Talk:Social insurance number

Using the SIN

Does the SIN have a check digit? Alphax ^τεχ 11:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main difference between the SIN and the US Social Security Number being used as an ID number is that in Canada a SIN can only be required when it is needed to comply with the law and when no other means of identification will work. If the law does not require that a SIN be given, then service cannot be denied on the basis of refusing to provide the SIN. In the US, if a person refuses to provide a SSN to someone, they can be denied service because of it.

For example: In Canada, a gas station cannot require that all customers provide their SIN in order to purchase gasoline, as the law does not specify this. The gas station would be free to request it, but if the customer said no, the gas station would not be able to refuse to sell gasoline to that person on the basis that they would not provide their SIN. In the US a gas station could require all customers to provide an SSN in order to purchase gasoline, and if the customer refused, the gas station would not have to sell gasoline to that person.

So, while the SIN is used as an identification number in Canada, the areas where it can be used are much smaller. Steggall 17:51, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What constitutes a Valid SIN

The article states " 046 454 286 <--- A fictitious, but valid SIN" , this is incorrect. This is not a valid SIN. If you look at the very last slide of this link (http://www.straightlineinternational.com/docs/vaildating_canadian_sin.pdf) you will see that 0 as the first digit of the SIN number is not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.192.101 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SIN.png

Image:SIN.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I added a requested Citation note. However, is there a recommended Wikipedia guidance policy on linking to specific parts of a government website? -Theicla (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but can you provide an example of what you mean. Generally, we link to the most specific article relevant to the subject, or if there many, to a page that aggregates those links. However, please avoid linking to a page that acts as a web directory. Mindmatrix 14:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do SINs get recycled? E.g. after someone dies? I'm thinking not, but it would be good to have that information here. Also worth noting is that a person may in their lifetime have multiple SINs. For example a person first gets a 9xx xxx xxx number whilst they are working here on a work permit, and then a standard SIN if they become a Permanent Resident or Citizen. - --Skippingrock (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction Request

 Done The Analysis section needs to be corrected to some degree. It is not completely accurate as to find the check number. The Luhn Algorithm is clearly working, however it is not the formula used by the CRA in public documents. If you check the annual document provided by the CRA, t4127-11e.pdf (11e will change to identify the year and language release) you will see a different calculation used. [1] Greegan (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC) greegan

Hi there, I would be happy to assist you with this. Could you please provide a page number? I skimmed through it but all I found was Employer Taxation formulae. I will look on the CRA website too. Cheers AGiorgio08 ^talk 21:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this. The formula can be found on page 23 (with the explanation begining on page 22). And after further review of the Luhn Algorithm it has been determined this will not accurately determine validity of all SINs. I have tried this with my own SIN and it resulted with 47 as the final total.Greegan (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC) greegan

I finished updating the section for you. Hope it looks good. Feel free to comment on any necessary changes you have to it. If you need any help with anything else, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers! AGiorgio08 ^talk 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The CRA document is explaining the Luhn algorithm. That's all it is doing. "it has been determined this will not accurately determine validity of all SINs" is nonsense. The two are mathematically equivalent, the only way you'd get different answers from one than the other is through making some elementary error of arithmetic. Feel free to produce your working so that someone can show where your error is. Accordingly I have been bold and accordingly removed the long-winded CRA copy-paste from the article and just linked Luhn's algorithm, since that's correct. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this needs to be re-evaluated. I work at a company that has been using it to validate SINs and it seems to give false negatives for some numbers. A number that has been verified to be correct has a digit sum of 42 which, according to the Luhn algorithm, should be incorrect. I also can't find any modern sources that this is how the Canadian government validates SINs. The PDF in the above comment is broken. 104.192.46.146 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social Insurance Number. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828173446/http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_02_e.asp to http://www.privcom.gc.ca/fs-fi/02_05_d_02_e.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)