Authorization To Release Social Security Number: Fill & Download for Free

If your children’s father was paying child support, then the Court or administrative agency file ordering child support will contain his Social Security number and you should be able to obtain a court or administrative judge’s order to open the file to see his Social Security number without too much trouble. Try your state’s child support enforcement office, or the local prosecuting attorney’s family support division office.If you know the funeral home that handled his services, you may also be able to obtain a copy of his death certificate from the funeral home for a small fee; ask first whether it contains a full Social Security number or only a partial one.If you know an employer of the father, they will also have his Social Security number. Technically, they are not allowed to release it without authorization, but smaller businesses may be open to a reasonable sob story like yours.You could, in theory, apply for appointment as guardian of your children and personal representative of his estate on behalf of your children, who are his legal heirs unless specifically disavowed by a Will he made. If he died with no assets or legal rights to income (a pension, a retirement account, damages from a personal injury, insurance policies, etc.), this may be a more expensive way to proceed, but it is worth consulting a probate attorney to find out.

Here is how:Understand Critical ThinkingPractice critical thinking (again & again)That’s it. Let’s get started..Understand Critical Thinking: Critical thinking is a metacognition, the act of judging and reviewing what you are learning while you learn it rather than just learning it.Got it? No? Yeah, I wouldn’t either. In fact I didn’t, for a long time. But it’s actually quite simple.That is it.Now, the PURPOSE of critical thinking is to develop opinions about things that are presented to you. You do this by using background knowledge, pointed questions, and understanding of the limitations of the data, argument and premise. You also do this by accepting the fact that you are smart enough to critique anything.For the purpose of this I’ve included a recent NYTimes Editorial (below)Before we start, get out a pen and paper and write a few things down. These are our CRITICAL questions. They could include:Background KnowledgeWhat type of writing is this?Who is author, what are his bias? i.e. does he work for a company, non-profit, academic?Who is his audience, how might that influence what he writes?What else do I know, if anything, about this topic?Key Content QuestionsWhat is author’s thesis?What are his main points? Are there any arguments he misses?Does he support those points with data? If so, how?What points has he not addressed that might be valid?What is the author’s premise and underlying assumptions? Are those valid?Here is the article;* * * * * * *Expanding Social SecurityBy PAUL KRUGMANPublished: November 21, 2013For many years there has been one overwhelming rule for people who wanted to be considered serious inside the Beltway. It was this: You must declare your willingness to cut Social Security in the name of “entitlement reform.” It wasn’t really about the numbers, which never supported the notion that Social Security faced an acute crisis. It was instead a sort of declaration of identity, a way to show that you were an establishment guy, willing to impose pain (on other people, as usual) in the name of fiscal responsibility.But a funny thing has happened in the past year or so. Suddenly, we’re hearing open discussion of the idea that Social Security should be expanded, not cut. Talk of Social Security expansion has even reached the Senate, with Tom Harkin introducing legislation that would increase benefits. A few days ago Senator Elizabeth Warren gave a stirring floor speech making the case for expanded benefits.Where is this coming from? One answer is that the fiscal scolds driving the cut-Social-Security orthodoxy have, deservedly, lost a lot of credibility over the past few years. (Giving the ludicrous Paul Ryan an awardfor fiscal responsibility? And where’s my debt crisis?) Beyond that, America’s overall retirement system is in big trouble. There’s just one part of that system that’s working well: Social Security. And this suggests that we should make that program stronger, not weaker.Before I get there, however, let me briefly take on two bad arguments for cutting Social Security that you still hear a lot.One is that we should raise the retirement age — currently 66, and scheduled to rise to 67 — because people are living longer. This sounds plausible until you look at exactly who is living longer. The rise in life expectancy, it turns out, is overwhelmingly a story about affluent, well-educated Americans. Those with lower incomes and less education have, at best, seen hardly any rise in life expectancy at age 65; in fact, those with less education have seen their life expectancy decline.So this common argument amounts, in effect, to the notion that we can’t let janitors retire because lawyers are living longer. And lower-income Americans, in case you haven’t noticed, are the people who need Social Security most.The other argument is that seniors are doing just fine. Hey, their poverty rate is only 9 percent.There are two big problems here. First, there are well-known flaws with the official poverty measure, and these flaws almost surely lead to serious understatement of elderly poverty. In an attempt to provide a more realistic picture, the Census Bureau now regularly releases a supplemental measure that most experts consider superior — and this measure puts senior poverty at 14.8 percent, close to the rate for younger adults.Furthermore, the elderly poverty rate is highly likely to rise sharply in the future, as the failure of America’s private pension system takes its toll.When you look at today’s older Americans, you are in large part looking at the legacy of an economy that is no more. Many workers used to have defined-benefit retirement plans, plans in which their employers guaranteed a steady income after retirement. And a fair number of seniors (like my father, until he passed away a few months ago) are still collecting benefits from such plans.Today, however, workers who have any retirement plan at all generally have defined-contribution plans — basically, 401(k)’s — in which employers put money into a tax-sheltered account that’s supposed to end up big enough to retire on. The trouble is that at this point it’s clear that the shift to 401(k)’s was a gigantic failure. Employers took advantage of the switch to surreptitiously cut benefits; investment returns have been far lower than workers were told to expect; and, to be fair, many people haven’t managed their money wisely.As a result, we’re looking at a looming retirement crisis, with tens of millions of Americans facing a sharp decline in living standards at the end of their working lives. For many, the only thing protecting them from abject penury will be Social Security. Aren’t you glad we didn’t privatize the program?* * * * * * *Now go back to our questions (don’t worry, with practice you can do this without writing them down). I've filled them in, poorly, see if you can do better.Background KnowledgeWhat type of writing is this?– Opinion column in NYTimes, therefore, will be rhetorical not as factual as a research paper. Facts are omitted due to length and established expertise of authorWho is author, what are his bias? Paul Krugman, noted liberal economist, works for the Paper. Point of view is from economist, not a personal accountWho is his audience, how might that influence what he writes? His audience is likely to be highly educated and intellectual Americans who read the Times (and generally >30yrs) and policy-makers in DC. It’s an opinion piece designed to change minds or at least improve the debate.Key Content QuestionsWhat is author’s thesis? Washington politicians should expand social security benefitsWhat are his main points? Krugman makes his points by attacking the negative arguments. 1) people who are most likely to need social security are NOT increasing in average age therefore age limits shouldn’t go up, 2) the argument that elderly are coming out of poverty is specious because the data is incredible. His makes an affirmative argument that defined contribution plans cannot be relied onDoes he support those points with data? Not really, but again, that is the nature of OP Eds. And he’s Paul Krugman, he’s earned the right to give his opinion w/o dataWhat points has he not addressed that might be valid? Krugman doesn’t quantify; program should expand but how much, who pays for it? How much would it help the elderly?What is the author’s premise and underlying assumptions? Are those valid? Krugman’s premise is that people will be better off with more social security. He assumes defined contribution plan returns will not grow back, that the elderly do not have another source of income or support and that workers who are most in poverty will continue to have lowest death rates.In sum: Paul Krugman makes an argument in the recent NYTimes that policy-makers should expand social security benefits. He points to the lower life expectancy of people who most need social security, attacks data on elderly poverty rates, and says defined contribution plans have not worked. His argument could be improved by quantifying what he’s advocating and why it would be effective.And that is critical thinking (not great critical thinking, sorry). But that is all it is.2. Practice Critical Thinking ALL THE TIME.Start with questions like those above and put yourself though this exercise with newspapers, TV, books, even basic conversations.It gets easier the more you practice.Before you know it you’ll have critical opinions about everything and can annoy/impress all your friends. Like everyone else on Quora.

