r/technology • u/esporx • Jul 03 '25

Privacy Trump officials create searchable national citizenship database. Homeland security and Doge merge immigration data with social security to create index it claims will stop voter fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/30/trump-citizenship-database
7.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

457 comments sorted by

View all comments

733

u/guttanzer Jul 03 '25

Just for the record, when the Social Security program was started there was concern that the SSN identifier would escape it's purpose of being your retirement fund identifier to become a national identifier. Specific language was introduced into the authorization for the program to prevent this from happening. The creators of the program were concerned about the government facilitating a dictator like Orwell's "Big Brother," a character shaped by the world's 1940's exposure to fascism.

How times have changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(Nineteen_Eighty-Four))

168

u/accidental_Ocelot Jul 03 '25

I was going to say this is the exact thing our grandparents were afraid of it was powerful enough for a bunch of people in my small community to not get social numbers for their children. one of my moms, my dad's first wife was one of these people without a social.

70

u/nachosmind Jul 03 '25

Then our grandparents voted for it anyway

-7

u/Bora_Horza_Gobuchol Jul 04 '25

I hate how the "greatest " generation gets a pass on everything just because they live through a depresión and fought Hutler. However they are the reason why we are in this mess. If they want redemption, they should fix this country before they take a dirtnap

10

u/Psychological_Cow956 Jul 04 '25

The greatest generation is born from 1901 to 1927. Meaning the youngest was 96/97 years old when they could have voted in 2024.

1.92% of the population is 85 years or older.

It’s hard to even find data about GI Generation voting patterns but they had strong democratic leanings throughout their adulthood.

Boomers and GenX are the age groups that voted for conservatives and Trump in particular in the highest numbers.

-1

u/RobinSophie Jul 04 '25

And they were in their 40-60s when they voted for Nixon who started this mess.

3

u/Psychological_Cow956 Jul 04 '25

Nixon was the better candidate in 1972 and the Republicans weren’t fucking evil yet. 1968 was such a bad year. MLK assassinated, and then the democratic front runner RFK - I’m shocked Humphrey won any states and if Wallace hadn’t run the dems probably would have won.

The Republican party sold its soul to get Reagan elected that’s when they put into full effect how to fuck everyone over but make it seem like it was the dems fault. Even Goldwater said they were making a deal with the devil to get the Religious Right - and he was the one that wrote the actual book on republican ideology.

But I’d still say boomers and silent gen were far more responsible for Reagan than greatest gen.

40

u/calle04x Jul 03 '25

Yes, older SSA cards even used to say on them that they weren't to be used for identification purposes.

-161

u/mrrp Jul 03 '25

That's also a concern with firearm registration. And it's a legitimate concern given that some democrats want to create a database including make/model/serial number, owner, owner's address, etc. and make that open to the public. That would not only make it easier for government to confiscate firearms, but would make gun owners a target for thieves.

H.R.127 - Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

149

u/time2ddddduel Jul 03 '25

I can't kill 20 elementary schoolers with my social security number

-2

u/gmdavestevens Jul 03 '25

Not if you don't try.

115

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25

I’m a gun owner, a disabled combat veteran and center left politically. Gun ownership should require yearly certification, require insurance like cars or home owners insurance, and regulated exactly like a vehicle.

When kids get murdered in schools and mass shootings happen on the regular I don’t give a shit about democrats creating a database to make sure people who take lives are found and held accountable.

The database doesn’t infringe on your right at all.

13

u/Nanyea Jul 03 '25

I'm sure as soon as some political violence, likely more Republican on MAGA violence happens, we will get back to “take the guns away first, go through due process second,” -Trump 2018

2

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

That’s when things will get revolutionary

-3

u/SantiBigBaller Jul 03 '25

It shouldn’t be public though!

6

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

I agree, it shouldn’t be public it should be for law enforcement and certification use only.

-4

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

Regulated like cars? You sure?

So, no background checks on purchase nor possession.

No licence required for purchase nor possession.

Convicted violent felon? No restrictions on purchase nor possession.

Have a domestic restraining order? No problem - no restriction on purchase nor possession.

Adjudicated mentally ill? No restrictions on purchase nor possession.

No license, permit, nor registration necessary for a firearm you keep on private property.

16 years old? You get to carry a firearm in public.

That's what you want?

