How BSV can end the age of SSN-based identity theft

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
In an age defined by digital transformation, the persistence of outdated and insecure systems stands in stark contrast to the rapid pace of innovation elsewhere. Perhaps nowhere is this contradiction more evident than in how personal identity is handled in the United States. At the center of this broken model is the Social Security Number (SSN), a nine-digit relic designed in the 1930s to track earnings and benefits, not to serve as a universal password to a person's entire life.
Yet today, the SSN is treated as exactly that. It has become a linchpin of identification, verification, and authorization across financial services, government programs, employment processes, and healthcare access. The problem is simple. SSNs were never built to be secure. They are static, easily copied, and universally accepted across countless platforms with minimal safeguards. Once compromised, they provide a direct gateway for identity thieves to wreak havoc on a person's credit, finances, and personal reputation.
Compounding the crisis is the role of credit reporting agencies such as Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, which have turned the mass collection of sensitive personal information into a multi-billion dollar business. These institutions, operating with limited transparency and little consumer oversight, store enormous amounts of data in centralized servers. These databases, frequently targeted by cybercriminals, are an open invitation to large-scale breaches. The infamous 2017 Equifax breach, which exposed the sensitive data of more than 147 million Americans, was not an anomaly. It was an inevitability.
The scale of damage from identity theft is staggering. Victims often spend years recovering from unauthorized loans, ruined credit scores, fraudulent tax filings, and emotional distress. Yet the response from institutions remains inadequate, with most reforms offering little more than cosmetic fixes. What's needed is a fundamental redesign of how identity is stored, verified, and controlled. That is precisely where the BSV blockchain steps in, not as a speculative asset or digital fad, but as a robust infrastructure to rebuild identity from the ground up.
BSV, or Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, is a public, scalable, and regulation-friendly blockchain that emphasizes data integrity, immutability, and micropayment functionality. Unlike other blockchains plagued with high transaction fees and congestion, BSV is purpose-built to handle enterprise-level data operations at low cost and high throughput. This makes it uniquely positioned to support a decentralized identity system capable of replacing insecure legacy models.
At the heart of this new model is self-sovereign identity. Rather than relying on a central authority to issue and protect your identity, users on the BSV blockchain can establish digital identities backed by cryptographic keys. These identities can be enriched with credentials issued by trusted institutions such as governments, schools, employers, or banks and anchored to the blockchain through hashed records. This creates a verifiable trail of trust without revealing private information unless explicitly authorized.
This model prevents the wholesale leakage of identity. A person no longer needs to share their full birthdate, address, or SSN to prove they meet certain requirements. Instead, they can present digitally signed assertions such as 'over 18,' 'U.S. citizen,' or 'employed by X company' without disclosing sensitive background data. Each interaction can use single-use credentials, ensuring that even if a data packet is intercepted, it cannot be reused or exploited elsewhere. Critically, BSV can also bring transparency and accountability to the credit reporting ecosystem. Currently, consumers have little to no visibility into who is accessing or modifying their credit reports. Unauthorized access may go undetected for months, and disputing errors can be a drawn-out process with few protections. By recording credit access logs and data modification events on the BSV blockchain, consumers and institutions alike can benefit from an immutable audit trail. This provides indisputable evidence of who accessed data and when, making abuse far easier to identify and rectify.
Additionally, the tokenization and micropayment capabilities of BSV enable dynamic data permissioning. For instance, a user could grant a lender temporary access to a credit credential in exchange for a micro-fee, with the permission automatically expiring after a set duration. No permanent data transfer occurs, and the user retains full control over who can see what and for how long. This shift from static data sharing to tokenized, revocable access transforms the power dynamic between individuals and data brokers.
One of the key advantages of using BSV for identity and credit reform lies in its alignment with legal frameworks. Because BSV emphasizes lawful data handling, verifiable records, and compliance-ready infrastructure, it can integrate with existing regulations like Know-Your-Customer (KYC), anti-money laundering (AML), and data privacy laws such as GDPR and CCPA. It does not seek to replace the role of governments and institutions. It enhances them by enabling these entities to issue and verify credentials in a secure, decentralized manner.
Beyond the technical benefits, the societal impact of a BSV powered identity system could be profound. Victims of identity theft are often the most vulnerable such as low-income families, the elderly, immigrants, or people navigating health crises. These populations face higher barriers to resolving fraudulent activity, obtaining credit, or proving their legitimacy. By placing identity tools directly in the hands of individuals and eliminating reliance on unaccountable third parties, BSV has the potential to democratize access to secure identification and financial participation.
The promise of blockchain has always been rooted in trust. Trust in the integrity of data. Trust in the permanence of records. Trust in systems that operate without the need for blind faith in flawed institutions. BSV delivers on that promise by offering the infrastructure to make trust programmatic, verifiable, and enforceable.
The United States cannot continue to rely on a 90-year-old identifier and a handful of oligopolistic credit agencies to safeguard the digital lives of 330 million people. The tools to build something better already exist. BSV offers the foundation for a more secure and user-controlled identity future, one in which breaches are no longer inevitable, credit is no longer unaccountable, and individuals are no longer powerless.
The question is no longer whether blockchain can solve the problem but whether institutions are ready to embrace a system that shifts power back to the people they claim to serve.
Watch: Why identity is important as we move to Web3
title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Auto Blog

