Ancestry.com Removes Social Security Numbers for Those Deceased for Less Than 10 Years

At the behest of lawmakers, Ancestry.com announced they will no longer show social security numbers for anyone who has not been dead for at least 10 years. This move comes as the result of concerns about possible identity theft issues using the social security numbers of recently deceased individuals. Full details are available in an article posted on SFLuxe, see below:

Genealogy sites remove Social Security numbers of deceased

Publication Date 15 December 2011

WASHINGTON – The world’s largest commercial genealogy website this week removed the Social Security numbers of recently deceased individuals, two weeks after lawmakers urged the site, Ancestry.com, to stop enabling ID thieves by posting the sensitive information.

A spokeswoman for the Provo, Utah, company said that “there was some sensitivity” about the company policy of releasing the numbers. That led to a “purposeful decision” to not post the numbers for those who have died in the last 10 years, spokeswoman Heather Erickson said.

An employee with a second website, Genealogybank.com, said that the Naples, Fla., company also has decided to stop posting Social Security numbers.

The moves come six weeks after a Scripps Howard News Service investigation showed how people obtain and use the deceased’s Social Security numbers — which are freely released by the government — to commit identity fraud, including submitting false tax returns and collecting refunds.

Click here to read the full article.

8 Replies to “Ancestry.com Removes Social Security Numbers for Those Deceased for Less Than 10 Years”

  1. It appears that a lot of us who do genealogy research are being punished because of others who could care less. Very sad and I am thankful that I was able to get on to the site as I would never have found out the information of death dates of some of my ancestors. That information is very helpful to those of us who honestly need it to complete our genealogy. Is there no way that those sites can be seen by those of us who need it? It just angers me that the people who do things right are always punished by those who take advantage! Life is not fair!

  2. My concern is that I don’t belong to Ancestry.com because I can’t afford a membership right now. And I am assuming that I will not have access to the Social Security Death Index because I can’t access it on Ancestry.com. Maybe someone can enlighten me here. I use the Death Index all the time.

  3. I certainly do agree with Susan (as I also belong to Ancestry.com) and truly understand when one is unable to join any of the sites for which you have to pay. In fact, I have not joined other sites for the same reason! Just wonder if the SSDI informtion could be posted without the SS numbers.
    Yes, I know….there are millions and billions plus. But, there are probably millions (if we all were counted) who are trying our best to do a family history. Knowing the SS number is nice; BUT, I have never found it all that important just to learn when a person died and where.
    Billie-Beth Moore – Texas

  4. Ancestry did right if Congress or the SSA edicted that with all future sales of SSDI info that SSNs are not to be displayed within the first 10 years after death. If they just volunteered to then I think they unncessarily hampered the Genealogists. I have used SSNs to request data from the government such as for ver=terans info.

    I don’t think Ancestry did right by taking down access to the whole RootsWeb SSDI. Most of which is more than 10 years old. This appears to be purely for commercial reasons. They could apply the same software algorithyms to supress displaying the SSNs on deaths less than ten years ago no matter where they store it on their computers. They are slowly shutting RootsWeb down whether we like it or not.

  5. There is no reason that we should suffer because of dishonest thieves; there will always be ways to “beat the law” by those criminals, but genealogists have the right to “public information” under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Why not post the first 3 and last 3 digits so that we can at least have an opportunity to order Social Security Applications with as little search on the part of the SS Administration as possible and less cost to us.

  6. I guess I wonder how dishonest people can commit identity theft when someone is dead? Can someone please explain this to me?

  7. It seems obvious that identity theft is made easier, not harder, by the removal of the ability to prove that the people are dead. However, politicians do what politicians do, and logic seldom applies. Finding the lifespan and place of death are the usual reasons for searching and using this valuable taxpayer-provided database. The claims that discovering a relative has died is wrong when the information we have paid for is provided free but all right when we pay a second again for the information that rightly belongs to the people or that greedy and dishonest people will be deterred by paying a small part of their intended thefts makes no sense. If being able to prove a person with a given SS# is dead is the problem, use common-sense solutions already mentioned. The “solution” as implemented,is excessive and useless, punishing only the honest people.

  8. familysearch.org has the SSDI on their old web site. Look for the link to the previous web site on the right hand side of the page of the new site. Then click on Search Records. When those display, chose the SSDI. I don’t know if the LDS is self-censoring their data yet, but it’s worth a try. Act ASAP before that information disappears or is no longer added.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.