The need for identifiers in accurate criminal checks

Identity theft is a growing concern for the American public. There have been many articles, books, and broadcasts on the topic. High-profile data breaches at ChoicePoint and LexisNexis have served to heighten the sense of alarm. Newspapers have been regularly trumpeting the increasing rate of identity theft, while neglecting to mention that this frightening term refers to stolen credit card numbers (as opposed to a true impersonation) 90% of the time.

Much of the concern has focused on the social security number, or SSN. This is understandable as the SSN is the basic number used in the financial world. As more government records come online, there has been increasing pressure to remove SSNs from all records in order to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands. Stories like county officials posting property records with full SSNs that anyone could find horrified readers. Awareness of the problem is a good start to preventing egregious leaks such as this. But that does not mean that SSNs should vanish from all public records.

Social security numbers can be vital for criminal background checks. Criminal checks always require a name and date of birth. But what happens if your investigative subject is named John Williams? With a common name and a broad search area, it is possible for someone to show up with a criminal record and matching birth date who is not the one being checked. In this case, the SSN can remove the ambiguity. A full SSN is not necessary — comparing the first 5 digits only, with the other 4 being masked, works quite well for authentication. However, some jurisdictions have attempted to go further and remove all SSNs from criminal records. This can be a big problem for a person who needs to prove that they are not the one who committed the crime next to their name. Without the ability to clear things up easily, the unfortunate person can be denied employment or housing even though they are innocent. Masking SSNs is a good idea, but removing them altogether can have very harmful effects.

Even worse, some jurisdictions have considered removing date of birth from criminal records. This has far less justification as the date of birth is not sufficient to accomplish financial fraud. Without a date of birth, accurate criminal checks become virtually impossible. (We offer the option of a criminal search without a date of birth at SentryLink, but only for casual searches on a neighbor or friend, not ones that could affect a job or tenant application. All FCRA searches require a date of birth.) For the most part, the background screening organizations have been able to limit the spread of this initiative, but as privacy concerns mount it is likely to become a harder battle.

Given the widespread use of background checks and other personal searches in our society, some consideration should be given to the need for accuracy as well as privacy. Too little information can hurt as well as too much, and criminal searches based on name are not enough. Other identifiers are required.