42 minutes ago

• Auto Blog

Tesla Insurance 2024 Losses, Combined Ratio & Safety Score Data-Driven Risks

Customer complaints mount as payouts lag In May 2025, Tesla's insurance arm posted a combined ratio of 121% — meaning for every dollar in premiums, it paid out $1.21 in claims and expenses. For context, most insurers break out into a profuse, 'I am going to lose my job' sweat if that number nudges above 95%. Elon Musk pitched Tesla Insurance, a subsidiary of Tesla Inc. as the 'missing piece' in the Tesla ecosystem. He argued Tesla owners now crave more than torque — they want their insurance bill to shrink as fast as their 0–60 mph time. 0:07 / 0:09 2025 Audi S3: 4 reasons to love it, 2 reasons to think twice Watch More Tesla Insurance Loss & Combined Ratios versus Industry Average, 2023–2024. In this chart, you can see just how far off the mark Tesla is compared to the industry average. The loss ratio shows what portion of premiums is paid out in claims, while the combined ratio adds all expenses. Above 100%? You're losing money on every single policy you sell, even before you count the cost of keeping the lights on. For Tesla, that means underwriting losses — $42 million in the first nine months of 2024 alone. It might not look like a lot, but by insurance industry standards, year over year 2023-2024 Tesla are still bleeding profusely. These are very serious 'in the red' numbers for an insurance company. The chart highlights that Tesla Insurance's loss and combined ratios were much higher than the industry averages in both 2023 and 2024. Even as Tesla improved in 2024, it still paid out far more in claims and expenses than it collected in premiums — underscoring ongoing profitability challenges compared to traditional auto insurers. The Third-Person Cinematic Scene The Tesla Insurance sold by Musk offered a 'disruptor' view of car insurance, no doubt spurred on by asking himself what in the data they already collect from owners' cars could they captialize on. Picture a Model Y idling in a suburban driveway, the morning sun glinting off its glass roof. The owner sips coffee, scrolling through the Tesla app — not for a new FSD beta, but to check how must she will have to pay this month in car insurance. The number flickers, driven by last week's hard braking and that one questionable left turn. A push notification: 'Safety Score: 92. Your rate may decrease.' But as the birds chirp and the caffeine kicks in, a question lingers: Is Tesla's insurance experiment a revolution in risk or just another Silicon Valley mirage? Let's also not forget a Tesla Y is meant to also be able to go off-road. What happens to this month's premium if our owner decides to take the family for a spin to a favorite camp site? What about when you decide to go hands-free? The premium will surely spike. The Disruptor's Dilemma: When Data Meets Damage Claims Tesla Insurance launched with a promise: harness real-time driving data, reward safe behavior, and undercut legacy insurers. The pitch? 'We know our cars best, so we can price risk better.' For a while, it worked—sort of. By 2024, Tesla Insurance had reached a $300 million annual premium run rate and was available in 16 states (Tesla Q1 2025 Earnings). But then came the numbers: a combined ratio of 145% in 2023, easing to 'only' 121% by Q3 2024. Progress, sure, but still deep in the red. Any other insurer would be firing people hand over fist. