UK says wider National Insurance number use no longer a no-no UK government policy towards the wider use of the National Insurance Number (NINo) as a general identifier appears to have changed again. This ever-shifting policy now illustrates that well-known saying “What goes around comes around”. As is well known, the “general identifier” powers in the Data Protection Act (Schedule 1, …
.. is a case study in what not to do with such identifiers. People over there seem to protect it with their lives, because it's used to identify them and used in identity fraud against them. That situation is unhealthy and it should be resisted - there's no genuine reason for non-governmental providers of services to use or reference the NINo.
Suspect there'll be pretty big backlash against wider use of it in the UK.
The NiNo can be used in ID fraud here too and should be protected.
The big problem in the US IIRC is that many organisations used their equivalent (the social security number, or SSN) it as a handy identifier/username.
This allowed for mass linking of different datasets about people and of course many user account databases were improperly secured and 'leaked' people's SSN all over the shop.
No wonder that people are reluctant to give it out nowadays.
The NiNo can be used in ID fraud here too and should be protected
Government isn't going to accept you are you based on supplying them with your NINo. If somebody wants to pay my income tax/NI for me they're quite welcome to.
All this stuff is circular and precisely why it shouldn't be otherwise used.
"Government isn't going to accept you are you based on supplying them with your NINo. If somebody wants to pay my income tax/NI for me they're quite welcome to."
A family member spent many years working in the Middle East. On return to the UK and sorting out his tax situation, the tax office claimed that he'd spent at least five years in Wales claiming benefits based on his NI records. He had to submit all the paperwork/payslips etc to prove he wasn't even in the UK at the time. Never did find out if it was a duplicate number, a typo or a deliberate scam.
the tax office claimed that he'd spent at least five years in Wales claiming benefits based on his NI records
Takes a fair bit of ID to claim benefits, I'd imagine there's more to this story - not that they'd tell the person due to the "privacy" of the person who was actually claiming.
The DWP rules on claimants are fairly clear about this sort of thing though.
"Takes a fair bit of ID to claim benefits, I'd imagine there's more to this story - not that they'd tell the person due to the "privacy" of the person who was actually claiming.
The DWP rules on claimants are fairly clear about this sort of thing though."
You're probably right. It was a fair number of years ago and predates the DWP. It'll have been the DHSS back then.
"A family member spent many years working in the Middle East. On return to the UK and sorting out his tax situation, the tax office claimed that he'd spent at least five years in Wales claiming benefits based on his NI records. He had to submit all the paperwork/payslips etc to prove he wasn't even in the UK at the time. Never did find out if it was a duplicate number, a typo or a deliberate scam."
I'd go with duplicate. I phoned up HMRC at some point and they thought I was simultaneously living in England Scotland, and had a full-time job while being a full-time student. Took years to sort out.
This post has been deleted by its author
The one and only time I tried to get my reference number I found that the DVLA had not made the web page compatible with Linux and I live in a microsoft free housefold. At least it didn't work on any of the web browsers I had available.
The HMRC use of NiNo annoys me. They often send me letters containing my NiNo with the origin proudly displayed on the outer packaging. I've often thought of complaining to the Data Protection Registrar that they are sending sensitive personal information unencrypted.
Don't even go there. English, like many languages, has gender constructs but sensible interpretation of responses like these is to consider their use to be necessary for proper grammar and not some sort of misogynistic hate-fest or safe-space-invasion as seems to be so popular these days. The female is implied and accepted.
You're lucky numbers are gender neutral in English. In other languages they're not - that can make things really tricky as you can mix the genders and offend everyone in one grammar confusing swoop. Then there are various rules when you have plurals (like male plural for male or mixed multiples unless you know it is all-female then there's a special female multiple).
It has been a UK legal convention for centuries (and incorporated into law by s6 of the 1978 Interpretation Act) that the use of masculine pronouns construes inclusion of the feminine as well:
"Unless it is clear there is a contrary intention, wherever in any Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument there are words importing the masculine gender, the words should be construed to incorporate the feminine and vice versa. Also, words in the singular include the plural, and as with the interchangeability of words importing gender so it is with the plural and singular"
Your idea is just an ugly, grammatically asinine kludge.
Proper grammar is itself an invention imposing Latin grammar rules on the English language, in order to keep the uneducated lower classes subservient and to make it clear that you were better because you knew the rules.
Shakespeare used many constructs that are now grammatically incorrect like "more better" to emphasise that something was better than just better, or double negatives to reinforce how negative something was ... not to cancel it out. Chaucer used similar constructs.
Given the roots of grammar in class oppression, I don't think the odd attempt to improve it here and there is a big deal.
"*sigh*"
What Pollyanna said, but I'd like to add that I recently listened to the audiobook "How Google Works". It was a little jarring to hear almost every reference to a generic person as "her" or "she" and yet almost every person specifically named was male. it sounded really weird. I expect it would have sounded less weird if the book was mainly about females rather than males.
Anyway, as my wife (oo-err, non-PC possessive "my", but I don't own her) is fond of saying, "woman is man with a bit extra on the front"
Most of Europe has a national identifier == national insurance number, has had it for > then 5 decades in some countries and has long figured out what are the auxiliary reqs to prevent fraud.
The NINo itself is not the problem - it is what you can index, what an organization is allowed access to and what you can access if you waltz in through the door and ask for data. That is tightly regulated and usually legislated as well. So the various Identity Fraud scenarios in use in the USA and UK do not apply.
Back to UK - the idea that the NINo can be used as a cross-index identifier by itself is not wrong. The issue is with the common law based precedent hodge-podge which determines what it can be used for. That morass needs to be cleared first so you cannot commit fraud just by figuring out someone's SSN.
