--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
"Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d9c6517f-c3dd-4ab6-a31d-c0bfe573ea10@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
May 5, 5:41 pm, T. Rex <tyra...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> Speaking of hallucinating... what part of "there is no check digit in a
> SSN" are you having such a hard time comprehending?
Hi,
The following weblink will help you understand why a check-digit
is used to enhance a social security number:
http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/app7-1.htm
Kellie.
[Pete]
In the early 1970s I was working as a lead programmer in the (small) IT
department of Auckland Hospital.
They (just like most hospitals around the world) were having trouble with
patients being admitted unconscious, and not knowing whether they had
allergies, or conditions that might affect their treatment.
It was decided that a Patient Identifier would be a "Good Thing".
In a country of only 3 million people as it was then, the general
consensus
was that it shouldn't be too hard to devise a unique PID.
Various systems already in place around the world were considered,
including
the US SSN. It was rejected because around 20% of all SSNs issued were
either incorrect, forged, or false. (Following this thread, I can now see
why...).
I have never forgotten sitting in a meeting with my Boss and some of the
top
people in the Hospital, including the Registrar (God). It was a surreal
exerience.
My Boss and I were both against the idea of unique identifiers for
anybody.
It was a different world then and Kiwis have always valued their
independence and right to be different. We don't like Nanny State or any
form of Central Government control. However, patient care is a pretty hard
case to argue against.
My Boss suggested that even if we came up with a PID (and it was by no
means
certain that we even could), how could we ensure that people were carrying
it when they were admitted?
Registrar: "We'll ensure it is tattooed on everyone at birth." (He was
quite serious.)
Silence. No-one was game to say what everyone was thinking. This man had
absolute power over the career of everyone in the room...
Finally, my Boss suggested gently: "Whereabouts on the body would you
place
the tattoo?"
Registrar: "On the arm."
My Boss: "What if their arm has been destroyed?"
Registrar: "Good Point. Perhaps the buttocks might be better..."
Someone else: "But the buttocks could have been destroyed..."
General discussion ensued about horrific injuries to accident victims that
had actually occurred.
Finally the registrar said: "We can put it on their foreheads. If that has
been destroyed they're probably beyond help anyway."
There were polite objections to the idea of a population walking around
with
a number (or alphanumeric string) tattooed on their foreheads. It smacked
of
Nazi concentration camps and would offend sensitivities in the community.
Registrar: "We can tattoo it in ultraviolet ink and simply scan them when
they're admitted."
At this point I was trying to suppress giggles as I imagined the local
nightclub on Saturday night... UV lighting was pretty widespread in clubs.
A
whole new dimension on "Can I have your number..?"
I was trying to sup****t my Boss and asked: "Do you think the NZ public
will
stand for having a tattoo placed ANYWHERE on their bodies?"
He gave me a withering look and said: "Why NOT! It's for their own
good...".
Is it me, or has anyone else noticed it too...whenever anyone uses that
phrase, what they are proposing is invariably NOT good, and especially NOT
good for the group who are the subject of it...?
The fledgling NZ Computer Society (of which I was a founder member) was
tasked with devising a unique identifier. We set up a working group and it
investigated ways we could do it. Nobody liked the idea of a purely
numeric
Id, even though mod 11 check digits were quite fa****onable at the time
(they
are not infallible and if you are dealing with peoples' lives you need
infallibility), and most of us were shocked at the re****ted inefficacy of
the US SSN . All sorts of strings that included name, DOB, eye colour,
place of birth, etc. were considered and rejected. Finally it was agreed
that a 24 character string could be used and would be accurate to a
statistically insignificant degree. The information that would need to be
attached to this Key in any computer system was then looked at, and the
result was that the random access storage systems of the time simply
didn't
have the capacity to store it all. It was considered infeasible and
dropped.
(I suspect this was a somewhat biased decision, but what the Hell..., we
certainly didn't want it...).
BOTTOM LINE: While "enhancing " the SSN to include a check digit is
probably a good move, the whole SSN system is far from trustworthy and I
wouldn't want to stake MY life on it. For administration, sure, the worst
that can happen is generally not fatal. For medical systems? Not on my
watch...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|
