From a press release:
Today, U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bob Casey (D-PA) pressured the Trump Administration to provide answers to the American public following a report from the New York Times this week that the White House is working with the Social Security Administration (SSA) on a proposal to monitor social media accounts of Americans who claim disability benefits. The Senators’ letter raises several questions about the proposal related to the privacy of American citizens, the already limited resources available to SSA workers, the use of artificial intelligence, and plans to increase the scope of the social media monitoring program.
12 comments:
This is good news. I think it's a ridiculous and unfair idea. They could (deliberately) exaggerate / misconstrue things. How would they even know if the person using the Social Media account was using their real name?
With so many data breeches, hacks and selling of information, anyone could open an account in anyone's name, using their pictures and private information. SSA would REALLY have to have some proof that the account is linked to the claimant, claimants IP address and other related technical information. What a mess that would be...not to mention common names. How many people are named in NYC alone... who's gonna sort through all of those, then try to pin down the IP address, and then get the proper doors open to start an investigation into the claimant? Besides, rarely do people post pictures of their worst days! Nobody wants people to see them at their worst on social media, for the most part. Of course there's exceptions (updates on surgeries and things maybe), but generally Mr. or Mrs. Depression are not going to post a selfie of them crying in bed for 3 days. What about a manic person who just decides to get in their car and drive for 7 days, taking pictures of them happy at different landmarks, spending money they don't have. Sure, they may look happy, but underneath, it's very damaging. This is a terrible idea to even suggest....just the logistics alone! *eye roll*
"...related to the privacy of American citizens..."
OIG pulls this stuff off the public domain. They're not backdooring FB or working with FB to get access to people's profiles. If people set their social media to private, it would cease to be an issue for them.
@11:34
Yes, and consider what we as representatives would then have to do if social media monitoring passed. I'd have to demand that the ALJ disclose in advance of the hearing every bit of social media evidence to be considered, so I could have a fair chance to submit evidence and argument about them at the hearing. Hearings would then be much longer and I'd likely have to request many more supplemental hearings because I'd have to make a record of the context of each social media post to be considered. Just what we don't need at a time when backlogs are already bad. But that's the strategy of those who want to cut Social Security, isn't it? Make the system break down by passing rules to make it unworkable considering existing agency resources.
Nobody is forced to be on FB.
Nobody is forced to make posts of FB.
Nobody is forced to overshare.
Just make it easier to request OIG surveillance of claimants. Following claimants to CEs yields more context than their self-curated Instagram account. Give each HO access to two pairs of OIG agents. Claimants who limp into the waiting room but run out of the building will be much easier to spot.
So, I would like to reach out for some advise....I have serious issues with mental health which I will not go into to, but I have been on SSDI fvor many many years. So what am I supposed to do with all of this free time (in between doctors visits I mean)...I was using FB and talking to my 'imaginary friends' but now I don't even have that. YES, I make up stories to make my self sound more interesting and normal and now "fantasy" will be used against me. Did I really wake up in Russia???
TO: 9:29 AM, March 18, 2019
Most of what I share on facebook is FAKE NEWS for my amusement, menteal health, and just becasue I dont have anything real to post...amd so the GOVERNMENT is going to use my fantasy life as proof aboutt my real life? Welcome to 1984!
The problem with surveillance evidence in SSA claims is that it tends to be either irrelevant or of very little worth given the legal standard of disability. The disability standard is substantial gainful activity which in most cases looks at how well can you perform on a SUSTAINED BASIS at an 8 hour per day five day per week work schedule. Most medical and mental health conditions have symptoms which can vary greatly in how much they limit function over a given day, week, or month. For that reason, a snapshot of a person's activities on just one day does not tell you if they meet the disability standard, or if they are committing fraud.
A person who can usually only lift five pounds might, on a good day every once in awhile, be able to lift twice that before for a short time before it becomes too painful. Does a picture of them lifting ten pounds on one occasion mean they are lying when they say they typically can only lift five? That would be absurd and would ignore the reality of the medical condition.
Same thing for mental disorders. A person with an anxiety disorder or depression might have greatly varying function at different times, depending on which of their symptoms are active at a given time. If they report their function on a SSA form on a bad day when their function is poor but are observed being more functional on another day, are they committing fraud? That would be absurd if we are talking about mental conditions that by their very diagnostic criteria produce symptoms that cause varying functionality over time. Their function is almost always in a range.
Much of the fuss appears over people jumping up and down and claiming fraud when a person reports their function at the lower range of what they can do, and they are observed doing something at the higher range. The lower range is much more relevant, as it is what is going to make them unable to sustain a required level of function in a job.
You may have the right to remain silent, this issue is if you have the ability to remain silent.
The problem with surveillance, via facebook or in person, is that it is often used without notification to the claimant or representative. If the IG follows someone and the following confirms the limitations, is that report put in the file? If they report what they observe and it shows what they believe is inconsistent with disability, will they be subject to cross-examination at the hearing?
If the ALJ looks at FaceBook, will that be disclosed at the hearing? Will what is seen be made part of the record? Many people have the same name. Can we be sure the right person was picked? Again, if what is seen confirms disability, will we hear about that?
This kind of surveillance is light voter ID, nothing really wrong in principle except for the fact that it is hunting for a problem that doesn't really exist in significant numbers
And yes, the "I know a guy" crowd is always out there. Well, I know a guy too who cannot function at all and was denied by the SSA time after time after time.
Hi, ALJ here. This idea to have agency staff (or ALJs themselves) monitor social media is moronic. It's an idea that's been kicked around for years, before the current administration.
I don't have time to be looking up social media information. Neither do the people working behind the scenes at SSA. You've already detailed most of the reasons, but it all really comes back to the idea that the information gleaned from Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram just isn't reliable for our purposes.
Are there instances in which SSA could catch a claimant posting a picture of them waterskiing three days before the hearing? Sure! Is there potential for SSA to improperly deny a claimant because someone relied on a picture that isn't of the claimant, or the picture is before the AOD even though it's posted after, or is a totally fake account posted by a jilted ex-spouse? Anybody on the reps' side feel like hashing this garbage out picture by picture in a two-hour hearing?
We couldn't verify any of this stuff and would waste too much time chasing it down. At the end of the day, the medical records are what they are.
Post a Comment