Is there any COBOL program for verify the SSN?
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Understanding Error Messages
Next: Java Batch
From: Pete Dashwood on 6 May 2008 19:28 -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." "Kellie Fitton" <KELLIEFITTON(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d9c6517f-c3dd-4ab6-a31d-c0bfe573ea10(a)56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... On May 5, 5:41 pm, T. Rex <tyra...(a)saurus.com> 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 support 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 fashionable 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 reported 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."
From: Robert on 6 May 2008 20:56 On Wed, 7 May 2008 11:28:57 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >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... MedicAlert has been in existance since 1956. It costs $25 per year, is recognized in all countries, offers very fast communication of critical information (it is engraved on the band), no limit on the amount of information that can be stored. They offer bracelets, sports bands, necklaces, dog tags and a watch at prices from $10 to $800. The premium service called Gold, $120 per year, stores images of original documents in pdf format. It is intended to store your lifetime medical record. It's voluntary. The patient controls his own database entries and who has access.
From: HeyBub on 5 May 2008 11:24 Arnold Trembley wrote: >> >> Consequently, the latter is almost universally used: in the UPC, >> EAN, credit cards, my recipe file, etc. >> >> I can't give you a reference, but I recall reading such in either the >> Journal of the American Mathematical Society or the Journal of the >> Association of Computing Machinery (or similar) many years ago. >> >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm > See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Product_Code
From: Kellie Fitton on 6 May 2008 15:42 On May 5, 5:41 pm, T. Rex <tyra...(a)saurus.com> 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.
From: T. Rex on 5 May 2008 20:40
In article <54GdnZE-_bDo9ofVnZ2dnUVZ_q-jnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com says... > For example, I NEVER give my correct birth date or SSN to people who have no > need of it - like physicians or the Geek Squad. Let 'em claim they found > bomb-making recipes on some politician's computer... When asked for my SSN by people who have no business knowing it, I have a number handy, ready to rattle off: 314-15-9265. Easily memorizable by any mathematician, though perhaps more readily recognized with the hypens removed, and a decimal point inserted after the 3. I've often wondered who that number actually belongs to... |