Oklahoma Credit Services Organization Application: Fill & Download for Free

Frank Hurley/NY Daily News Archive/Getty ImagesMaster Sergeant John C. Woods demonstrates hanging technique on a reporter, at Pier 3 Army Base, Brooklyn. Woods was hangman of ten Nazis at Nuremberg. He shows how a noose was placed about the necks of the deceased war makers. November 19, 1946.He was the hangmen for the prominent Nazis convicted at Nuremberg.“There are few tears shed anywhere in the world for the 10 Nazi war criminals hanged by Master Sergeant John C. Woods after their conviction at the Nuremberg Trials following World War II. Of the 10 men he was charged with hanging, quite a few of them weren’t killed by a broken neck, which is how a hanging is supposed to work.”“Instead, several of the convicted Nazis died a slow death by strangulation at the end of Woods’ noose. One Nazi, Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel, reportedly took a full 28 agonizing minutes to die. One might say that M/Sgt. Woods was bad at his job, but it’s even more likely that he was deliberately bad at his job, taking a perverse pleasure in the slow torturous deaths of the condemned. For some, this makes his handiwork all that much more fitting for some of the 20th century’s greatest monsters. ““Those Nazis were bad, bad men,” said military historian Col. French MacLean (Ret.). “So what if it took longer for them to die. Maybe they should have thought of that as they were sending people to concentration camps.”“Prior to the D-Day landing, American military executions in the European Theater of Operations were carried out in England by civilian executioner Albert Pierrepoint and other British personnel. However, in late 1944, the U.S. Army looked for an enlisted man to take over the execution of American personnel and John C. Woods was one of the applicants for the position.““Asked about his prior experience, Woods lied, telling Army officials that had been the “assistant hangman twice in the State of Texas and twice in the State of Oklahoma.”“Woods’ application was formally accepted in October 1944, and he was attached to the 2913th Disciplinary Training Center as a hangman. The consensus among historians is that Woods lied his way into the job to avoid the possibility of returning to combat duty. Col. MacLean writes:“He did not get wounded on Omaha Beach, but he saw a bunch of guys get killed. I’m sure he thought, I do not want to go through that experience again… He volunteers to get out of the combat engineers. He is accepted and promoted from private to master sergeant, and his pay goes from $50 to $138 a month.”“Woods served as the primary executioner in the hangings of at least 34 American soldiers in France the remainder of 1944 and 1945. He also assisted in the hanging of at least three other soldiers and Army reports suggest that at least 11 of those executions resulted in bungled hangings.““His first execution in Germany occurred on June 29, 1945, when he hanged three Germans for the murder of an American Lt. Lester E. Reuss. Then, on November 10, 1945, he hanged five Germans involved in the Rüsselsheim massacre of U.S. Airmen of August 26, 1944.““During this period, Wood caught the attention of Herman J. Obermayer, a clerk in the office of the Theater Provost Marshal, who later went on to become a well-known journalist and publisher. Less than impressed by Woods, Obermayer wrote: “John Woods was a short, muscular sort of a man, and I would describe him as kind of the world’s flotsam. He talked the language of the hobos and flotsams and the people who do these kinds of jobs.”“Woods continued serving as the U.S. Army hangman in Germany throughout the Winter and Spring of 1946. His most notable executions during this period were those of 14 men convicted of committing concentration camp atrocities at Dachau over two days, May 28 and 29, 1946.““Woods returned to Landsberg, Germany, for the hanging of German policeman Justus Gerstenberg for the murder of US airman, Sgt. Willard M. Holden. It was there that Woods caught the attention of Lt. Stanley Tilles, who was tasked with organizing the Nuremberg hangings.““The Nuremberg Trials were most notable for the prosecution of 24 prominent members of Nazi Germany’s political, economic, military, and judicial leadership. The trials’ Tribunal was convened between November 20, 1945, and October 1, 1946, resulting in the conviction of 12 men for war crimes — include Martin Bormann, the head of the Nazi Party Chancellery, who was tried in absentia. The sentence was death by hanging, and it would fall to John C. Woods to carry out the sentence.”“Although the Nuremberg Tribunal had sentenced 12 men to hang, one of those, Hermann Göring, committed suicide by ingesting cyanide the night before the execution. As Bormann was still at large — he was believed to have committed suicide in May 1945, but his body was not recovered and identified until 1973 — this left 10 men to be hanged by M/Sgt. John C. Woods.““Woods carried out the death sentences of the Nuremberg 10 in the early morning hours of October 16, 1946, using the standard drop method of hanging instead of the long drop method. The U.S. Army has consistently denied claims that the drop length and other errors caused the condemned men to slowly die from strangulation instead of quickly from a broken neck.““However, evidence and eyewitness accounts remain showing that some of the men died agonizingly slowly. Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of the “High Command of the Armed Forces,” reportedly took 28 minutes to finally choke to death.“Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG/Getty ImagesGeneral Hap Arnold set out a dining table for the accused at Nuremberg, complete with nooses.“Time Magazine published an article on October 28, 1946, detailing some of the horrors of the hangings of the Nuremberg 10. For example, Cecil Catling, a reporter for the London Star“declared that there was not enough room for the men to drop, which would mean that their necks had not been properly broken and that they must have died of slow strangulation.”“Additionally, Time reported that Catling claimed that some of the nooses weren’t correctly tied. As a result, some of the men smashed their heads on the platform as they dropped.”“Kingsbury Smith, a correspondent with the International News Service, reported on the execution of Julius Streicher, the publisher of Der Stürmer, a Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper:“When the rope snapped taut with the body swinging wildly, groans could be heard from within the concealed interior of the scaffold.“Finally, the hangman, who had descended from the gallows platform, lifted the black canvas curtain and went inside. Something happened that put a stop to the groans and brought the rope to a standstill. After it was over, I was not in the mood to ask what he did, but I assume that he grabbed the swinging body… and pulled down on it. We were all of the opinion that Streicher had strangled.”“After the last man was pronounced dead at 2:57 a.m., Woods was quoted as saying, “Ten men in 103 minutes. That’s fast work,” adding that he “never saw a hanging go off any better.”“In the wake of the hangings, another quote by Woods was published in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide.““I hanged those ten Nazis … and I am proud of it … I wasn’t nervous. … A fellow can’t afford to have nerves in this business. … I want to put in a good word for those G.I.s who helped me … they all did swell. … I am trying to get [them] a promotion. … The way I look at this hanging job, somebody has to do it. I got into it kind of by accident, years ago in the States …”“In his career as a hangman, Woods is credited with executing 92 men. He continued to serve in the Army after the war with the 7th Engineer Brigade in Eniwetok, Marshall Islands. There, on July 21, 1950, Woods met his own end when he was electrocuted while repairing an engineer lighting set.“The Army Had This Certified Psychopath Hang Condemned Nazis — And He Made Them Suffer

First, we must disambiguate: the term artificial intelligence can mean two very distinct things in practice:Computerized decision-making. This is the traditional meaning of artificial intelligence, where a mechanical system makes policy decisions directly to save human time and effort. Examples include donor kidney matching algorithms, customer-facing virtual assistants in government offices, and even handwritten address recognition by the postal department.Computer-aided decision-making. This is the use of computer simulations, numerical forecasts and predictive analytics to inform decisions and recommendations made by humans. Examples include fire risk modelling, predictive policing, and decision support systems (such as IBM Watson).This disambiguation is needed because:The distinction is blurry…Both computerized and computer-aided decision-making often use the same techniques (logistic regression, k-means, algorithmic mechanism design, etc.) to arrive at the same decisions.This makes them effectively the same things under the hood, and thus have a common source for problems — bad choices of variables to model, quality and size of dataset to generalize, faulty assumptions, etc.… but the long-term risk profile in policy making is very different.Fully computerized decision-making is expected to be able to performa) securely, b) without supervision or with minimal supervision, c) armed solely with task-specific information, and d) with high accuracy even in unforeseen circumstances.Computer-aided decision making is not subject to such high performance expectations. Because it is a research tool, it is expected to be slower, more error-prone, requiring human intervention to adapt it to novel situations, in some cases with transparent methods open for anyone to inspect.Thus, not only are the kinds of risks and impacts different: the pressures that shape each’s improvements are divergent, and will result in individual safety approaches for each new application.I’m not going to address the many benefits both kinds of approaches offer — it is transparently obvious that computer approaches (whether autonomous or assistive) have a substantial role to play in government policy, whether it be in predictive efforts or in time savings and efficiency.What this answer will do, instead, is talk about unintended effects of this adoption in policymaking, as well as sensible risk mitigation strategies in policy. This will clarify the boundaries computer assistance or automation should have.Where is the Current Risk Right Now?Despite popular media depictions to the contrary, many of the dangers of AI use in policy currently come from computer-aided decision-making rather than computerized decision-making.This has several reasons:Adoption of computerized decision-making has been slower in government than in the private sector[1]owing to a shortage of expertise and a change-resistant culture.Where adopted, it has primarily been used in relatively narrow domains such as document drafting, virtual assistance, license plate