Article 7 does not provide for civil remedies against natural or private persons. White, No. 2:10-cv-01182, 2011 WL 1087489, at *6-7 (dismissal of lawsuit against police officer alleging officer violated section 7 by “requesting the applicant`s social security number without providing adequate information to the applicant” on the grounds that “data protection law does not apply to individuals”); Krebs v. Rutgers, 797 F. Supp. 1246, 1256 (D.N.J. 1992) (concluding that Rutgers is not a government or government-controlled agency governed by the Privacy Act that could not distribute course lists listing students by name and Social Security number). According to subsection 7(b), an authority requiring individuals to disclose their social security number must inform individuals whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what legal or other authority that number is requested, and what use it will be made. See Crawford v. U.S. Trustee, 194 F.3d 954, 961-62 (9th Cir. 1999) (rejecting the government`s argument that disclosure of the applicant`s Social Security number is expressly required by federal law and section 7 is totally unenforceable, stating that “the exclusion in section 7(a)(2)(A) for federal statutes applies only to the limitation set forth in section 7(a)(1)”), and noted that the notification requirements in Article 7(b) “do not affect the public disclosure by the Government of [the applicant`s] social security number”, which was only contentious; Alcaraz v.

Block, 746 F.2d 593, 608-09 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that the notification provision of paragraph 7(b) is complied with when the Agency “has informed subscribers of the voluntary nature of the disclosure, the source of the authority and the possible uses for which the disclosed numbers may be used”); GeorgiaCarry.org, Inc. v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., Nr. 1:09-CV-594, 2009 WL 5033444, at*9-10 (N.D. Ga. December 14, 2009) (finding that “one or both defendants violated section 7(b)” when officers “asked [the applicant] for his identification card, firearms license, and social security number. But neither agent told [the applicant] whether he had to provide his Social Security number, on what authority they relied to request the number, or what the number would be used for”); Szymecki, 2008 WL 4223620, at *9 (finding that the plaintiff filed a Section 7 claim, alleging that the city threatened to arrest and detain him if he did not provide his social security number, and that the city did not tell him why it needed a number or how it would be used); Russell v. Bd. of Plumbing Exam`rs, 74 F. Supp.

2d 339, 347 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (finding a violation of section 7 and ordering an injunction if the defendants did not inform the petitioners that the provision of the Social Security Number was optional, nor did they grant legal authorization to use the requested number, and there was no legal authorization); Greidinger v. Davis, 782 F. Supp. 1106, 1108-09 (E.D. Va. 1992) (finding a violation of the Privacy Act if the State failed to give timely notice in accordance with section 7(b) when collecting the Social Security Number for voter registration), revised and remanded in custody for other reasons, 988 F.2d 1344 (4th Cir. 1993); Oakes v. IRS, No. 86-2804, 1987 WL 10227, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 1987) (noting that the agency requiring the person to disclose his or her Social Security number was required to notify the person under section 7(b) but was not required to publish a notice in the Federal Register); Doyle v.

Wilson, 529 F. Supp. 1343, 1348-50 (D. Del. 1982) (finding that the requirements of paragraph 7(b) are not met unless positive efforts are made to disclose the information required under paragraph 7(b) “no later than the time the number is requested”); Doe v. Sharp, 491 F. Supp. 346, 347-50 (D. Mass. 1980) (following Green and McElrath with respect to article 7(a); the conclusion of Article 7(b) establishes a positive obligation for agencies to inform the applicant of the use of social security numbers – “ex post declarations” are not sufficient); and Chambers v.

Klein, 419 F. Supp. 569, 580 (D.N.J. 1976) (following Green, McElrath and Doe v. Sharp in relation to paragraph 7(a); Finding that section 7(b) was not violated if the Agency failed to inform the applicants of the Social Security Numbers because the State had not begun to use them prior to the full implementation of the law requiring their disclosure), aff`d, 564 F.2d 89 (3d Cir. 1977) (decision not published on the table). See Gonzalez, 671 et seq.3d p. 663-64 (concluding that qualified immunity shielded police officers from liability when officers “asked [the applicant] for his social security number” but “did not provide him with the information listed in section 7(b)”, since “the obligation of public servants to make disclosures under section 7(b) was not clearly established at the time of the applicant`s arrest”); Doe v. Herman, Nr. 297CV00043, 1999 WL 1000212, at *9 (W.D. Va.

Oct. 29, 1999) (Magistrate`s recommendation) (citing Doe v. Sharp and paragraph (e)(3)) for the proposition that “if an agency applies for a Social Security number, it must inform the person of its use”), adopted in the relevant part and revised in another part (W.D. Va. 24 July 2000), partly chartered, partly revised and dismissed for other reasons. Chao, 306 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2002), aff`d, 540 U.S. 615 (2004).

(b) Any federal, state, or local authority that requires a person to disclose his or her Social Security account number must inform that person whether such disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what legal or other authority such number is requested, and what use it will be made. Section 7 of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Disclosure of Social Security Number)). However, there is no law preventing companies from requesting it or refusing your service if you don`t provide it. If a company asks for your Social Security number, you can always talk to a manager or ask if there`s another identifier you can provide (such as a driver`s license number). Several courts have interpreted section 7(a)(2)(A) as creating an exception to the general requirement that a person cannot be denied a benefit if he or she has not disclosed a social security number. See Tankersley v. Almand, 837 F.3d 390, 398-399 (4th Cir. 2016) (indicating that the Tax Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(2)(C)(i), which allows states to require a person “affected or appears to be affected by the administration of a tax law within its jurisdiction” to disclose his or her social security number, allowed Maryland to require the plaintiff to provide his or her Social Security number to the Maryland Bar Association`s Client Protection Fund “or face suspension of his attorney`s license”); Peterson v. City of Detroit, 76 F.

App`x 601, 602 (6th Cir. 2003) (rejecting the complainant`s allegation that the City had violated Article 7 of the Data Protection Act by denying him a taxi licence because he had not provided his social security number, on the grounds that “to the extent that [Article 7 of the Data Protection Act] refers to the `privilege` at issue in the present case, [the rejection of the applicant`s application] was replaced by a subsequent amendment to the Social Security Act”); Stoianoff v. Commander of the DMV, 12 F. App`x 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2001) (Finding that the applicant`s request under the Privacy Act would be denied because 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(C)(i) “expressly authorizes states to require disclosure of Social Security numbers when administering driver`s license programs” and further provides that “any federal law that conflicts with this section is “void, void, and ineffective”); McElrath v. Califano, 615 F.2d 434, 440 (7th Cir. 1980) (finding that the disclosure of the social security number required by the implementing regulations of the “Assistance to Families with Dependent Children” program does not violate the Data Protection Act); Grün v. Philbrook, 576 F.2d 440, 445-46 (2d Cir. 1978) (concluding that the disclosure of children`s Social Security numbers required by the state program that supports families with children with federal funds does not violate the Privacy Act); Ruiz v.

Rhode Island, No. CV 16-507WES, 2020 WL 1989266, at *3 (D.R.I. April 27, 2020) (finding that the state had a legitimate reason to apply for a Social Security number because it was required to comply with Medicare, Medicaid, and the SCHIP Extension Act); Lanzetta v. Woodmansee, 2013 WL 6498403 at *3 (M.D. Fla. 15, 2013) (rejecting the allegation that the State Tax Administration violated Section 7(a)(1) by requiring the applicant to provide his Social Security number to renew his motorcycle license, on the grounds that such disclosure was required by the Real Identity Act 2005); Game v.