Memo
To: Social Security:
From: Charles T. Hall
Would you please quit encrypting the damned SSA-1696! You don't need to do it. To simplify matters, attorneys representing claimants typically combine the forms to be signed by new clients into one PDF. We want to make it so that we only have to enter the claimant's name, address, telephone number and Social Security number once and the data propagates to all the documents in the PDF. When you encrypt the SSA-1696, we have no choice but to print out the 1696, scan it and then laboriously re-enter the fields so they'll line up with the fields in the rest of the packet of forms. This is pointless and should be unnecessary. The encryption serves no legitimate purpose. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, just forward this to the people who design forms for you. I assure you that they'll understand what I'm talking about.
Thank you!
Never gonna not happen because our most basic PII rules require encrypting of any PII sent to email addresses outside ssa.gov or the very few verified partners or whatever we call them who we can send emails to freely.
ReplyDeleteThe agency doesn't want to get caught sending documents containing a disability claimant's name or other PII (heck, arguably there is some rep PII in those documents) to unsecured places/in an unsecured fashion. Sorry to beat the dead horse, but this will never happen.
Now, we could build some secure portal or maybe build in 1696, etc. functionality to ERE, but then that would require SSA and OHO specifically having any tech savvy or vision whatsoever in the leadership ranks, so...I retreat to my first point and say it will never happen.
An awfully dogmatic comment from someone who has no idea what I'm talking about. I'm asking for an unencrypted copy of a BLANK 1696. There's no PII in a BLANK 1696.
ReplyDeleteCTH
I'll be honest, I downloaded the form from the prior article, the 8/2020 version and it's fillable and unencrypted. A little more context would make the rant a bit more understandable.
ReplyDeleteIf the form (document) is encrypted, you can print it as PDF (print to PDF) and use the upload function to add it to the electronic folder. For more information, you can contact your IT support,
ReplyDeleteThe last version of the new 1696 allowed me to fill the claimant's SSAN in once and it propagated to all the entries and I could also save the form with my information so the next time I used it that information was already in the form. All I had to do in a new case is enter the SSAN for the claimant once and their address and phone number, check the right box as to the kind of case, and enter the date.
ReplyDeleteNone of that works in the new version, or at least I can't make it work that way.
Even when they get it right, they can't stop playing until they make it harder.
If someone knows how to make the new form work like the old one, please advise.
To both of the last two commenters, you have no idea what you're talking about. Blank SSA-1696s are encrypted. You haven't seen this since you haven't tried to see how the form is put together. You don't have the software to do that even if you wanted to. And, no, you can't print the SSA-1696 to PDF. Or, I should say, you can, but that removes all the fields which defeats the purpose.
ReplyDeleteIf you've never created a fillable form with Adobe Acrobat, you need to defer to those who have. You can't create a fillable form with generic Adobe Acrobat software. You need more expensive versions of the software to do that or to even see what I'm talking about.
CTH
The form is password protected not encrypted.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if their own protected PDF files are causing problems at SSA. From the ERE website today: "October 01, 2020 No write protected PDFs Systems is experiencing trouble with processing write protected PDF files. Until that is fixed please do not upload write protected PDF files."
ReplyDeleteBreaking the lock on the SSA PDFs is incredibly easy. Upload to Google Drive. Open PDF in Google Drive. Print as PDF from Google Drive. The resulting PDF has no form fields and has no lock on editing.
Actually, everyone, here is the issue with this post. We have actually discussed this previously back in February 2020 when the new 1696 was released.
ReplyDeleteCharles wants to be able to edit the electronic SSA-1696 to use for his own purposes, a perfectly valid thing to want to do for any businessman. SSA doesn't want anybody to be able to do this, as they don't want anybody to be creating and distributing non-standard versions of forms or to allow companies to minimally alter and then make money selling forms SSA funding was used to create. Charles' aim isn't to do this, but the agency doesn't care - it treats all users as potential misusers and locks the forms.
While the stated solution to print the electronic form to a PDF printer can work, it will only work if you use a non-standard supporting PDF printer application that doesn't retain PDF security settings. Adobe's PDF printer application products all retain PDF security and thus won't let you print a secure PDF to an unsecured PDF. There are a few PDF printers that will strip security settings. However, doing this has the unfortunate side effect of also stripping all the form fields from the document so you must manually add them back. There is an easier way to do it, and I'll give specific instructions in another post directly after this one.
Now, there is another issue that is important to understand. Most SSA PDF forms these days are not actually PDF files. Instead (like the SSA-1696) they are actually Adobe Livecycle XML forms in a PDF wrapper. Livecycle is an enterprise level forms authorship and rights management system. Livecycle forms cannot be edited directly within any version of Acrobat and must instead be edited within Livecycle Designer. You can purchase Livecycle Designer from Adobe; however, to prevent folks who have it from editing the forms, SSA has also has added rights management limitations and a password that prevents editing in Livecycle Designer. So, don't waste your money.
Now, it is possible to trick Acrobat by converting the form back to being actual PDF form. Adobe does not support this and will insist that it is impossible to do this. That is not actually true.