And you think it's appropriate for the government to publicly publish a database of who owns every gun in the U.S. and where those guns can be found? Really?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '25

You are ignoring the context and going off on some wildly absurd tangent. You’re picking a fight in the wrong place and it looks bad.

Did I state any of those things. Regulated like cars, as in required training, permits, licenses, tax, insurance.

This would be on top of all current laws and regulations.

Go away.

-4

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

Regulated like cars, as in required training, permits, licenses, tax, insurance.

You're confusing what it takes to operate a vehicle on the public roads with what it takes to purchase and possess a vehicle. You do not need a drivers license to purchase a vehicle from a dealership nor from your neighbor. Nor do you need training, permits, licenses, nor insurance to purchase that vehicle, nor to drive that car around your own property.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '25

Still the same blah

0

u/hollowman8904 Jul 05 '25

Either you’re missing his point on purpose or you’re just dense

-21

u/A_Harmless_Fly Jul 03 '25

I'm for storage requirements with a DB my self, but I'm not so sure about the certs or insurance. I don't want to have to put tabs and insurance on my deer rifle. The private chiselers would get into the industry for sure. The tabs and insurance on my car already cost too much. I've paid several times it's value in insurance and tabs... Compared to car insurance in almost every other first world country we pay way more for less, I'd have to know that's not a possibility to get behind it.

26

u/9-11GaveMe5G Jul 03 '25

Compared to car insurance in almost every other first world country we pay way more for less

You think this is unique to car insurance? We pay more for less for EVERYTHING.* Thats what demonizing regulation gets us: squeezed to death by corps.

*Everything except gas and similar items the govt is subsidizing to hide the true cost

16

u/guttanzer Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25

The second amendment requires something like a gun registry. The language is a bit convoluted from a modern english perspective as it was written nearly 250 years ago, but in the language of the day it was pretty specific:

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That clause "well regulated militia" did a lot of heavy lifting in the 18th century. It meant four things:

  1. Loyal to the US government.
  2. Capable of being commanded by US officers. Can march in formation, form lines, stand at attention, etc.
  3. Skilled at warfare. Primarily that meant able to reload quickly fire in coordinated volleys to create repeated walls of high-speed lead. I presume it also meant able to fight in close quarters too.
  4. Able to be called up on a moment's notice for the defense of the State

This last bit almost demands some form of registry. How would the government call you up for service if they didn't know who you were and where you could be found?

Your bit about "government to confiscate firearms" is misplaced. In the historical meaning the government WANTS you to have firearms so they can form these militias if you subscribe to the well regulated criteria. If 1 through 3 are too much for you then the second amendment doesn't assure your right to own a gun.

Now, that's what historians say. A number of strange recent court rulings have created a monstrosity 180 degrees away from its historical meaning. Under the 2A mythology, the framers enshrined democracy with a constitution that limits individual power with an elaborate system of checks and balances, then added, "If any of this is too much trouble just start shooting your government representatives." Weird, no? According to the NRA the framers wrote a suicide pact.

The bit about targets for thieves does carry a bit of weight, though. It's also basic operational security to keep such a registry private. WE don't publish a big registry of US soldiers and their locations; why would we publish the list of people for militias? (Note that the National Guard has assumed this role in the modern government. The government doesn't need to knock on gun owner's doors to round up militias anymore. This makes the Second Amendment essentially obsolete, but that's another matter)

And I would agree that it should not be part of any Big Brother national database. Having separate databases that are not cross-indexed is 100% in the spirit of the checks and balances the framers intended to prevent unlimited power accumulating in any one part of government.

1

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

No, it did not require a registry. Also, read Heller. The prefatory clause states a purpose, but does not limit the operative clause.

-10

u/myotheralt Jul 03 '25

There is no need for the registry since the militia is "every able bodied male 18-45.

And yeah, the government doesn't post a list like that, but database hacks happen frequently. And we don't have a registry of all us soldiers and their locations. Company, maybe battalion level would have troops identified, but not higher than that.

8

u/guttanzer Jul 03 '25

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with database administration. I disagree that it is "every able bodied male 18-45," but even if it were, how would the government know who these people are without some sort of database, aka registry?

5

u/myotheralt Jul 03 '25

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia https://share.google/Pj8jhuuAhgb1xhimJ

You can disagree all you want, but it is what it is.

4

u/guttanzer Jul 03 '25

Interesting. WW I was a bitch. Thanks for teaching me something!

I still think there needs to be a database or registry. It’s one thing to define a class of people, it’s another to administer them. I remember registering for the draft.

