• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    13 days ago

    They also found that there’s people over 200, so that default date thing doesn’t really explain it all.

    • ansiz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      12 days ago

      It’s because that explanation isn’t correct. The real deal is you just have entries without a death date, so if you ran a query this get super old ages as a result.

      Note that isn’t a database of payments or even people eligible for them, just a listing of ‘everyone’ with a SSN. There is a separate master death index. In the old days, wild west kind of stuff people would disappear so the death date would never get entered. Modern days every morgue and funeral home has to legally notify SS when someone dies, there is a specific form and major hell to pay if you don’t do it.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        12 days ago

        Social Security numbers were first issued in 1937. You would have need someone to be over 110 in 1937 to have an age over 200. I think that it’s a combination of birthdays entered wrong plus no official death date.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      Also a lot of people between 110 and 150, so I’m sure there is a larger answer.

      However, Social Security cuts off at 115, and they supposedly found like 10 million people older than that. Considering there are only ~50m people on Social Security, and the database they were searching wasn’t even about current recipients, most people would conclude that there is likely an error in data, rather than immediately jump to fraud. Of course, ketamine is a hell of a drug and Elon is not most people.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 days ago

        It’s definitely still concerning if the database has a large number of errors. But systematic fraud would be much worse ofc.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          12 days ago

          the database doesn’t have to necessarily be accurate if there’s other checks - a flag for test data, a system that checks the person is real against another database before dispersing funds etc

            • Lyrl@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              12 days ago

              Someone with the skills and knowledge to clean up 150-year old typographical errors in one particular table in the Social Security database system would probably provide more benefit to the taxpayers covering their salary by doing some other task.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                It might be better to move to a new database at this point rather than trying to fix the existing one. It won’t give immediate benefits but could be helpful down the line.

            • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              12 days ago

              Fixing an archival dataset that doesn’t even pertain to people actively receiving benefits is so far down the list of priorities as to be a criminal misuse if resources.