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?

[Shag]

Contract, probably not. But in a few months the original poster will probably be able to buy that Pre unlocked, with a prepaid (Pre-paid?) plan from someone, without going through the credit check. Money up front talks. :)

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?

[noidentity]

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.

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.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:And?

[Dredd13]

It's less about "because you are signing a contract" than it is because they are, in point of fact, extending you credit, in the form of allowing you to rack up usage charges that they will bill you for after the fact. They may not disclose what your credit limit is on that front, but believe me, behind the scenes, that number -- how far into usage charges they will let you get without payment -- has been calculated to the penny and stored in your account info.

Why do they retain this information? Like any other creditor they know that your credit situation changes, and they will periodically 're-check' your credit to see if their internal number for your credit-worthiness needs to be adjusted up or down as time goes on.

Put the tin-foil hats away, folks. Until you come up with a better system for identifying consumers to credit agencies, there's "nothing to see here."

Re:And?

[dimeglio]

In Canada although it is not illegal for merchands to ask for your Social Insurance Number you are not legally required to give it. If they refuse the sale, you can make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Re:And?

[apathyruiner]

The first 5 are based on time and place of your application for an SSN. My siblings and I all have the same first 5, despite all being born in different states.

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?

[phoenix321]

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: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?

[hab136]

Yes, that is correct. Since 2008 in the United States only the IRS, employers, banks, and very few specific institutions are still allowed to require you to submit your SSN. Even a landlord cannot legally ask people for their SSNs anymore and if he turns you down because you refuse to give it to him, you can report him. As an attorney it is a mystery to me that so many people are still not informed about the law and let companies get away with asking for SSNs.

The SSA contradicts you.

SSA.gov, questions, "When am I legally required to provide my Social Security number?"

"If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means. "

They *can* take a deposit instead; nothing *requires* them to.

Landlord laws vary wildly by state. AFAIK in NC it's perfectly fine to ask for a SSN and deny if they don't provide.

Re:And?

[ceoyoyo]

In Canada a lot of places will ask for a SSN but it's not required. It's even technically illegal to ask in many situations, I believe. They still manage to identify you to check your credit just fine.

You only get my SSN if you intend to pay me money or you're the government. If it's the other way around you can have my name and birth date, plus a credit card number if you really need.

I just moved to a different province and was rather shocked when I got a letter from the power company asking for my SSN. I ignored it, and they seem perfectly happy with that.

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Search "Spending Limit Program" on the Sprint web site. They don't go out of their way to tell you they have a spending limit program, but it is available for those who lack credit or for those who don't want a $100/month bill to turn into $1000/month.

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!!!!

Re:And?

[mykey2k]

It is entirely possible to *legally* have the same SSN as another person, but with a different birth date.

SSN - Social Security Number; a unique nine (9)-digit number assigned by SSA to identify an individual when reporting wages, paying taxes and collecting benefits. - http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvshandbk/glossary.htm

The IRS wouldn't like that very much, since they don't ask for your birthdate on a tax return.

The birthdate is generally used as a secondary qualifier on most SSN checks because the SSN verification system can check the first 5 digits to see when and where a SSN was generated. So if you see a 18-year old from New York use a SSN that was issued in 1968 to someone in California, you might just have a problem.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.14/handbook-1401.html

-m

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.

Re:Welcome to the watchlist

[cybereal]

Your assertion that CDMA phones are unlockable is outright wrong. People have already unlocked the Pre for compatibility with Verizon.

The issue about no SIM card is a bigger one, however, because once you do unlock the device, you still have to get someone on a competing network to register and activate your device to their network which Verizon has a policy specifically not to do with devices they don't sell you. There are workarounds such as knowing someone, but it's never going to be as trivial as sliding in your SIM.

At least you can then use it

[St.Creed]

Here in The Netherlands we already have had a few of those schemes, for example for the iPhone. Apple decided to go with T-Mobile, which may work fine in a few other countries (Germany, Austria), but over here I can only get reception when I'm on the 2nd floor of my house, or in the center of the city. While having to give out your SSN is not good, at least you have a working phone afterwards. Here we have to do the same (they photocopy your passport etc. as well) and then discover you can't use it... It was one of the reasons I did not buy an iPhone. Fortunately Belgium has outlawed exclusive contracts so I can go there and pick one up. Still, the attitude of "screw the customer, we get more money this way" does nothing for Apple's image and sealed my decision to keep my old phone for now.

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).

Gross assumption

[midicase]

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:Gross assumption

[SkyDude]

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.

You're correct that an SSN is not required, but assuming you are employed, your employer IS required to file taxes in your name and that requires an SSN.

If you are employed, file taxes and wish to take a deduction for your child, the child must have an SSN. Hospitals now routinely fill out and transmit the SSN paper work before your infant even leaves the hospital.

The Exalted One's administration (Obama) recently filed for legislation to "overhaul" the credit card industry, but AFAIK, never touched the SSN requirement. Why? Because the banking lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington.

On the front of your SSN card it says "Not For Identification", yet businesses have routinely done so for decades. It's time to put a stop to this abuse and require business to establish a secure option to the SSN. Losing control of your SSN is handing over the keys to the castle. If businesses can't manage to secure CC numbers, how can we trust them to secure this most important number?

Re:They continue to fail

[jcupitt65]

You can buy an unlocked phone from most of the manufactures now. Just get a SIM card for the network you want to use and pop it in.

For example, the N85 is $399 unlocked on the Nokia store.

Re:They continue to fail

[Aladrin]

The iPhone is definitely -not- reasonably priced. Last year's was $600 or $700 ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25478296/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/ ) and this years is $800 ( http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/06/15/rogers-fido-no-contract-iphone-3g-s-pricing-revealed-eh/ ). That's not -reasonable- at all.

The G1 is about $450 outright, which is still too high to be called 'reasonable', but it's a lot closer.

These new toys are expensive. Period.

Land of the free

[Zouden]

Welcome to America, land of the free*

*terms and conditions apply. See in store for details.

Here's something worse

[__david__]

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.

buy in a state with consumer protection

[irtza]

http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_financial_services/004801.html Apparently in some states, they should not be able to do this. Of course I may not understand the full extent of the law as it applies, but it seems to me that this is a consumer product and they are refusing to sell based off of a lack of social security num...

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.