reading, document translation and request routing[2] with low potential for both negative impact and size of negative impact.Computer-aided decision-making, in contrast, is both used more widely and more systematically by organizations — for example, estimates of how many police forces in the UK are using some form of algorithmic profiling are between 14% to 33%. [3]The negative impacts of computer-aided decision-making are significantly higher since they areused in high-impact areas across society[4], such as determining whom to lend to, whether individuals are likely to recidivate or should receive bail, and risk of child exploitation in familiesmore prone to systemic bias, rather than individual bias, on account of data quality and data engineering issuesconsidered more “reliable” because they are evaluated by a human layer despite the comparatively higher likelihood of mistakes at the human layer, meaning less security and regulation overall.This is not to say that computerized decision-making does not have concrete safety problems or potential for abuse or significant harmful applications in government, such as military use — they do, and there have been widespread efforts to address these technically and procedurally. It is almost certainly where the risk will be in the future, in things like predictive coding where small errors can be amplified enormously and detrimentally for end users.However, their current impact in public policy specifically is limited, so, unless it becomes more prominently used or involves higher-cost systems, focusing on it is not productive. The rest of this answer will focus only on computer-aided decision making.What are the Biggest Issues Surrounding Computer-Aided Decision Making?By far and away, the most frequently cited problem of computer-aided decision making is unfair systemic discrimination — that is, an algorithm violating one of the three criteria below[5]:1. Anti-classification: The model is fair if it does not use protected characteristics or proxies from which protected characteristics can be inferred.2. Classification or outcome error parity: The model is fair if protected groups receive equal proportion of positive outcomes, or equal proportion of errors.3. Calibration: An algorithm is well-calibrated if the risk scores it gives to people reflect the actual outcomes in real life for the people given those scores. Equal calibration definitions of fairness say that an algorithm should be equally calibrated between protected groups. For example, among those given a particular risk score, the percentage which then results in the predicted outcome should be the same between protected groups (e.g. men and women).Algorithmic bias is widespread and predominant[6][7]— I highlight just two instances of their impact below, taken from the UK government’s landscape survey on the subject, and a third from the Wikipedia article on artificial intelligence use in government:A 2015 study showed that many of the algorithms used by insurance companies in the US to create quotes for car insurance were relying on credit scores more heavily than driving records. This meant that in Florida, an individual with a clean driving record but poor credit score could end up paying $1,552 more for car insurance than the same driver with a drink driving conviction but an excellent credit score. …… Big Brother Watch have flagged concerns over potential biases in the facial recognition systems currently being trialled by some UK forces. In 2018 they identified high rates of misidentification (where an individual was inaccurately identified as a possible person of interest—i.e. a false positive), averaging around 95% across all trials, although this is beginning to change …… One example is the use of risk assessments in criminal sentencing in the United States and parole hearings. Judges were presented with an algorithmically generated score intended to reflect the risk that a prisoner will repeat a crime. For the time period starting in 1920 and ending in 1970, the nationality of a criminals's father was a consideration in those risk assessment scores.Today, these scores are shared with judges in Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. An independent investigation by ProPublica found that the scores were inaccurate 80% of the time, and disproportionately skewed to suggest blacks to be at risk of relapse, 77% more often than whites.[8]Where does algorithmic bias come from? One is invited to read reviews on the subject — suffice it to say human bias can occur before data curation, during feature selection, and after post-processing. In essence, fixing algorithmic bias end-to-end is a procedural problem that both reflects existing biases in collection and amplifies it during curation. Approaches to resolving algorithmic bias are still nascent: one hopes to see more work done on this front in the next few decades.The next most commonly cited issue is that computer-aided decision-making in policy often needs to be able to operate under stringent data protection standards such as HIPAA or FERPA in the US.This raises a number of challenges for improving computer-aided decision making:Not only must data be sufficiently anonymised before sharing or inclusion in a predictive or classification model, the model should not be able to inadvertently reveal the identity of anyone. This is surprisingly hard — public datasets can still be used to identify people even after de-anonymisation.A number of techniques have emerged in tackling the problem of sufficient anonymization