SSN Required To Buy Palm Pre 543
UltraOne writes "Sprint requires your Social Security number in order to run a credit check before they will allow you to open an account, according to a store manager in Silver Spring, MD. Since Sprint is the exclusive carrier for the Palm Pre, if you are not willing to provide an SSN, you can't buy this product.
I believe a full credit check for this level of consumer purchase is a clear example of overkill. I have supplied an SSN when buying a house and renting an apartment, but never for any other consumer purchase. I have purchased my cars with cash so far, so I don't have first-hand experience, but a car loan also seems to be an appropriate place to require an SSN for a credit check. At the very least, Sprint should have an alternative for people who don't want to give out their SSN. I also found the entire experience a powerful argument against exclusive license agreements." Read below for details of this reader's experience.
I was eager to purchase the Palm Pre to replace my aging Zire 72s, and also consolidate my PDA and mobile phone into a single device. Since reviews have generally been positive, I headed to my local Sprint store (8501 Fenton Street, Silver Spring, MD). My current mobile carrier is Verizon, so I also needed to set up service with Sprint.
The store had the Pre in stock, and the sale proceeded smoothly until the sales associate asked me for my Social Security number. He had already verified my identity with a driver's license. When I asked why the SSN was needed, he said it was to run a credit check. I offered a credit card instead, but he said that the SSN was required.
I asked to speak to the manager, who was a pleasant young woman, but not able to resolve the problem. She confirmed that Sprint required the SSN to run a credit check (through a credit bureau) before opening an account. I told her that I understood Sprint had an interest in making sure that I could pay for the service (I was planning to get the $70/month Everything Data 450 plan), but that I was concerned about identity theft and privacy. I offered several other options, including a check on my credit card limit, which is an order of magnitude greater than the combined price of the phone and two-year contract; placing the maximum deposit that Sprint requires from people with poor credit ($500); or pre-paying the entire two-year plan on the spot. None of these was acceptable options, so Sprint lost the sale.
Self credit check (Score:2, Interesting)
They all require SSNs (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been with T-Mobile (BlackBerry), AT&T (iPhone), and now Sprint (Pre), and they all asked for SSN when signing up. I don't think any place is going to let you into a contract with a subsidized phone without running a credit check (hence the SSN request), especially with the economy in the shape it is nowadays.
Did you have experience at another provider that didn't ask for an SSN when selling you a subsidized phone?
Gross assumption (Score:5, Interesting)
that everyone has a social security number. There is no requirement to have one. I love the stunned looks I get when I reply "I don't have one". I actually have one, but they don't need to know that either.
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
And what's infuriating is that the last four digits are the most important [hoboes.com]; the first 5 are determined based on time and place of birth.
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
I sometimes wish it talked louder. My experience with O2 in the uk.
I wanted three iPhones for the business, however the credit agencies didn't have enough history on me and so I got a rating of 'technically insolvent'.
I offered to pay for all three handsets and *all* the contracts up front. They still wouldn't have it!
I went back to the office pulled files showing signed contracts showing over £100k of guranteed income. Paperwork detailing business insurance to cover loss of earnings, professional indemnifcation etc bank statements that showed £10k month credits for the last several months, I even did my own credit search on me to show them why they were getting that result and that it was just a technicality.
I still got the standard 'Computer says no' response.
Eventually after about 2 hours of kicking up a stink in the shop I finally embarrassed them into ring head office (pointing out very loudly that they didnt want to take thousands of pounds from me today did the trick - though I was assured there was nothing head office could do either)
Lo and behold someone with an ounce of sense decided it was a bit silly saying no to someone who was throwing money at you.
Here's something worse (Score:5, Interesting)
When I tried to sign up for Verizon's wireless data service they wouldn't let me pass the credit check without a land line. I tried to tell them I didn't have a land line but they couldn't cope with that. Eventually the girl at the counter gave her sister's apartment number to the credit check guys (she didn't have a land line either). Got to love unbending bureaucracy.
Re:And? (Score:2, Interesting)
Your spending limit is clearly printed on your contract with Sprint, and you are required to initial that section confirming that you are aware of it.
Competition commission not interested (Score:3, Interesting)
Since in this case (Palm pre) there are competitors from just about every other manufacturer, and it is a new product, it is not an issue.
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
These days, any phone or cell phone technically is a credit account with absolutely no limits due to being able to rack up hours and hours calling "premium" numbers.
