Slashdot Mirror
SSN Required To Buy Palm Pre
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.
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.
Is there a cellphone provider that doesn't require you to provide your SSN before signing up for a contract?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
a stolen valid credit card number and SSN costs pretty nothing.
if SSN requirement is to protect from stolen identity, it won't simply work.
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
Eventually, one of these manufacturers (I'm looling at you Nokia) is going to break ranks and stop signing exclusive deals. They'll actually make phones with a price point that is reasonable (ya know, like the god damn iPhone is outright? how the hell has Apple become the low cost option you greedy bastards?) and sell directly to consumers. Retail really isn't that hard these days.. just provide a web only shop.. then cave a few years later and open emporiums.
How we know is more important than what we know.
On the other hand, perhaps mobile contracts require a SSN these days in order that you can more easily be monitored by law enforcement. In which case, you're SOL till they're on sale SIM-free.
It's pretty likely they'll be unlockable soon enough, and then you'll see them on ebay. You're obviously willing to pay a premium, so keep your eyes open.
Asking for that SSN to run a credit check is half of the problem. The second half is that credit is the worst thing to happen to working people and society as a whole. Almost all of us would be better off if we had really lousy credit ratings, Instead we have gotten to the point that we must have credit to house ourselves, to transport ourselves and now to simply get a phone. Wage slave is not a goal that one wants to reach. End credit and watch the prices of homes, cars etc. fall to reasonable levels.
So the gist of this story is that the submitter doesn't understand finance?
A Palm Pre, or any other smartphone, costs a boat load and is subsidised by the carrier, but you need a contract to pay back the cost of the phone. In effect you are getting a $400 - $800 loan, depending on the device, the phone, and the contract/amount it is subsidised.
Now normal loans (not just "car loans" which are just one type of typically unsecured loan) usually have a credit check because it would be stupid to lend money to someone with a credit history that is all arrears and defaults. The poster probably doesn't realise that many, many people actually live life in debt, arrears and defaulting, and that a simple credit check can remove a lot of risk for the phone companies.
The obvious solution in this case is to allow someone to buy the Palm Pre at full price, and then supply them with a rolling contract (without subsidy cost factored in).
It is not beyond the wit of the credit reference agencies to identify a US citizen from stuff other than the (it appears horribly abused) SSN?
I mean, if Experian can manage it in the UK (Name, Address, DOB is usually enough to identify you with the CRA,) why can't they do it in the US?
Or is this just simply laziness on the part of the CRAs?
http://harridanic.com
Where have YOU been? Didn't you know that over the past 20 years, the SSN has turned into the National ID Number? It doesn't matter that there was EXTREME concern that this might happen way back when the SSN was invented, it happened anyway.
Your right to privacy and anonymous purchasing disappeared a long time ago, so get used to it. "Credit checks" were just the first step. After that, it was manipulated for tax purposes. Then it spread to all kinds of interesting other "must have" situations or they refuse service. Even several doctor's offices I went to (and no, they weren't running a credit check nor was I on Medicare/Medicaid) HAD to have my SSN. PROSPECTIVE employers insist they HAVE to have the SSN. Movie rental places seem to think they HAVE to have your SSN. It took MANY YEARS of fighting before the citizens in my state FINALLY had the SSN removed as the mandatory driver's license number.
The package will be nice and complete once the Fed starts to force collection of fingerprints and DNA from everyone; it is coming... Most Americans don't have any understanding about privacy and security. "If you have nothing to hide" and all that, is the typical, brainless, response.
Don't buy it.
If you don't want to sell me something on sensible terms, I don't want to buy. Supply has to match demand at least at a nominal level, if it does not, no sale.
I dunno, when did we get so desperate to buy that we bent over backwards on whatever our possible business partner wants? I could see it for food or shelter, but for electronic gadgets? First, I lived without one so far, I will be able to survive without one. I have proof that I can (I lived so far). Second, my life depends on many things, but not on this one.
Bottom line: I will survive without you as my supplier. Will you survive without me as your customer?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't see how the SSN requirement has anything to do with carrier exclusivity agreements for phones. The Palm Pre is a TDMA phone that will only work on Sprint anyways. We aren't talking about a GSM phone that can be moved to other carriers. If palm wanted the Pre to work on other networks they would have to introduce additional models for the other protocols that are used in this country and/or the rest of the world.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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,
We've been through this with the iPhone already. The law prevents them from requiring your ssn as terms of a sale. They can request it, but must offer an option, usually in the form of a much larger down payment or deposit. It's not uncommon for sales staff to not be educated on this policy since it's rarely invoked. From the sounds of it, you protested, and did finally get offered the option, which you turned down. You lose the right to complain.
Quite simply put, there's no law that says they're required to offer you an "acceptable option".
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
You're talking about Capitalism, friend.
NO.
This is a government created and enforced monopoly (see FCC).
Try tossing a tower in your back yard to provide cell service to your neighborhood and see how quickly the FCC comes knocking.
If you can't enter the market without buying a license from the government then it's not really capitalism.