such as k-anonymity and differential privacy. These are both fascinating topics providing rich guarantees on privacy.Somewhat sadly, usage of k-anonymity and differential privacy can have some negative effects on the accuracy of certain prediction models[9][10]. The task of being able to improve prediction accuracy in the wake of anonymization efforts is case-specific and must be tackled accordingly.Not all computer-aided decision making techniques in policy need to impact human groups, by the way — for example, forest management has a history of using computer-aided decision making to predict woodstack availability and model ecosystem growth! This happy group is immune to the issues I have discussed above, so one needs only look to forestry management for an example of a happy marriage between computer aid and public policy.The diligent reader is recommended to consult Law and AI, an excellent blog on the state of issues considering artificial intelligence across all sectors, for more information on all of these issues.What Should We Do?There is almost no consensus on this subject. We are still very much in the dawn of a new era regulating the use of computer-aided or computerized decision making.Below, I offer some recommendations based on the complaints and suggestions I've sampled from reviews on the subject for different risk mitigation strategies.Government agencies need to make the details of their algorithms public.One of the most significant issues preventing research into improvement is that there is wide variability in just how much different agencies are willing to share about their techniques or data sources — we still don’t know just how widespread some systemic deficiencies are for this reason.Open data is essential to every meaningful investigation. Without a culture of open data and information sharing amongst government bodies and the public, we cannot expect improvements in algorithmic decision-making or assistance in decision-making from a regulatory standpoint.Some regulation and/or process certification is going to be necessary to result in reduced systemic bias.This is a popular and common view per opinion polls, though some suggestions in this regard — such as an FDA-style approval process or organization — are too heavyweight (in my opinion) for something as low-barrier-to-entry as software development. In researching this question, I’ve found recommendations for crowdsourced regulations or citizen input to ensure that claims of bias are voiced and handled responsibly — this kind of grassroots participation is going to be completely necessary for government-led usage of computerized/computer-aided decision-making.Beyond ensuring a tight feedback loop on bias management, some process guidelines for ensuring data quality and minimizing bias amplification should exist. Recent legal efforts, such as the Algorithmic Accountability Act, miss the mark in several ways, but engineering organizations such as the IEEE are currently working on standards that seek to minimize algorithmic bias[11]. These kind of standards can easily be adopted into government agencies and government subsidiaries such as in the area of public health, where regulation already exists and compliance is high.Operators should regularly audit themselves for bias.[12]It isn’t going to be enough to just have regulation — it’s going to be necessary for organizations to approach themselves in a way that holistically checks for bias in the decision-making process. How this’ll work or look like is still very much up in the air — incentivising or encouraging companies to publish bias impact statements routinely is one good way to do it.Computer-aided decision making needs to be easily adjustable and modifiable, so governments need to adopt modern software techniques.Technical debt is a huge problem in many organizations, and computer-aided decision making systems are no exception. Scully et. al. wrote a remarkable paper outlining the many anti-patterns that crop up in machine learning pipeline design[13]that should be required reading for every data engineer or DevOps practitioner — often, these anti-patterns can cause immense bottlenecks in publishing improvements over time beyond a certain point of entrenchment.For public policy programs, being able to respond quickly, efficiently and effectively is going to be key to handling impacts. Implementing modern software practices — breaking data and culture silos, adopting an ownership model for production services, reducing time to deploy and ship — are all going to be vital to accomplish that.This quadrifecta — regulation and compliance, active citizens, motivated agencies, easily adaptable technology — are, to my mind, the key ingredients to minimizing AI risks in public policy. Tight transparent feedback loops with quick implementation times and a corrective focus on structural causes are theoretically the safest kind of systems to operate and develop, and that attitude should be reflected in public policymaking.tl;dr I think AI should play a large role in public policy because of its many benefits, and the risks (mostly limited to algorithmic bias right now) should be mitigated via structural change in how policymakers manage the algorithm development lifecycle to include best practices, rapid iteration, an active citizen feedback loop, and a culture of self-analysis.Footnotes[1] 5 challenges for government adoption of AI[2] https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/artificial_intelligence_for_citizen_services.pdf[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819055/Landscape_Summary_-_Bias_in_Algorithmic_Decision-Making.pdf[4] Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy - Kindle edition by Cathy O'Neil. