As we know, Fulton demands one's social security card, in spite of the fact that the standard state forms contain no place for the social security card information. Would 5 USC 552a affect this policy? Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act (5 USC 552a note) is an "uncodified" public law (whatever that means it is really just an error in how it was inserted in the lawbooks, i.e., in the historical notes instead of into the text of the statute - they ought to correct it) and states, in it's entirety: Sec. 7 (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number. (2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to-- (A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or (B) any disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. (b) Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it. The purpose being related in the following federal case: In response to growing concerns over the accumulation of massive amounts of personal information, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974. This Act makes it unlawful for a governmental agency to deny a right, benefit, or privilege merely because the individual refuses to disclose his SSN. In addition, Section 7 of the Privacy Act further provides that any agency requesting an individual to disclose his SSN must "inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it." . . . Further Congressional recognition of the privacy concerns is evident from Â§ 7 of the Privacy Act which prohibits the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege by a governmental agency because of an individual's refusal to disclose his SSN. Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344 (4th Cir. 1993). This case involved the denial of voter registration in Virginia unless the person registering to vote provided a social security number. The court comments that Virginia's scheme would probably be ok of nobody else could view the social security number (see n.10). I wonder, is Fulton doing all these things required under the Act? I bet not.