900-999. These changes to the SSN may require systems or business process updates to accommodate SSN randomization.
Are they going to take it off of birth certificates, too? Why don’t we take race off, too, while we are at it?
You mean my 1948 issued number has a gender element to it ?
i.e, John I-was-born-a-male Smith or Jenny all-girl Jones.
Or Barack born-with-small-nuts-and purple-lips Obama.
The real minions to worry about are like these;
Rosa Brooks is a classic Red Diaper baby;
From April 2009 to June 2011, she served as Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy, and in May 2010 she also became [1] Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and then Special Coordinator for Rule of Law and Humanitarian Policy, running a new Pentagon office dedicated to those issues.
Brooks wrote a weekly and sometimes bi-weekly column for the Los Angeles Times from 2005 to 2009, and is known as an expert on national security, international law and human rights issues.
At the Pentagon her portfolio included both rule of law and human rights issues and global engagement, strategic communication, and she received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service for her work.
Her articles and known predilections towards socialism were too radical for the LA Times. She has been occasionally been a critic of some policies of the State of Israel. According to Brooks, “In the United States today, it just isn’t possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism.”[19][20]
Brooks has also been an advocate for increased taxpayer-funds for public media (such as National Public Radio and public and community broadcasting). In April 2009 she asserted that “Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting [broadcast] licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off.”[
Her mother is Barbara Ehrenreich currently an honorary co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. She also serves on the NORML Board of Directors, the Institute for Policy Studies Board of Trustees and The Nation’s Editorial Board. She has served on the editorial boards of Social Policy magazine, Ms., Mother Jones, Seven Days, Lear’s, The New Press, and Culturefront and as a contributing editor to Harper’s.[8]
How does that song go? I got a name and I got a number.........
No, but their database carries (or at least did carry) your gender so they could cross check when the employer said we have a male with ssn 666-66-6666.
So they did away with this security feature because the gender benders might actually have to send verified proof to the Social Security Administration about what they did to their outward sex?
Was this part of ZERO's outreach to the Latino community??It seems to double the chance for Identity Theft.
It also masks Manchurian Candidates.
I noticed this when my newborn son (born July 7) had his SS card come in the mail...his SSN starts with a 7. I thought it was weird until I read this.
Jim Croce- I’ve Got A Name
Like the pine trees lining the winding road
I’ve got a name
I’ve got a name
Like the singing bird and the croaking toad
I’ve got a name
I’ve got a name
And I carry it with me like my daddy did
But I’m living the dream that he kept hid
Moving me down the highway
Rolling me down the highway
Moving ahead so life won’t pass me by
I didn’t know that there was a gender identification built into SS#s. I had a friend, named Jackie, (must be on SS card that way) and a man in Sacramento was using her SS# for 11 years, even though her husband had complained to the SS administration and the IRS for years.
The guy never used the number for anything but employment. I don’t know if the employer was withholding any taxes, but she was getting dinged for taxes owed every year. The IRS just made the correction without doing anything about the guy in Sacramento, named Jack.
This is right out of the Communist Manifesto and Marx’s Hierarchy of “gender”.....Men and women are interchangeable....no difference!
The idea is to deny Natural Law Theory (the basis of our Constitution and Natural Rights) and destroy Truth. Promote the Big Lie that there is only egalitarianism-—everyone is exactly the same....no male and female.
This is the promotion of all sorts of insanity—like transgendered people and that you can declare yourself anything—whatever you want—even if it is not biologically true. Leads to utter chaos and promotion of emotions over intellect.
Why? To destroy the biological family and patriarchy. They want all biological connections destroyed because of the natural loyalty and emotional baggage tied to mothers and fathers and that devotion and loyalty used to support each other against state intrusion.
Individualism and self-suffieciency comes from the family unit-—emotionally healthy and strong children will have a strong devoted male influence in their lives. They will be incapable of compassion and empathy if they have no loving, caring mother who models and teaches the young children.
All the Romanian orphans were severely handicapped and incapable of any type of long term relationships. They were extremely retarded in social skills. You need a parent of both sexes to model behavior to the young for them to be able to successfully flourish with both male and female.
Marxists policy will deny science and logic and reason. It is unconstitutional, for our Constitution is based on “Right Reason according to Nature”.....not wrong reason according to Marx.
Wake up, people!!! They are trying to warp the thinking of the future generation of children with their “homosexuality is good” Marxist paradigm to destroy sexual morality which will destroy the natural family. Barney Frank’s “right and wrong” is unconstitutional because it denies the Objective Truth that exists in our Constitution and God’s Laws. Our standard of Right and Wrong is based on the Bible—not Barney Frank’s made-up urges. There can be no freedom in a society which has no morality—such as Frank’s. It destroys all relationships and creates disturbed or no children who become dysfunctional.
One never knows when one might want to make a change.
So we will have LESS information
Great~! thats always good...
um.... why do they feel the need to randomaze the numbers again?
Is it because some certain presidents have a social security number issued from a state they never lived in?
sniff sniff...Smells like BS around here...
That surely won't be allowed. It makes future gender changes more difficult for any who develop gender confusion and wish to change their gender.
dragonblustar wrote:
I guess people are going to have to put the gender of the child in it's name.
i.e, John I-was-born-a-male Smith or Jenny all-girl Jones.
Or Barack born-with-small-nuts-and purple-lips Obama.
BTW, it's not uncommon in hispanic communities to encounter women who are named "Female." They pronounce it "FAY-mahl-AY." The parents of these children often say, "They named her at the hospital for us."
No, I'm not making that up.
I blame Connecticut aka the *Constitution State*. Meh.
back then (1940’s) SS numbers were not given at birth...I am just a few years older than you...You needed a SS# when applying for a job....I got mine at 15. (lied to start working at 15 cause I wanted the job) and no employer checked up on the numbers for kids working for them...It was a typical teen job...working behind the candy counter at the local movie theatre...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.