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/819055/Landscape_Summary_-_Bias_in_Algorithmic_Decision-Making.pdf[6] weapons of math destruction[7] How to be Human in the Age of the Machine: Amazon.co.uk: Hannah Fry: 9780857525246: Books[8] Algorithmic bias | Wikiwand[9] https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume5No11/Paper_26-A_Comparison_of_the_Effects_of_K-Anonymity_on_Machine_Learning_Algorithms.pdf[10] Privacy and data anonymization from a data scientist’s point of view[11] P7003 - Algorithmic Bias Considerations[12] Algorithmic bias detection and mitigation: Best practices and policies to reduce consumer harms[13] https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5656-hidden-technical-debt-in-machine-learning-systems.pdf

CPN number” can stand for credit privacy number, credit profile number, or consumer protection number. A CPN is a 9-digit number that is often marketed as a replacement for your social security number (SSN).Some sources claim that celebrities and government officials use CPNs to maintain their privacy, since SSNs are linked to a lot of personal information, but there is no documented legitimate source for a CPN. The Social Security Administration is the source for all SSNs and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the source for all Employer Identification Numbers (EINs). These organizations do not issue CPNs and no other government entities issue such numbers.You may have seen some businesses claim to sell CPNs as a way for consumers with poor credit to apply for credit with a “clean slate.” Since the CPN is a different number than your SSN, it does not have your credit report associated with it. These companies would like you to believe that you can purchase a CPN and use it instead of your SSN on credit applications, thereby hiding your credit history from creditors.A CPN might sound like a good solution if you have concerns about privacy or if you have had trouble with your own credit and want to “start fresh.” However, you should exercise extreme caution when dealing with anyone trying to sell you a CPN. Keep reading to find out why.How Do CPNs Work?Sellers of CPNs often claim that the use of these numbers is permissible thanks to the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974. This act allows people to withhold their SSNs on documents if providing an SSN is not expressly required by federal law.Sometimes lenders fail to thoroughly vet the identities of applicants, which may allow some people to get away with using CPNs at first.Since the federal government does not require that consumers provide SSNs on credit applications from private companies, you are free to withhold your SSN—however, the creditor is also free to deny you credit without this information. The U.S. Privacy Act of 1974 does not permit the use of CPNs on credit applications, contrary to what some credit repair companies would like you to believe.The reason some people can get away with using false SSNs sold as CPNs on credit applications, instead of their real SSN, is that lenders sometimes fail to cross-verify applications thoroughly enough to confirm that the name on the application matches the listed SSN.Although you may encounter many businesses offering “clean” CPN numbers for sale, they won’t tell you where these numbers came from or how they were obtained. They cannot provide legitimate documentation on where these numbers originated from.Some sellers falsely claim that they have attorneys who can request a CPN number application from the government for you, but since the government does not issue CPNs, this is impossible. In reality, there are two ways that disreputable companies obtain so-called CPNs, both of which are illegal:CPNs may actually be real SSNs stolen from children and the elderly.They use real SSNs that have been stolen from other people, often from children, the elderly, deceased people, homeless people, or those who are incarcerated. Scammers target these demographics because they are less likely to notice that their SSNs have been compromised. If someone promises to sell you a CPN that has a certain credit score or credit report, this is a big red flag that it is actually an SSN that has been stolen from someone else.They create new, fake social security numbers that have not yet been issued by the United States government. They do this by using algorithms to generate 9-digit numbers and checking them against online databases to see which numbers can successfully pose as SSNs. They then sell these numbers as CPNs to unsuspecting consumers.How to Get a CPNThe truth is that there is no legitimate way to obtain a CPN because CPNs are not issued or recognized by any government agency. As described above, the only way to get a CPN is to purchase a stolen or fake social security number on the black market.The only way to get CPNs is to purchase stolen or fake SSNs on the black market.While credit repair agencies and other companies who sell them may appear legitimate, there is nothing legitimate about buying a fraudulent SSN, which is what a CPN is. An SSN is a government identifying number and the government does not “sell” these numbers or offer CPN applications.Some businesses may alternatively try to sell you an EIN, or employer identification number, promising that EINs are a legitimate form of CPNs. Although the IRS does