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Safety Score: The Algorithmic Tightrope Tesla's secret sauce is the Safety Score — a real-time, black-box rating that turns every commute into a behavioral audit. Hard brake at a yellow light? That's a ding. Take a corner with a little too much verve? Another. Go off-road? God only knows. In theory, this should incentivize safer driving and lower claims. In practice, owners complain about 'phantom dings', lifestyle choices they didn't have to make before, and inscrutable penalties. Again, Tesla's monitoring feels both opaque and invasive. And then there's the repair bill. Teslas remain expensive to fix, with parts and labor often pricier than their ICE counterparts. And mostly VIN-locked. Even with all that data, Tesla Insurance can't escape the gravitational pull of high repair costs — especially as increased vandalism and accident rates tick up in urban markets. The Investor's Paradox: Growth vs. Gravity For investors, Tesla Insurance is both a carrot and a stick. The business is growing — fast — but the losses are stubborn. As Tesla expands coverage and refines its algorithms, the combined ratio is falling, but not fast enough. The industry gold standard is a combined ratio below 95 percent. Tesla's 121 percent is still a very long way from liquid. Tesla Insurance has kept being able to pay claims despite earning less than the costs by cash infusions from Tesla Inc, their parent company. Tesla Insurance lost $30 million in 2023, and $42 million for the first 9 months of 2024; so it will be well over $50 million for the full 2024 so expect the line for 2024 in the chart to rise. The stakes are real, of course. If Tesla cracks the code, using its data edge to drive down claims and costs, and its owners feel it adds to their life, it could rewrite the rules of auto insurance. It needs to do this without alienating the insured with premium increases on every hard brake. If they can't do these things, the business becomes a costly distraction, a cautionary tale for tech giants who think they can outsmart old-school actuaries. Real-World Rituals: The Human Cost of Disruption For owners, the promise of lower premiums is offset by frustration with claims processing and the opaque Safety Score, which nudges their premiums up and down seemingly at random. The ritual of checking your rate has become a new form of range anxiety. Will this month's premium spike because of a single swerve? Meanwhile, Tesla forums buzz with tales of denied claims and customer service black holes. So, is Tesla Insurance the promised disruptor? Is it a revolution in the making or a slow-motion fender-bender? The numbers say 'not yet' — but the experiment is far from over but shrouded in corporate blood lost. At 70 mph, with the Safety Score whispering in your ear, you have to wonder: is this the future of insurance, or just another beta test by a known conjurer? In the end, all we really want is a policy that's as smart — and as fair — as the car it covers. About the Author Brian Iselin View Profile