I will post a second post immediately following this one with detailed instructions on how to convert the form to PDF (while actually retaining form fields) and strip any security.
FYI: Easy way to allow editing of SSA forms while keeping form fields intact:
ReplyDeleteThis method will work for both Livecycle XML forms (it converts them back to PDF) and for regular run of the mill PDF forms with a password.
Note that PDF forms can have two different passwords set - a user password (that keeps you from opening the file unless you know the password - SSA doesn't use these) and an owner password that allows you to restrict how the form is used and how it can be edited.
SSA forms all have the owner password set to prevent editing. The Livecycle forms also have rights management enabled to further prevent editing in Livecycle Designer without the password.
To reset the owner password on the SSA form to allow editing while also maintaining the form fields, do the following:
1) Download a copy of the form you want to edit from SSA.gov, and save it where you can find it easily.
2) Go to https://pdfcandy.com/rearrange-pdf.html
3) Upload the SSA form to the website using the "Upload" button, or just drag and drop the form on the webpage where indicated.
4) When the various pages of the PDF are displayed in order, click and move the first page back and forth a little (so that the blue "Rearrange Pages" button is unlocked). Do not make any other changes to the form and then just click on the "Rearrange Pages" button.
5) When this process completes, it will offer to let you re-download the form from the website and save it.
6) The resulting form you save will be absolutely identical to the original form but will have the owner password wiped and is no longer be restricted from editing in any way. As a bonus, it will also retain all the existing form fields. For Livecycle forms, it will convert them back to standard editable PDF forms.
Caveats: Please don't upload any forms containing personal or PII data to this website, as I know nothing about the company (there is no backing company information available, so who knows who they are). I don't know if I'd trust the downloadable software (from what I have read, the download is free but then upsells you to a "Pro" version for certain features). However, the free web tool appears to work perfectly well for any SSA form with an owner password that sets use restrictions. It also luckily converts Livecycle Designer PDF forms to standard PDF.
ha, sorry for the off point first post but Charles, know your lingo. Your problem isn't with encryption, it's with rights protection/password protection. Encryption is tied to security/privacy and hides a document's contents; rights management/passwords on documents is tied to control over form content and changing the form itself.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if you'd phrased your initial post correctly and not used language indicating something different I wouldn't have so replied ;)
I would be willing to pay a little more in taxes to sponsor a most poorly designed form of the year contest so forms like this, and their authors, can get the recognition that they deserve. We could call it the PDF Awards. The new 1696 could be nominated in the Needless Redundant Information category. Just how many times does Social Security need us to copy the same claimant's SSN and the Rep ID number on the same form? Apparently, several. Making it difficult to populate information and save the forms electronically could garner an additional nomination in the Vexate The Public category.
ReplyDeleteThe problem anon@3:14pm referenced was that the person editing the form didn't know what he/she was doing (or was just too lazy to bother to do it right). Common form fields should always propagate across multiple pages, except when the designer is an idiot (something the agency has in spades). I will say the agency likely prefers the SSN be on every page as protection that separated pages can always be associated with the correct claimant.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the agency is always doing something stupid with forms. For instance, about 18 months ago some moron in the agency came up with the bright idea to move the form numbers from the bottom left side of the form up to the top left side of the form. No big deal, right? Well, the agency is now almost certainly wasting tens of thousands of dollars to do this, for no good reason (though, I'm sure some worthless executive shill somewhere in Baltimore got a bonus for this stupid extravagance).
Why cant the form be one page like the old one.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to paperwork conservation
I think we all should refuse to use the new form. It is ridiculous that, the name of efficiency, the agency turned a one page form into a 2 page form. Just don't use it.
ReplyDeleteYears ago, when I was a Federal Employee, I was using a standard yellow legal pad. I noticed it had a form number, which I get so that it can ordered by the number, but this pad indicated that it was a Revised Form. I always wondered what was wrong with the original form that it had to be revised.
ReplyDelete@7:40PM
ReplyDeleteDo you realize how many times a day I have to shred the extra page that prints up at the end of forms with only the PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT statement?
anon@8:41am,
ReplyDeleteThey can revise forms for any reason from spelling errors, to font changes, to agency/division name changes, to major revisions intended to make the form better suited to fit workload processes. The workload processes issue is why the 1696 was originally revised back in February of this year (they combined the 1695 and 1696 into the 1696) Not necessary, but it eliminated a form and also eliminated the possibility that the legal rep's SSN would end up in the client's file in error (which was very easy to happen with the old 1695).
Who knows why this particular revision was made.
ReplyDeleteIt was totally necessary to combine the SSA-1695 and SSA-1696. In the majority of cases I worked before they were combined, one attorney would submit a SSA-1695, then several attorneys from the firm would sign the SSA-1696. Or, more than one SSA-1696 from different attorneys would be received from the firm.
Because the fee must be divided, with each attorney on the SSA1696(s) getting a share, this resulted in an enormous waste of time and payment problems. SSA had to try to get a SSA-1695 from each attorney who submitted a SSA-1696, or else release the unregistered attorneys' fee share to the NH.
Now each attorney will register when they submit the SSA-1696. Much more efficient.