And unlike a credit card, your kid and any of his friends visiting your house can use that phone to call whatever expensive number they like, with no limits, no checks or any verification whatsoever. They can just start billing ridiculous amounts of money.
That's the background of this credit check:
Even your ultra-flatrate-everything plan will not cover premium numbers or roaming charges.
Individually disabling premium numbers, disabling roaming or disbanding this crooked concept of thievery altogether means the providers losing their huge margins on that.
Every ordinary phone plan can rack up the monetary equivalent of several expensive sports cars within one month, that's why we get credit checks equivalent to buying a house and a mortgage for that phone plan.
Re:They continue to fail (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, Verizon gave me a contract without my SSN.
I went to them because AT&T required that I give them my SSN. I challenged them to do the credit check without it, or drop the order. They dropped the order. I guess they don't need my business.
How do credit checks work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't they run the credit check, then discard the SSN? IF they need some number to update the credit history, then let the credit reporting agency give them some auto-generated account number at that time. There's lots of security benefits to doing that anyway.
Re:And then there are people like me... (Score:4, Interesting)
You may lament that they require your SS#, but it's the people like me who simply are willing to choke down any spoon fed drivel that big business shoves in their collective faces that make it hard for the people like you.
It is your fault that corporate lobbying is the driving force of your political system.
Re:And? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a cellphone provider that doesn't require you to provide your SSN before signing up for a contract?
Yes, T-Mobile doesn't require SSN. You can either refuse, or just sign up for a Flexpay account. Flexpay doesn't even require a contract if you want to pay full price for the phone.
This is how Sprint responded to my inquiry (Score:2, Interesting)
"Hello,
Thank you for contacting Sprint regarding the Palm Pre handset. We really appreciate your interest in our new products.
You can certainly purchase the Palm Pre handset without providing the SSN Number. However, to use this handset you are required to add this handset on any existing Sprint account of your family member or friend (if any).
In case, you wish to open a new account on your account, then you need to provide us the Social Security Number as per the FCC guidelines.
Thank you again for contacting Sprint and have a nice day."
So they claim it's an FCC guidelines requirement. True?
PM
Re:SSN = National ID Number (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I'm going to start a business and in addition to SSN's, I'm going to start requiring people to sign over Power of Attorney before I let them sign the contract for whatever it is I'm going to sell.
It doesn't matter that there was EXTREME concern that this might happen way back when the SSN was invented, it happened anyway.
Well, to be fair, that was probably the real point of the exercise. The opposition even realized it and complained, but they apparently were soothed by the lies or weren't squeaky or numerous enough to prevent the atrocity. There was a depression going on at the time, so we had to do something and that was certainly something.
Absoutely Not (Score:3, Interesting)
I Am A Landlord. And I would never allow this. It's just too easy to play games with something someone printed off at home.
I have had applicants show up with credit report in hand before, and I have told them that I'd be happy to go over their report with them and see if they'll qualify before they hand over their SSN, but that I'll still have to run their credit using my service to verify the accuracy.
Some still apply, some don't. No skin off my back.
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone oughta bitchslap WaMu (sorry, Chase), then, who refused to open an account initially for me, since my SSN showed as "having been issued in the last three years" and yet I was 28 years old. Gasp. You think that year old green card might explain things?
Eventually it took a regional manager to okay opening the account, and then two hours twiddling my thumbs while they tried to figure out how to bypass the SSN check in the account management system.
SSN and the Credit Lie (Score:3, Interesting)
There are few scams that are basically money generating, its not about security for the customer.
* Larger cellular companies charge more per minute and plan on credit plan.
* Credit score companies make money selling this information, and they are not correct or regulated, and they differ between companies.
Basically the mantra, we have to charge higher interest rates on poor credit because they are poor risk, is false. If they could charge everyone the higher interest rates they would. Thus the reason for some states putting caps on loan fees, and the federal government capping on military (most are minimum wage earners) loans.
ATT can sell prepaid minutes at 35 cents a minute to poor credit holders at 10 cents to good credit. They would take every penny they can with the lie of "credit" and they are not the only company doing this, just one of the most visible.
