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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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?