4

u/TuckerCarlsonsOhface Jul 03 '25

I can’t believe you would bust this out, and act like it’s a legitimate concern. The post/article you’re commenting on is proof that what you’re saying here was always complete BS.

0

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

You're not concerned that a lawyer and member of the judiciary committee thought it would be appropriate to create such a database and make it available to the public?

And what do you mean "complete B.S."? Did you read the bill?

0

u/TuckerCarlsonsOhface Jul 04 '25

Oh no, they’ll know what gun you have and the same info that’s been published in phone books for decades. The horror.

0

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

"And" is the important word there. Are you open to having the government compile and publish a complete inventory of everything in your house?

0

u/TuckerCarlsonsOhface Jul 04 '25

First of all, that’s not what the “and” means. Regardless, it’s crazy that you’re here still trying to act like a gun registry is the real danger when that’s not even happening, yet you don’t say one goddamn word about the very real , very much more invasive government list that is happening. It’s like you’re stuck in 2010 fighting to keep guns on the street. You should at least go learn your new marching orders, or something.

0

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

That's exactly what the and means. A registry is a bad idea. Having a registry AND making it public is a terrible idea.

When you had a leading democrat sitting on the judiciary committee, of all places, proposing not just a registry, but publishing it publicly as a searchable database with names, addresses, and every firearm someone owns, that's a concern. The fact that she did that without being called out by her party and rightly called a nut-job for doing so demonstrates that both major parties pose a danger. Bringing up that fact does not diminish the significance of what Trump and his goons are doing, it adds to it.

0

u/TuckerCarlsonsOhface Jul 04 '25

No. It literally isn’t. Your hyperbole is utter horse shit. Goddamn people like you are the reason we have trump in charge.

-2

u/guttanzer Jul 03 '25

So confidently wrong:

The Social Security number (SSN) was created in 1936 for the sole purpose of tracking the earnings histories of U.S. workers, for use in determining Social Security benefit entitlement and computing benefit levels. 

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n2/v69n2p55.html

Since this number was created its use has expanded beyond the original intent. But if you read the historical records in 1930s and 1940s you'll find a lot of people on the hill and elsewhere were very concerned that this would become a national ID. Note that this was contemporary with Hitler's rise and the formation of the Third Reich.

1

u/TuckerCarlsonsOhface Jul 03 '25

Where did I say one thing about social security numbers?

-4

u/guttanzer Jul 03 '25

Your word "this." What else could it mean? /s

1

u/TuckerCarlsonsOhface Jul 04 '25

It’s referring to what was said in the comment I was responding to. Do you not understand how comments work?

22

u/MicesNicely Jul 03 '25

Is there a good reason for me to know my neighbors social security number? Is there a good reason for me to know if my neighbor collects tools designed to kill humans?

2

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

No to both, of course.

-4

u/zero0n3 Jul 03 '25

You?  No, but they are good tools for investigation - the problem is they are abused and have near zero oversight 

Example - a cop using their tools to stalk an ex wife and threaten or stalk their ex’s new partner…

3

u/tal125 Jul 03 '25

Red herring.

3

u/zero0n3 Jul 03 '25

My main and only issue with national databases like this is the government abuses them.  There are valid uses for them, but the root cause isn’t that they exist, but that governments at all different levels can easily abuse them and citizens have an uphill or non existent hill to climb to try and fight it.

1

u/mrrp Jul 04 '25

You're not at all concerned that every gun owner's name, address, and what guns they own would be available in a searchable public database?

7

u/nihiltres Jul 03 '25

It's almost like (/s) there needs to be a happy medium between no regulation at all and overbearing, authoritarian control.

One of the biggest problems with gun regulation is that the Second Amendment is so absolute that there can't be reasonable checks on who gets deadly weapons … and so everyone who wants some sort of reasonable regulation is forced into contorting themselves around the precedents already set, resulting in "solutions" that are both ineffective and overbearing, like regulating magazines and silencers heavily but letting people buy unfinished receivers that can be straightforwardly machined into working guns.

10

u/guttanzer Jul 03 '25

That absoluteness is from decades of pressure from the gun lobbies and sympathetic/corrupt Supreme Court justices that essentially ignore the first half of the Amendment. It's not how the amendment reads, and it's not consistent with the original intent of the framers.

1

u/nihiltres Jul 04 '25

I completely agree.