he Social Security Administration's short-lived experiment with providing personal information over the World Wide Web has set off a raging debate that will be instructive to managers of public information.
SSA's project came to an abrupt halt April 9, when protests from Congress forced the agency to shut down electronic access to personal earnings and benefits estimate statements. The project, begun just five weeks earlier, had enabled individuals to receive on line a history of their Social Security earnings and contributions and an estimate of their pensions. This latest and most innovative SSA effort to give its customers up-to-date information on their pensions, was intended to promote long-term financial planning and allow verification of earnings history. Verification can be important-lest a pensioner, or surviving spouse, be shortchanged because of incomplete earnings records.
An April 7 article in USA Today described how a potential employer, a jealous co-worker or a curious neighbor might gain access to salary information using identifiers that are generally available-name, Social Security number, date and state of birth, and mother's maiden name. Protests from Congress members forced acting Social Security Commissioner John J. Callahan's to suspend the interactive service pending a detailed review, including public hearings. But now that SSA has handled the immediate hysteria, we should examine the issue more carefully.
Beginning in 1988, SSA began mailing earnings and benefit estimate statements to people who requested them. By 2000, the agency will be mailing statements annually to workers who are at least 25. SSA began this process in 1995 by mailing statements to workers 60 and older-nearly 13 million statements. In 1996, the statements went on the Internet. Individuals could use the agency's site (www.ssa.gov) to request that earnings statements be mailed to them. The new capability is different because the information is provided immediately.
During a House subcommittee hearing in May, auditors and security and privacy experts discussed the pros and cons of making earnings and benefit statements readily available. Much of this discussion was predictable-but not the testimony of an officer of the Junior Chamber of Commerce (Jaycees). It was surprising that the matter of benefits targeted mainly at older Americans is also a young person's issue. Polls show that younger Americans are more and more cynical about government and have little confidence that they will ever see their Social Security contributions. The SSA service scores big on two counts. First, said the Jaycee's Bruce Rector, younger Americans see an agency trying to be of service by giving them information the way they have come to expect it-now. Second, the statements offer some reassurance that the Social Security system is something in which they have a stake.
How vulnerable is the interactive service? The identifying information required to obtain an earnings statement fraudulently is reasonably available, but it would take some digging. Only relatives typically have ready access. Professional information gatherers-investigative reporters and detectives-have far better sources, like credit bureaus, for information on people's financial history. But many Americans believe their earnings information is confidential and government needs to assure them that agencies will not treat it cavalierly.
As privacy advocates have properly acknowledged, a basic tenet of information privacy is the right of an individual to take steps to verify the accuracy of information an agency may have about him or her. We must be careful not to curtail those rights while acting in the name of protecting confidentiality.
Proposals to reduce the risk in interactive earnings and benefit statements generally aren't acceptable. SSA could limit the statement to pension estimates, thus eliminating the juicy earnings history. But this would obviate the second, important objective of providing information that can be used to check accuracy of earnings histories. Another proposal would make the service voluntary, making information available on line only to those who had opted in, perhaps using a check-off on their tax forms. This idea, while superficially appealing, is unworkable for a couple of reasons. Apart from being costly, the idea of requiring advance authorization for access to data on line negates the very advantage-spontaneity.
It is difficult to know if immediate, online access to earnings histories is important to most users of the SSA service. At the same time, it's clear that use of the mails is a deterrent to those seeking unauthorized access. Is there a big difference in cost and convenience? You bet. According to an SSA spokesperson, a mailed statement costs about $5.23 whereas on line it costs pennies.
What should SSA do? It seems logical to test options on the public. Callahan could lay out the options-including cutting off the system, diluting the content, increasing security and verification, or restoring the system as is. The cost of each option should be described, both in dollars and burden on individuals to get their information. Then the customers can decide. After all, the public makes security-privacy trade-offs all the time.
Regardless of what happens, SSA's project is a real model for using technology to serve the people and reduce cost. We should not shy away from finding other opportunities for fear of causing controversy.
Franklin S. Reeder heads the Reeder Group, a consulting firm, after spending more than 35 years in government, where he worked in the Executive Office of the President and at OMB.
NEXT STORY: Putting Investments to the Test