Its basically a scam, but you have to think why they need your SSN. They need it for credit, so they can figure out how much to charge you. If any service has to figure out how much more they can charge you, its basically a scam. This is why the smaller local regional banks and credit unions would verify income to loan money. But the feds stepped in and told them they had to loan more money, and threatened with "lower bank credit scores" for not loaning money, and mark the banks rating down for now loaning enough money!
Credit scores, was used against the banks by the feds, and the banks for greed on mortgages. We all want a capital society, but false credit scores are so ingrained in our banking system that its hurting the poor, ripping off the middle class, and forcing large companies to turn away cash paying customers.
I wont even go into the whole unregulated federal reserve, which isn't federal but a privately owned bank, that was never audited...
Ever have a 5 year old ask you the why game? Try it yourself, why do you need to have use a SSN for a phone? Because we need to do a credit check. Why the credit check? So they can figure out what plan and interest rate to charge you. Why does a different interst rate, etc...
We don't tend to do that anymore, just accept and move on. Common sense is lacking, and if you question something, you must be a nut job. Why wouldnt you just accept and move on. Trouble maker or nut job.
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't mod this down. The AC hits the nail squarely on the head. I've had to disclose my SSN number anytime I've signed a contract with a mobile carrier (and I've been on contract with most of them at one time or another). The real issue is why they are allowed to keep this information past the time it takes them to run a credit check. Most consumers "consent" to this when they sign that absurd multi-page TOS that not only gives the carrier the right to keep this information indefinitely, but also allows them share it with "trusted" partners.
My wife's personal information was stolen a few years back when a large public university in California had an internal database breach. The only "recent" contact she had with the university was a 4 year old grad school application for a program she wasn't even accepted to. Why the university felt a need to hang on to her information long past the time it would have provided any usefulness to the application process is a mystery, until one considers the value of that data for other purposes.
If anyone is interested in learning more about the sorry state of protecting one's own digital identity, I highly recommend reading "The Digital Person: Technology And Privacy In The Information Age" by Daniel Solove.
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
I do actually want to block any such numbers. Any and each and all and I want to limit my phone to 100 text messages, 10 hours of talking time and 100USD equivalent each month until I say otherwise. Exception is 911 and/or one single specific number I have securely entered in advance.
That way, my phone is useless to thieves. My handset is shabby and worn and that call plan would leave them little room to do anything useful with their stolen property.
Can I get this? No.
Can I get anything similar to this? No.
Can I get anything that bears even a miniscule resemblance of it? No, no and no.
I can have a flat rate for any and all regular calls, text messages or data traffic. But I cannot make my monthly bill bulletproof against phone sex lines, premium lines and to overseas. I deliberately want my phone to stop working - or maybe ask for a password via text message - when certain limits are hit.
I can insure my car, my home, my company and everything else against everything except gross negligence, nuclear war or worse. But my cellphone plan is still a liability of about 2-3 thousand bucks when stolen. Which is the reason I have such a shitty handset: I can simply smash it to pieces when someone tries to mug me. Is better for privacy, too.
Re:And? (Score:1, Interesting)
I think you missed the GP's point. He wasn't arguing that the charges were so exorbitantly high that Sprint shouldn't be allowed to charge them. He was arguing that Sprint's outlay for those services was small enough that they could accept the risk that someone wouldn't pay. Because for the few times that people didn't pay, there would be many more times that people did pay and Sprint will still make a ton of money.
The point of that being that Sprint shouldn't need to require a credit check. That check is likely to disqualify more people that would pay than it would to identify those that won't pay. If they were selling a service with very slim margins that required them to outlay a good chunk of cash on the customer's behalf things would be different since the few that didn't pay anything would cost them a lot and the many that paid wouldn't make it up. But since their margins are higher and there is a very low incremental cost to their service, they can afford to take a lot more risks when it comes to their customers' ability to pay.
I tend to agree that the required credit checks probably end up costing the telecom companies more than it saves them. Those with bad credit are forced onto the less lucrative prepaid plans and end up spending less on service. If they dropped the credit check, they'd get a lot more unpaid bills but they'd also get a lot more higher-paying customers.
Re:And? (Score:1, Interesting)
Used to be that way in the US. In fact, it used to be a felony if you required someone to divulge their SSN for ANYTHING other than tax purposes. However, financial institutions found that an SSN is a good way to track personal finances. After all, it never changes, right. Now, it essentially a national ID card, and anyone can demand it for any financial transaction. It's technically still illegal, but no one enforces it because of the lobbying power of business.