issue EINs, these are exclusively for business use, which means that an individual hoping to improve their credit cannot legally use an EIN in place of their SSN.In addition, according to the IRS, “EINs are issued for the purpose of tax administration and are not intended for participation in any other activities.” Businesses can obtain loans associated with their EIN number, but individuals may not use an EIN as an alternate SSN to obtain a personal loan.The Social Security Administration has the authority to assign new SSNs in extreme cases, but the requirements are strict. You can only get a new SSN if your life is in danger or if you can prove that someone has stolen your number, is actively using it, and is causing you significant continued harm.If you do get a new SSN, your new number is still linked with the credit profile from your old number, and they both receive special indicators that help alert creditors of this change, so this would not work as a way to leave your credit history behind.Credit Privacy Numbers: Are They Legal?To find out whether CPNs are legitimate and legal, we can go straight to the highest authority to see the official policy in writing. In this case, the highest authorities are the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Social Security Administration (SSA).The FTC is a federal agency that polices business activities to help protect consumers and the Social Security Administration (SSA) is the agency that administers all Social Security-related programs, so these are the governing authorities when it comes to consumer protection, identity theft, and fraud. The policies of these federal institutions override any other opinions or lower-level organizations.According to the FTC, “It is a federal crime to lie on a credit or loan application, misrepresent your Social Security number, and obtain an EIN from the IRS under false pretenses.”The FTC has stated that CPNs are illegal.Clearly, using a CPN on any credit or loan application that asks for your SSN is misrepresenting your social security number. Therefore, engaging in this action is an act of fraud. There may be many credit repair companies and other businesses out there that appear to be legitimate offering to sell you a CPN, but the bottom line is that if you misrepresent your SSN, you are committing a federal crime. This is verifiable in writing straight at the source, from the highest governing agencies.The Federal Trade Commission has issued warnings against companies that sell CPNs to those looking to improve their credit, labeling such practices as scams. Here is what the FTC has said about CPNs:“The credit repair companies may tell you to apply for credit using the CPN or EIN, rather than your own Social Security number. And they may lie and tell you that this process is legal. But it’s a scam. These companies may be selling stolen Social Security numbers, often those taken from children. By using a stolen number as your own, the con artists will have involved you in identity theft.”If you follow this advice and use a CPN instead of your SSN on a credit application, you would be committing fraud, and you could face some serious charges and prison time.The Social Security Administration has also been very clear about their official stance on CPNs:“The proliferation of Credit Privacy Numbers (CPNs) is a relatively new SSN misuse scheme and a threat to the security of child identity information… Despite what many of these credit repair websites imply, consumers should know that CPNs are not legal.”Boosting Your CPN Credit ScoreBe wary of companies that tell you that you can get approved for credit using a CPN.Credit repair companies that sell CPNs and CPN tradeline packages often say that it is easier to “boost” the credit scores of CPNs and allow you to essentially hide bad credit that may be associated with your real SSN. While this tactic is becoming more common, the fact that it is happening does not make it legal. Hiding previous bad credit by using a replacement SSN is misrepresenting your identity and is considered fraud on a federal level.It is not surprising that the lure of buying a CPN and starting over with a clean slate appeals to many people. When consumers encounter misinformation circulated by disreputable companies and hear about others having success using CPNs, it is easy to see how someone could fall for this trap and unknowingly participate in fraud. Unfortunately, the idea of using CPNs as a quick fix for credit is indeed too good to be true.The sad fact is that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, and blaming the company for selling illegal services does not make the consumer immune to the potential consequences. If someone does decide to purchase a CPN and use it instead of their SSN, they are creating a verifiable paper trail of this action that could come back to haunt them many years down the road, since records would be created every time a person uses this tactic.CPNs and Synthetic Identity FraudCPNs are used to commit synthetic identity fraud.The use of CPNs has contributed to a new form of fraud called synthetic identity fraud, also known as synthetic identity theft. Synthetic identity fraud is the criminal practice of creating fake personas through a combination of real and fictitious data.For example, scammers could combine the address of one person with the phone number of another and the SSN (or CPN) of a third. This false identity is then used to open credit accounts and make thousands of dollars in fraudulent purchases, followed by