Auto Blog

42 minutes ago

• Auto Blog

Honda's Pikes Peak Debut Hints at Hydrogen's Future in U.S. Defense Strategy

Honda CR-V e:FCEV proves hydrogen has a promising future Hydrogen hasn't quite caught on like automotive manufacturers hoped, with refueling stations largely limited to California. While many experts and consumers alike have written off hydrogen in favor of battery-electric vehicles, the Honda CR-V e:FCEV is out to prove that fuel cell modules have a future by taking a run at the Broadmoor Pikes Peak International Hill Climb, better known as 'Race to the Clouds.' The 156-turn, 12.42-mile mountain climb will take place on June 22nd, and it's only possible because of Zero Emissions Industries' (ZEI) FTcase, a portable hydrogen refueling system. 0:00 / 0:09 Nissan's revolutionary self-driving tech hits Japan's streets Watch More ZEI FTcase, a portable hydrogen refueling solution — Source: ZEI Honda has a long history in zero-emission competition This isn't Honda's first rodeo when it comes to entering zero-emission vehicles in the intense mountain climb. The automaker's history of zero-emissions competition at Pikes Peak dates back to 1994, when Honda won the first-ever EV Class race with an electric Honda Civic wagon. In 1999, the manufacturer entered a race-ready EV Plus into the EV Class, taking home another win. 15 years later, in 2014, an electrified Honda Fit won the EV Class for a third time. The following year, Honda ventured into the Exhibition Class with an EV concept based on the CR-Z. In 2016, a four-motor EV with NSX styling completed the Pikes Peak run in just over nine minutes. 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV — Source: Honda The 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV will compete in the Exhibition Class on June 22nd, powered by a stock zero-emission powertrain on June 22nd. Other modifications include a one-inch lowered suspension, 18-inch wheels, racing brake pads, racing seat, and safety cage. There's no hydrogen refueling infrastructure available at the local level, which means the CR-V e:FCEV is relying on ZEI's FTcase, a portable hydrogen fueling system, to stay in the race. The refueling system allows a single driver with no hydrogen expertise to refuel a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle safely. The 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV utilizes the automaker's second-generation fuel cell system, which improves durability, increases efficiency, and lowers costs compared to the previous generation. The hydrogen-powered crossover features plug-in charging capability, offering up to 29 miles of electric-only driving and an EPA-estimated 270-mile driving range. The plug-in hybrid powertrain uses a single electric motor that produces 174 horsepower and 229 lb-ft of torque. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV — Source: Honda The CR-V e:FCEV is hand-built at the Honda Performance Manufacturing Center in Marysville, Ohio. It's the only fuel cell passenger vehicle made in the United States, and the first to combine hydrogen fuel cell technology with a plug-in hybrid system. Available in one trim level, the 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV starts at $50,000 and is only available for purchase in California. The hydrogen-powered CR-V acts as proof of concept for military use If anything, ZEI's FTcase proves that hydrogen can be a logistical solution in military applications, namely in sensor-heavy environments. Specifically, the U.S. Special Forces Operations Command has prioritized 'Reduced Signature' capabilities in its search for an alternative fuel source. Such a fuel source would need to have low thermal, visual, and audible signatures. 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV — Source: Honda The Army is also currently developing alternative power sources for unmanned vehicles, command equipment, and power generation. Hydrogen fits the bill to a T, with no greenhouse gas emissions and low thermal signatures that would help the alternative fuel source fly under the radar. Army researchers are taking hydrogen generation methods a step further, with a focus on improving the life of fuel cells, catalysts, and cleansing systems. Fuel cell power sources also need to be compact, easy to move, and relatively undetectable. Under the Obama administration, the Department of Defense put a heavy focus on solar power. More recently, however, the Pentagon has shifted to hydrogen fuel cell adoption. The Air Force, for example, deployed a 600-kW fuel cell microgrid at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii last year. While a single microgrid is a start, the hydrogen puzzle is still one that needs to be solved. 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV — Source: Honda Natural gas is the primary source of hydrogen, but coal also makes its own contribution. As a proposed alternative to fossil fuel dependency, hydrogen sourced from coal isn't exactly a solid game plan. Fortunately, new hydrogen sources are within reach, with electrolysis proving one of the most promising. Electrolysis is essentially a fuel cell in reverse – hydrogen is extracted from water via a membrane, a catalyst, and electricity. That's where the existing solar arrays from the Obama administration come into play. By using the solar arrays already available at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, the military plans become self-sufficient in its hydrogen fuel production. 2025 Honda CR-V e:FCEV — Source: Honda Final thoughts The Honda CR-V e:FCEV's Pikes Peak run has essentially acted as a proof of concept for compact, portable hydrogen refueling stations. Without ZEI's FTcase, odds are the hydrogen-powered CR-V wouldn't be able to compete. Since hydrogen infrastructure hasn't exactly taken the nation by storm, the alternative fuel source has fallen by the wayside simply due to infrastructure and cost, but not everyone has written it off completely. Several automakers are still researching and developing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Now, with the military dipping its toes into the water, it's only a matter of time before we see fuel cells fulfilling logistical needs where battery-electric power isn't feasible. About the Author Joseph Pudlewski View Profile

