Last chance to comment
Today, Monday, November 13, is the last day to comment on a proposal by the U.S. National Archives to delay full public access to a key genealogical record.
Until 2092.
Yep, you read that right.
The delay in full public access would be nearly 70 years.
As The Legal Genealogist wrote yesterday, the issue centers on the Social Security Administration’s SS-5 forms — the forms people fill out in order to get a Social Security number.1 Those forms began to be used in the 1930s, with the first Social Security numbers issued in November 1936.2 They’re the best available self-reported information for most 20th century folks with birthdates and places and names of parents, so they’re invaluable for genealogists.
Right now, the only way to get a copy of any SS-5 form is to make a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Social Security Administration (SSA), and hope the request doesn’t get caught up in any of FOIA’s many exceptions. All too often the request is rejected or the names of the parents redacted, citing privacy issues. If the records were transferred as archival records to the National Archives after an appropriate time, it would be much easier, faster and less expensive to get copies of these records.
But because the SSA says it would be too hard to figure out which records are appropriate for archival treatment, the National Archives is proposing to give this entire record group a pass and not require that any of these records be transferred to the Archives for public access until 2092. We’d all be left in the meantime scrambling to try to fit our requests into the contours of FOIA — and often being turned down when we shouldn’t be.
There are major arguments against leaving this system in place, and they’re outlined by the Association of Professional Genealogists:
• Delay: The current proposal does not transfer any of these records until 2092. Given the vital importance of SS-5s in genealogical research, such a delay is unreasonable.
• Access: The cumbersome process of obtaining SS-5s through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and SSA’s redactions severely limit researchers.
• Historical Importance: SS-5s are one of the few records with self-reported parental details, vital for research.
• Stated Rationale: The justification of SSA’s business needs doesn’t hold since these are digital records accessible to both NARA and SSA.
• Preservation Concerns: SSA has previously faced challenges in maintaining the quality and preservation of these records.
And while we all recognize that there are logistical problems in figuring out which records should be transferred for archival access and when, APG suggests ways to get around those problems:
• Leverage Technology: Use artificial intelligence to automate the indexing of SS-5s, aiding in efficient and timely transfers.
• Immediate Accession with Restrictions: Allow access to specific records upon request until full indexing is possible.
• Redaction: Consider masking only the Social Security Numbers for immediate public access, with potential future unmasking.
• Alternative Compromises: Immediate transfer of older SS-5s or the transfer of each digitized microfilm individually.
• Advocate for a 100-Year Rule: Pressuring SSA for an accelerated timeline would allow earlier access.
• Assured Preservation: Even if immediate public access isn’t granted, ensuring that the records are stored safely under NARA’s care is paramount.
We all almost missed this issue, buried as it is in a hard-to-read records retention schedule proposal. But we can’t afford to let it go. Some of these records should be fully public now and many more as time goes on — holding them all behind a FOIA wall until 2092 is simply unreasonable.
Read more about this in the letter from APG to the Archives here. Formulate your own thoughts, and tell the National Archives where you stand.
DON’T JUST POST A COMMENT HERE AT THIS BLOG!! We need to be sure the National Archives knows how we feel as the genealogical community. So make sure you post your comment to NARA at the website where the proposal is published, at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NARA-23-0011-0007.
We have until the end of the day today — and only that long — to make our voices heard.
Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Deadline: today!,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 13 Nov 2023).
SOURCES
iMAGE:Dall-E, AI-generated.
- See Judy G. Russell, “Deadline: tomorrow!,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 12 Nov 2023 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 13 Nov 2023). ↩
- See ibid., “The advent of numbers,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 12 Nov 2023. ↩
Social Security records are absolutely irreplaceable for genealogical research. We who wish to honor our forbears and pay our current taxes want the ability to research our families histories and feel their records are a necessary resource. census records are released after 75 years; why can’t NARA be more flexible with SS records?
Make sure you comment at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NARA-23-0011-0007.
Done
Judy, on Geni they have curators who now created 60,000 non relatives for their project, do families have any say? Also, my mother is a grand niece of grand Uncle Frank and Aunt Juliana (she is related through the uncle) there is a curator who created this person; Kaze who is supposedly my second great aunt’s second great niece. The curator wants the profile public and we want it to be private. How do we handle it? Thank you
No. Geni basically allows anyone to post anything, and I’ve even had trouble getting information about living people removed from the site.
I am sorry to only now see this post. There is so much that is making research harder, when information on family members should be readily accessible. I understand the need to redact social security numbers, to help prevent fraud against the helpless, but cannot understand why family relationships would be a concern. I recently requested information about my brother, who was killed in Vietnam, from NATIONAL PERSONNEL RECORDS CENTER. They informed me that only his unmarried widow, his eldest child, or his eldest sibling could make the request. He was unmarried and had no children, and we siblings are all elderly. Can anyone tell me why the information on his citations is top secret?
Thank you
Doug