defaulting on payments. Since the fraudulent account is not linked to a real individual, it is difficult to track down the perpetrator and collect the debt.It is estimated that this type of fraud causes billions of dollars in losses annually. Worse still is the damage it causes to victims whose identities are compromised.This is where CPNs come into play. As we have seen, many CPNs sold to consumers are actually SSNs that belong to real people, especially children. Individuals seeking to “repair” their credit combine these stolen SSNs with their real name to essentially create a synthetic credit profile.When criminals, or even unsuspecting consumers, use a child’s SSN to obtain credit and then default on the debt, this leaves lasting negative marks on the child’s record. When the child becomes an adult, they will face suspicion from lenders and difficulty obtaining credit due to the delinquencies on their record. They may not even be aware of the crime until they need to use their SSN for financial reasons as an adult. For example, they may apply for student loans and be denied as a result of the bad credit associated with their SSN.The government is cracking down on CPNs and synthetic identity fraud.The credit industry and the federal government are increasingly focusing on ways to crack down on this new type of fraud. In 2017, the FTC and the U.S. Government Accountability Office both convened groups of experts to discuss how to combat synthetic identity fraud going forward. According to the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys are ramping up prosecution of these cases.In May 2018, the government passed a law that intends to reduce rates of synthetic identity fraud. The law requires the SSA to provide banks with an electronic system that can check whether an applicant’s name and date of birth match their SSN within 24 hours. This system will make it easier and faster for banks to detect synthetic identities before they unwittingly provide credit to fraudsters.Banks are also beginning to experiment with biometric technology that could help fight fraud, like using voice recognition security to detect if a certain voice has been associated with multiple identities.With the increasing scrutiny on synthetic identity fraud and CPN fraud, buying or using a CPN for any reason is a dangerous game. If you were to obtain a CPN and use it instead of your SSN on documents, you would be creating a record of committing fraud that could be detected and traced back to you, especially as banks and the federal government start taking more severe action against fraud.Avoiding a CPN ScamWhen it comes to protecting yourself from CPN scams, your best bet is to stay far away from anyone trying to sell you a CPN, EIN, or anything that is supposed to somehow “wipe the slate clean” of your bad credit. Companies claiming that you can apply for a new line of credit in a way that is completely independent of your credit history are trying to mislead you.Since lenders can look into your address, name, date of birth, and other information besides your SSN, they can easily tell that you have used a false SSN because they have other information they can use to verify your identity. For this reason, some CPN providers encourage their customers to change their names and addresses. If a company selling CPNs advises you to change your address, phone number, or anything else about your current identity, that is a huge red flag that they are committing fraud—and so are you.If someone defaults on a loan they took out with a CPN, an investigation may be opened and they could end up in prison.Unfortunately, many scammers often prey on those who are most in need: those who are low-income and can’t afford another financial hit. Tricked by promises of clean scores and better credit, users are misled into buying a CPN.The problems occur when CPNs are used to take out lines of credit. If the borrower fails to make payments, the lender may have little recourse since a fraudulent ID number was used for the borrower. At this point, an investigation may be opened, and investigators can follow the paper trail to the consumer.Although there are stories of people getting away with using CPNs, keep in mind that sometimes investigations take place and charges are filed several years after the fraudulent activity occurred.In 2015, a man from Louisiana was charged with felony racketeering, including theft, identity theft, and money laundering for defrauding hundreds of people and financial institutions with his credit repair company. He sold SSNs stolen from children as CPNs for hundreds of dollars each, claiming they would replace the SSNs of the unknowing victims of his scheme. He could face up to 75 years in prison if convicted.In another current example that took place in 2018, Calvin Wayne Cade, Jr., of Oklahoma City, pleaded guilty to knowingly making a false statement to a financial institution by using CPNs to falsify his SSN in credit applications. The CPNs he used were stolen SSNs belonging to children born in 2006 and 2008. By using a fraudulent number on credit applications, Cade deceived banks, credit card companies, and retailers into thinking he had a better credit history than he really did.With the lines of credit he received using these CPNs, he purchased vehicles, TVs, furniture, computers, and more, and then failed to make payments on the credit accounts, causing financial losses to the creditors. Cade was sentenced to 18 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. He has also been ordered to