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.

Comments

And?

[Valdrax]

Is there a cellphone provider that doesn't require you to provide your SSN before signing up for a contract?

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that he made a more than reasonable effort to purchase their product without releasing personal details. They chose not to make the sale of a new phone; and the chose not to receive full, on the spot payment of a two year contract for want of his SSN. They didn't need it at that point, and lost a pretty good chunk of change.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a cellphone provider that doesn't require you to provide your SSN before signing up for a contract?

I suppose I can understand the requirement for SSN and/or Drivers License number for a credit check.. barely. Because, after all, you are signing a contract to keep paying for it, like leasing a car.

But what bothers me is that they KEEP IT ON RECORD. Sprint asks you to confirm the last four digits of your SSN when you call customer service. This allows them to profile you, potentially sell it (legal or not), and more likely have it STOLEN and then sold/used for nefarious purposes.

Why do they retain this information? Because it is valuable to collect information whether they know what to do with it or not. I think the risks for abuse are scary and NOT worth it. But, they don't care. Not until something bad happens and they get hoards of angry customers.

Re:And?

[xouumalperxe]

And what's infuriating is that the last four digits are the most important; the first 5 are determined based on time and place of birth.

Which is precisely why asking for the first five would be a completely ineffective to ascertain your identity.

Re:And?

[rant64]

And what's infuriating is that the last four digits are the most important; the first 5 are determined based on time and place of birth.

Which is precisely why asking for the first five would be a completely ineffective to ascertain your identity.

SSNs were never intended to provide identification, and with flaws like this it's no wonder they weren't.

Re:And?

[Clovis42]

I'm under the impression that most of this stuff is a complete racket though. Sure, Sprint can put several thousand dollars on your bill in one month because you used your data plan in Canada or something. But did that actually cost Sprint very much? If not, who cares if you cannot pay the bill? As long as you can at least pay enough to cover Sprint's costs, it shouldn't be a big deal for them if you simply owe them a lot of money.

Re:And?

[_Hiro_]

So you have surrendered to the erosion of personal privacy, personal rights and personal integrity; I haven't and neither has the author of the post. You may be one of those willing to trade your rights for convenience. I too would refuse my Social Security number.

So you only use pre-paid cellular, do not use credit cards or take out loans, or any other transaction that requires interacting with a credit agency?

How's that working out for you? Seriously. Living a life without interacting with the credit agencies in this day and age is difficult, and I'd like to know what you have to give up (like discounts on phones in exchange for contracts, etc) in order to keep your SSN completely private. (Where Completely = You, your employer, your health insurer (if you have one) and the gov't.)

Re:And?

[_Hiro_]

They do.

I presume you're in the continental US.

Go to Canada.
Go to Mexico.
Go to Hawaii.

Voila. Roaming charges.

Re:And?

[HisMother]

They don't want to restrict access, because calling those premium numbers doesn't actually cost them anything extra. They just want to make sure that whatever ridiculous amount they bill you, you're going to be able to pay. They're saving on legal/collection fees, not trying to make sure that their nonexistent "expenses" are covered.

Re:And?

[cgenman]

Not to sound too brusque, but you do realize that was a complete d1ck move to do to the people working in the store, right? To prevent fraud and abuse, they're not allowd to make exceptions. They clearly could have been fired for violating company security and financial policy in approving someone with insolvent credit. And getting fired happens all the time: having worked retail before, you become expendable hours that gets thrown out at the drop of a hat.

As the poor low-level suckers who got stuck working in the retail arm of the company, even if they could authorize a transaction like that (hint: they can't) they probably didn't even have a way in their system to accept all of the money up front. So kicking up a stink in the store for 2 hours is mostly just making their (and your) life miserable for something they probably can't do, and if they could they'd probably get fired for doing it.

When you encounter situations like that, please quickly escalate to their customer service lines or head office. Directly interact with people who *can* actually do something about it. But railing on the poor floor people is just unnecessarily causing discomfort in an already crappy job, without any chance of success, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how retail works.

Re:And?

[Pig Hogger]

Not to sound too brusque, but you do realize that was a complete d1ck move to do to the people working in the store, right? To prevent fraud and abuse, they're not allowd to make exceptions. They clearly could have been fired for violating company security and financial policy in approving someone with insolvent credit. And getting fired happens all the time: having worked retail before, you become expendable hours that gets thrown out at the drop of a hat.

Do you hear this? This is the world’s smallest violin playing.

Customers don’t walk into retail stores to please the staff and give them a job; no, they walk in to be pleased BY THE STAFF by plunking down good money and — GASP! — BUYING STUFF FROM THE STORE!!!!

how much does cost a SSN on black market ?

[Atreide]

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.

Re:how much does cost a SSN on black market ?

[AngryNick]

i can testify to that. Nextel/Sprint/RadioShack will gladly sell you a phone if you give them a SSN that belongs to someone else...you don't even need to know their name. Some dude walked into a store in NJ and picked up two phones using my SSN. I now have to go though life with a super-lock on my credit report which makes it hard for even me to buy anything that requires an SSN.

I think we can all agree that the SSN is perhaps the only "GUID" available in the US and that we really need such a thing for commerce. The problem is that this GUID we all love has been compromised and is no longer reliable without a private key (i.e. a super-lock on your credit history). The country needs a new GUID that is designed for commerce, privacy, and security from the start.

Welcome to the watchlist

[wild_quinine]

If the SSN is there to verify credit, and only to do this, then a full up-front payment should utterly negate this need. If there's no provision locally for doing this, perhaps writing a letter to regional management will help out. It's likely the staff of your local are not in a position to make decisions about how to accept payment.

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.

Re:Welcome to the watchlist

[Gordonjcp]

If the SSN is there to verify credit, and only to do this, then a full up-front payment should utterly negate this need

So how much should that up-front payment be? Let's set it at $25,000 just in case you make $24500-worth of calls before you default on payment.

Re:Welcome to the watchlist

[wild_quinine]

So how much should that up-front payment be? Let's set it at $25,000 just in case you make $24500-worth of calls before you default on payment.

Put a credit cap on your account at $100 a month. It's not rocket science.

So ... many people are irresponsible

[hattig]

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).

Credit Rating Agencies in the US...

[shabble]

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?

Re:"offered no acceptable options" vs "refused to"

[pjt33]

Try re-reading your excerpt in context. Those were options the poster offered to the sales rep, and it was the sales rep who wouldn't accept them.