On May 6, 4:28=A0pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> --
> "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything.""Kellie Fitton"
<KELLIEFIT=
....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:d9c6517f-c3dd-4ab6-a31d-c0bfe573ea10@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 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
consensu=
s
> was that it shouldn't be too hard to devise a unique PID.
>
> Various systems already in place around the world were considered,
includi=
ng
> 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
t=
op
> 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
mea=
ns
> 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." =A0(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
plac=
e
> 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
wi=
th
> 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
wil=
l
> 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
numeri=
c
> Id, even though mod 11 check digits were quite fa****onable at the time
(th=
ey
> 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, =A0eye
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
droppe=
d.
> (I suspect this was a somewhat biased decision, but what the Hell..., we
> certainly didn't want it...).
>
> BOTTOM LINE: =A0While "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.
Hi Pete,
You might find the following articles amusing:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/26/chip.htm
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/12/06/verichip.aspx
Kellie.
|