pay $112,924.54 in restitution to the other creditors he defrauded.What to Do Instead of Using a CPNIf you’re reading this article, you may have considered using a CPN, or possibly even purchased a CPN yourself. It’s natural to want to try something that has been marketed as a simple solution to your credit woes. But now that we have seen definitive proof from the federal government that CPNs are illegal, what is the best path forward?Firstly, if you have already purchased a CPN, do not use it for any purpose. It cannot legally be used in place of your SSN to apply for credit and it may very well be someone else’s stolen SSN. You do not want to involve yourself in any illegal or fraudulent activity by using the CPN.Instead of buying a CPN, focus on improving your own credit and removing errors from your credit report.If you haven’t purchased a CPN yet but you were thinking about buying one because you have bad credit, unfortunately, there is no quick fix for poor credit. However, there are plenty of safe and legal strategies that you can use to repair your credit and rebuild your credit profile so that eventually, you can successfully apply for credit using your own social.How to Improve Your CreditThe basic idea when it comes to building good credit is to pay all of your bills on time every time. Your payment history is the most important factor that influences your credit score. Even a single missed payment can have a serious impact on your score.Of course, sometimes accidents or emergencies happen, and once in a while, a bill might get missed. Don’t let that destroy your credit score. If you can bring your account current as soon as possible, and you haven’t missed any payments before, your creditor may be willing to forgive the late payment and wipe it from your record.If you are in financial hardship and can’t afford to pay the amount due, see if your creditor can work with you to reduce your monthly payments temporarily. Don’t just keep skipping payments, or the creditor may sell your account to a collections agency. Having a collection on your credit report is even worse than having a missed payment.The second most important piece of your credit score is your credit utilization ratio. Keep this number as low as possible by not using too much of your available credit. See our article on individual vs. overall utilization ratios for tips on how to maintain a low utilization ratio.Focusing your efforts on these two main principles will go a long way toward rebuilding your credit. Once you’ve made progress in those departments, you can also start to think about how to improve your credit age, credit mix, and new credit categories, which we cover in detail in “How to Get an 850 Credit Score.”In addition, be sure to check your credit report for any errors that may be affecting your score and dispute them with the credit bureaus.When you get your credit back in shape, you’ll be able to apply for loans with your SSN with much greater odds of being approved. Having good credit is something that will give you a financial advantage for the rest of your life, so it’s worth it to put in the time and effort now to get back on the right path.On the other hand, while using a CPN may seem like a quick and easy shortcut to a clean credit profile, it’s definitely not worth the risk of possibly going to prison and having a felony on your record.Summarizing CPNsEngaging in identity fraud can lead to serious prison time.A social security number is the most important and high-level personal identification number used in the United States. The government alone issues these numbers and they are not to be bought or sold on the open market. Misrepresenting your SSN is a federal crime, so by definition, using a CPN in place of your SSN is also a federal crime.The use of CPNs has become highly associated with a new form of fraud called synthetic identity fraud. Although this is a relatively new phenomenon, the government is quickly catching up to illegal businesses that sell these CPNs, which assist those who are looking to synthesize a new identity. Court cases as recent as 2018 are showing that people who engage in this type of fraud can receive heavy fines and prison time.While there are many companies advertising that CPNs are perfectly legal, the governing federal agencies have clearly stated this is not the case. The use of CPNs to obscure SSNs is illegal, period.The government has prioritized synthetic identity fraud as a major national security concern. In response, federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Postal Inspection Service, the Secret Service, the Department of State, Social Security Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission are creating new task forces to investigate and prosecute fraudulent activity.Why We Don’t Work With CPNsSince using CPNs to apply for credit is a federal crime, we cannot assist consumers who are looking to use them. Our service is strictly for people using a valid SSN. We verify all of our clients’ SSNs through third-party databases before processing orders and we take all necessary measures to protect our credit partners, our clients, and creditors. Under no circumstances will we accept a CPN, and any orders attempting to bypass our filters will not be refunded.If you’re looking for a quick solution to erase your debt or a poor credit score, there is no silver bullet. Not only will CPNs not solve your problems, but you could get in serious trouble with the government. Instead, work on building good credit the right way using your SSN.