Here in Spain the National Identity number is used for everything. I was going to sign for a package being delivered to the company I work for but for another department, the driver wanted my NIE so I told him to find someone else to sign. Even ordering goods by phone your name is not enough, they want your number too.
Oddly purchasing online via Amazon or Ebay doesn't require it even when purchasing expensive goods.
Even the banks here don't really get security so my number is strictly for government use only.
ID numbers and social securty/NINo numbers aren't the same, you can have someone who has ID but no social security (a foreign resident) and you can have someone with social security but no ID (a minor).
Doce detenidos en Madrid por robar el dni y suplantar a sus víctimas en bancos
And they weren't particularly clever, they just stole ID cards and someone in their gang who looked roughly like the photo used it to withdraw their money out of bank accounts.
During WWII everyone in the UK had a National Identity Number (and a NI card). At the end of the war the government conceded to liberal (small l) concerns and announced that they were abolished. Fairly soon after that it was announced that they were needed after all - to use the new NHS - they became NHS numbers. I don't think they are used now (the NHS apparently followed the maxim that "an alternative identifier can be easily developed" - indeed they may have followed it repeatedly).
It does however illustrate the fact that from time to time there is a genuine need for the state to identify its citizens; the fact that this is now done in round about ways is, quite honestly both stupid and hypocritical.
"It does however illustrate the fact that from time to time there is a genuine need for the state to identify its citizens..."
Equally it suggests that such times are rare. In addition, it suggests that a population that had just spent the best part of a decade battling against fascists were extremely keen to put such mechanisms beyond use.
1. As I understand it a NiNo is assigned at birth, but is not made known to the person until they are likely to need it (round about the age of 16). So if a database contains children then a surrogate Id key is advisable.
2. Problem with any officially generated number is that there may be inaccuracies in its assignment - who trusts that kind of system to generate a unique id? That cannot be altered during the person's lifetime?
3. Then there are people from abroad who won't have a NiNo. If you've got to artificially simulate a NiNo in order to record a foreign person into a database you are better off creating your own Id. Also, if someone is assigned a temporary NiNo, for whatever reason, then the person performing data entry may not realise that this is not a "real" NiNo and may change, and conflict with someone else assigned the same number.
I've got a long standing mess with Aegon where they've LOST my home address yet cheerfully accepted monthly Pension contributions that I think I've finally fixed.
The proof you may ask?
Today I received a form from Aegon demanding all the stuff I've already provided 7 years of proof for, AND a "fill in your NiNo here" boxes for it to go into.
Having no choice as I want to get 15 years of Pension moved to another company I've had to comply. Hopefully they don't fuck up management and securing my personal data!
This post has been deleted by its author
Although the Government tries to ensure that National Insurance Numbers are unique, their uniqueness can not be guaranteed. And you can not guarantee that an input National Insurance Number is free from typos when adding a record for a customer/client. So any database that tries to use a National Insurance Number as a primary key is doomed to fail, eventually.
If a database can not use a National Insurance Number as a primary key, the justification for recording the National Insurance Number at all disappears, unless the database must be used for tax or benefits payments.
More on what Raedwald Bretwalda has already said, the National Insurance Numbers are not unique.
IIRC, about 25 years ago when I was writing software for a government training agency, I was told to not use the NI Number as the key value. A gov.dept. had just cocked-up and reissued a batch of numbers to several 10,000s of people, so there are lots of duplicates out there.
Hmm. You make a statement of fact and you (currently) have one downvote but no explanatory reply. The possibilities would seem to be:
1) The fact is considered to be false, in which case some supporting evidence would appear to be in order since your claim is one I've heard before and I rather suspect you are correct.
2) The fact is considered to be irrelevant, in which case someone really needs to learn about primary keys before voting.
3) Citing facts is considered to be something one simply doesn't do, in which case someone is on the wrong site.
OK, number 3 isn't very plausible, but I was really struggling.
Back in the mid 80s a fellow student in the midlands had a number of jobs in quick succession.
He then got a job in the local HMRC as a data puncher.
Whilst he was there he saw his own NI number a few times and took joy in mis-typing the NI Number.
I am unsurprised if there are many, many people with duplicate NINos / gaps in records etc.
However, all payrolls (Pensions and Employers) will need your NINo to communicate with HMRC.
Size of NiNo: 6 digits, 2 leading alphabetic characters with very restricted usage (a lot less than the possible 26 * 26 permutations) and a single alphabetic suffix - not all characters used.
Hmm, maybe enough to code the current population, but not enough to cope with historic usage and current usage, plus 500,000 Id's being issued per year for births.
In its current format, it is impossible for the NiNo to be unique.
Touu wrote: "During WWII everyone in the UK had a National Identity Number (and a NI card). At the end of the war the government conceded to liberal (small l) concerns and announced that they were abolished. Fairly soon after that it was announced that they were needed after all - to use the new NHS - they became NHS numbers."
That's all balderdash.
National Identity cards were not dropped at the end of the war, they were dropped seven years later in 1952; although several members of Atlee's cabinet spoke against them, but did nothing to eliminate them, and voted in favour of renewing the 1939 act when it came up for review in 1947. Opposition to them was fuelled by blatant abuse by the police of their powers under section 6, sub-section 4 of the 1939 National Registration act, with even Lord Chief Justice Goddard recognising the abuse and making it clear that the courts would not support the police's abuse - his strong comments on a 1951 case helped ensure the end of the system in 1952.
The NHS number had been the NI number from the beginning of the NHS, long before the National Registration act lapsed, so NHS numbers certainly didn't cause any announcement soon after identity cards were abolished that the numbers were still needed - that was obvious since the numbers had been used as NHS numbers for years.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