See this guy..He is Kevin David Mitnick, an American computer security consultant, author and one of the world’s biggest hacker of all time.Nickname :- The Condor,The Darkside Hacker.At age 13, Mitnick used social engineering and dumpster driving to bypass the punch card system used in the Los Angeles bus system.He was able to ride any bus in greater LA freely.The U.S. Department of Justice called him the “most wanted computer criminal in U.S. history” — that’s how notorious he was.3. Kevin Mitnick’s story is so wild that it was even the basis for a featured film: Track Down.4. Mitnick first gained unauthorized access to a computer network in 1979, at 16.5. When he was arrested in 1990 he was kept in a solitary confinement because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to “start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone”.6. After being released from jail,since 2000, Mitnick has been a paid security consultant, public speaker and author. He does security consulting for Fortune 500 companies and the FBI, performs penetration testing services for the world's largest companies and teaches Social Engineering classes to dozens of companies and government agencies.7. Currently he is owner of Mitnick Security,one of the world’s greatest security.8. He is also an author,written several books like :-2003) The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security[34](2005) The Art of Intrusion: The Real Stories Behind the Exploits of Hackers, Intruders & Deceivers'[35](2011) Ghost in the Wires: My Adventures as the World's Most Wanted Hacker[36](2017) The Art of Invisibility:The World's Most Famous Hacker Teaches You How to Be Safe in the Age of Big Brother and Big Data.9. He was so well-known that when he was arrested in 1990;certain posters were made by his fans to release him.10. In spite of having easy access to credit cards, social security numbers, and proprietary software, Mitnick never spent a dime of other people's money. Never stole any living person’s identity.Footnotes:-Kevin Mitnick - WikipediaKevin Mitnick, Once the World's Most Wanted Hacker, Is Now Selling Zero-Day Exploits