Geeky Gadgets

3 hours ago

• Geeky Gadgets

Apple vs. Samsung: iOS 26 Takes on One UI 7

The ongoing rivalry between Apple's iOS 26 and Samsung's One UI 7 continues to shape the smartphone landscape, offering distinct features tailored to different user preferences. From interface design and customization to multitasking and ecosystem integration, each platform brings unique strengths to the table. The video below from Nick Ackerman explores the key differences to help you determine which operating system aligns better with your priorities. Watch this video on YouTube. Interface and Design: Simplicity vs. Functionality iOS 26 exemplifies Apple's commitment to simplicity and elegance. Its cohesive design, refined widgets, and intuitive navigation create a seamless and visually consistent experience. If you value a polished interface that prioritizes ease of use, iOS 26 delivers on all fronts. In contrast, One UI 7 emphasizes functionality and flexibility, blending Samsung's design language with Android's adaptable framework. While it offers a feature-rich experience, minor inconsistencies in visual design may arise due to the integration of Samsung, Google, and Android apps. For users who prioritize utility and versatility over uniformity, One UI 7 provides a compelling interface. Customization: Depth vs. Simplicity One UI 7 leads the way in customization, offering extensive options to personalize home screens, lock screens, themes, and more. Tools like Good Lock further enhance your ability to tailor the interface, making it ideal for users who want complete control over their device's appearance and functionality. On the other hand, iOS 26 maintains a clean and minimalist aesthetic but limits customization options. While Apple has introduced features like widgets and lock screen personalization, they remain less versatile compared to One UI 7. If you prefer a straightforward, uncluttered experience, iOS 26 may suit your needs better. Multitasking: Power vs. Simplicity For multitasking, One UI 7 excels with features like split-screen mode, app pairs, and pop-up views. These tools are invaluable for power users who frequently juggle multiple tasks and demand efficiency from their devices. iOS 26, while efficient for single-app usage, offers fewer multitasking capabilities on iPhones. Advanced multitasking features are primarily reserved for iPads, leaving iPhone users with limited options. If managing multiple tasks simultaneously is a priority, One UI 7 is the better choice. AI and Smart Assistance: Practicality vs. Potential Samsung's One UI 7 integrates advanced AI features designed to enhance productivity and convenience. Tools like writing assist, interpreter functions, and audio eraser showcase Samsung's focus on practical applications of AI, making it a strong choice for users seeking robust smart assistance. Meanwhile, iOS 26 introduces Apple Intelligence, which is still in its early stages. While promising, its AI capabilities are less developed and lack the versatility of Samsung's offerings. For users who rely heavily on AI tools for daily tasks, One UI 7 currently holds the advantage. Ecosystem Integration: Cohesion vs. Flexibility Apple's ecosystem is renowned for its seamless integration. If you use an iPhone alongside an iPad, Mac, or Apple Watch, you'll appreciate the effortless synchronization and connectivity across devices. This level of cohesion is unmatched, making iOS 26 ideal for users deeply invested in Apple's ecosystem. Samsung's ecosystem, while robust, offers greater flexibility for users who mix and match devices from different brands. Its Galaxy devices, tablets, and wearables work well together, but the experience can feel slightly fragmented compared to Apple's unified approach. If you value adaptability over strict integration, Samsung's ecosystem may be more appealing. Privacy and Security: Consumer vs. Enterprise Focus Both platforms prioritize privacy and security but take different approaches. iOS 26 emphasizes consumer-friendly features like app tracking transparency, fast updates, and a tightly controlled App Store. These measures make it a strong choice for users concerned about personal data privacy. Samsung's One UI 7 focuses on enterprise-grade security with tools like Samsung Knox and secure folders. While these features are powerful, they often require additional setup to maximize their effectiveness. If you prioritize business-level security and advanced protection, One UI 7 may be more appealing. Performance: Speed vs. Polish Both operating systems deliver smooth and responsive performance, but their priorities differ. One UI 7 offers faster animations and caters to users who value speed and efficiency in their daily interactions. iOS 26, on the other hand, emphasizes visual polish, making sure transitions and interactions feel refined and cohesive. Battery performance also varies: iOS 26 excels in standby time, while One UI 7 is better suited for power users who demand more from their devices throughout the day. Hidden Features: Innovation vs. Simplicity One UI 7 stands out with a range of hidden features designed to enhance usability. Tools like edge panels, advanced one-handed mode, and S Pen functionality provide added convenience. Good Lock further expands customization options, allowing users to fine-tune their devices to an impressive degree. In comparison, iOS 26 offers simpler hidden features, such as back tap shortcuts and emergency SOS. While useful, these features lack the depth and innovation seen in Samsung's offerings. If you enjoy discovering and using advanced tools, One UI 7 offers more to explore. Choosing What Matters Most The decision between iOS 26 and One UI 7 ultimately depends on your priorities. One UI 7 stands out for its superior customization, multitasking capabilities, and advanced AI features, making it an excellent choice for users who value versatility and innovation. However, iOS 26 remains a strong contender, offering a polished design, seamless ecosystem integration, and robust privacy features. It's ideal for those who prioritize simplicity and a cohesive user experience. Both platforms continue to push the boundaries of smartphone technology, making sure users have access to innovative features tailored to their needs. Consider your preferences and choose the operating system that best aligns with your lifestyle and priorities. Take a look at other insightful guides from our broad collection that might capture your interest in iOS 26 vs One UI 7 comparison. Source & Image Credit: Nick Ackerman Filed Under: Android News, Apple iPhone, Mobile Phone News, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.