to vote. This disclosure was exempt under section 7(a)(2)(B) of the act, but the state was still required to comply with section 7(h). The court in Yeager, 615 F. Supp. 1087. stated "the disclosure of social security numbers
3For example, UK ccmmissica contends in a letter rccentty sahmittat to this &ice that it .yY;.ui iis diirciwt of SSNs Yo assist in the &terminstica whetherapplicantsor ticensceshave ken conviaedofcriminaloffenrarrrbwmiacriminalhidoryr&ordcruppliedbytheDcplucmauofpublic 8afw and h: its applicationform requiredthe dis&muc of SSNsfor this parposeprior to 1975. II also contends chat tk canmision's we of SSNs for this pwpxc 'coasti~ a 'I&', except& tts resuirea~d(SSNs]fromthefcdcrslRivacyMofl974. Givaathcu#oftbclawtithregard to ndamakiq at the time, Ux Commiion's requirementswere as binding then as formally whped reqailwntnts are I&y under praent law.' l-be demmlnatino wbelbertbt commissioIlbad a regldatinn m&ring the disclonuc of SSNs IOverifythe i&nIificationof individualspriorto Januwy 1.1975. would invniw the rcsnhnionnftkmal manerssod is thefort not amenableto the opinion process.
p. 1526 Honorable Williun R Ratliff - Pw 6 (Dt+286)
annot be wmpdled without compliance with section 7(b) of the Privacy Act." 615 F. Supp. at 1991. Sii, in Doye, 529 F. Supp. 1343, the court noted that even ifthe Delaware Treasmw's practice of requiring the disclosure of SSNs was excepted by the 1976 MQdmentL to the Social Security Act, it doubted "that in requiring the disclosure of social security numbers as a matter of course, the State Treasurer has complied with the tquirements of section 7(b)." D@e, 529 F. Supp. at 1350. The court further explained, "adequate explanations of the information required by section 7(b) is critical to the right afForded by section 7(a) to withhold disclosure of the social security number, except in limited circumstancu." Id.
We do not decide here whether the letter provided to the licensee by the comntission comports with the requirements of section 7(b).* We do suggest, however, thuthecommissionmigbtwrnttorrviewtheinformationitprovidestolicawes mgarding the disclosure of SSNs in light of the foregoing authorities. Scr authorities cited m, see a&o Wd, 501 F. Supp. at 312 (decking form requiting tbe disclosure of mSSN~~totbeartentthtitrtrtedthtdirclonrnms~torywhenaokw provided for mandatory disclosure); *a&r CIcwlrmd We&re RighB Org. v. Boner, 462 F. Supp. 1313. 1321 @I.D. Ohio 1978) (conch&i that section 7(b) requires meanb@d disclosMe). In infomling licensees mgardhg the uses which will be made of their SSNs, tbe commission might also consider whether any such SSN will be subject to public disclosMeundertheopenRewrdsAct,- Code chapter 552. See Open Records Decision No. 622 (1994).
In sum, we conclude that iftbe commission requited licensees to disclose SSNs as part of its system of records in existence and opemting before January 1.1975. under a ~tuteor~on~o~~priortotht&tetovaitjrthidentityof~individurl,orif a fbderd UaMe requires disclosure of SSNs to the commissi~ tbe commission is not prohibited~~torarewalianreonthebuisofalicauecs~~todirclore his or her SSN. Even if the commission is authorized to require the disclosure of an individual's SSN, it must "inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will bc made ofit." 5 U.S.C. 8 552a note.
p. 1527 Honorable Wti R RatlitT - Page