Is it legal for Comcast to (apparently) require my SSN to obtain service? I went to sign up for a new Comcast account online. They asked me for some basic billing info, but also asked for my DOB and SSN, which I'd rather not give to them out of concern about identity theft. The claim is that they need it to run a credit check (ok, fair enough): But then wait! There is an alternative - I can pay a $50 deposit instead. Or so I thought: They still ask for my SSN! I thought that perhaps it was now an optional field, but as you can see from the validation message: So, it would seem that they are not giving me a choice here. Is this legal? Are they allowed to require my SSN just to set up service?
Comcast, and many other utility companies, will ask you for your SSN and will insist on it giving you many times with false answers. I recommend you ask them if they have an alternative, which they most probably will say no because the person you are speaking with is not used to, and/or not trained to give alternatives. The reason they ask for your SSN is for doing a credit check on you to make sure you are able to to pay your bills - and n case you don't - to ruin your life by ruining your credit score. From their "Comcast Customer Privacy Notice": What kind of personally identifiable information and CPNI does Comcast collect? Comcast collects information from you at several different points when you request, turn on, and use our services under an account we create for you. Some of this information is personally identifiable information, but much of it is not. We collect certain personally identifiable information that our subscribers furnish to us in connection with the provision of cable service or other services. In order to provide reliable, high quality service to you, we keep regular business records containing information about you that may constitute personally identifiable information. These account records include some, but typically not all, of the following information... However, legally speaking, they cannot bind their services to your credit worthiness. They do provide an alternative when asked about it. Most probably they will ask some sort of a monetary deposit in order to open the account. This deposit may, or may not, be spread across several billing cycles. The deposit is their financial guarantee in case you fall behind on your payments. What should you do: Ask them what is the deposit amount. Can the deposit be spread across multiple bulling cycles What is the time period that that after it they will return you the deposit.
Social Security numbers are called Social Security numbers because were invented to implement the Social Security Act of 1935, which was one of the important programs adopted by Congress as part of the New Deal during the Great Depression. These individual identifying numbers made it easier for the government to compile and collate information about the payroll taxes on the wages and salaries of workers potentially entitled to Social Security benefits which was (and is) collected by employers to pay for Social Security benefits. Compiling this data was necessary because under the Act one's lifetime history of Social Security payroll taxation history is used to determine if you, or your dependents, are eligible for Social Security benefits at all, and if so, to determine how big the benefit check should be according to formulas adopted by the government agency administering the program. This agency is now called the Social Security Administration. But, this agency has been relocated in the federal government bureaucracy now and then since the Act was passed in 1935 as part of general reorganizations of the federal government bureaucracy. Keep in mind that all of this data collection and collation was done by hand. Computers adequate to assist government agencies in administering government programs wouldn't come into being for another thirty years. The &quot;security&quot; referenced is the economic security that the Social Security Act of 1935 provided to elderly people, widows, and orphans. Before the Social Security Act was adopted, the elderly, widows, and orphans, who often lacked the ability to earn a living wage in the economic marketplace, routinely faced extremely high poverty rates, and employer survivor's and disability benefits were uncommon. In time, Social Security numbers began to be used as a tool for the government to identify people for purposes other than administering the Social Security Act, such as for purposes of administering state and federal income taxes. But, by then, the name &quot;Social Security number&quot; for these identifying numbers originally used to administer the Social Security program was already firmly established.
The first issue is to understand that opening up an account with a utility to provide natural gas services is considered an extension of credit. This matters because the FTC requires, under the fair credit reporting act and its general power to issue regulations targeted at preventing fraud, that people who open up new credit accounts to verify the identity of the applicant in an effort to prevent identity theft by fake applicants in some cases. Potential creditors must use “reasonable policies and procedures” to verify the identity of an applicant before issuing credit in the consumer's name. This regulatory stance is supported by Fair Credit Reporting Act § 605A(h)(1)(B) a.k.a. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1 (h)(1)(B). The pertinent part of the statute states: (B) Limitation on users (i) In general No prospective user of a consumer report that includes an initial fraud alert or an active duty alert in accordance with this section may establish a new credit plan or extension of credit, other than under an open-end credit plan (as defined in section 1602(i) 1 of this title), in the name of the consumer, or issue an additional card on an existing credit account requested by a consumer, or grant any increase in credit limit on an existing credit account requested by a consumer, unless the user utilizes reasonable policies and procedures to form a reasonable belief that the user knows the identity of the person making the request. (ii) Verification If a consumer requesting the alert has specified a telephone number to be used for identity verification purposes, before authorizing any new credit plan or extension described in clause (i) in the name of such consumer, a user of such consumer report shall contact the consumer using that telephone number or take reasonable steps to verify the consumer’s identity and confirm that the application for a new credit plan is not the result of identity theft. The FTC in issuing its regulations and the utility company, as a matter of policy and expediency, have decided that it the utility company must do credit checks on all prospective customers and will speed up the application process for people who have "fraud alerts" or "active duty alerts" on their credit reports by requiring verification from everyone instead of finding out that they can't get a credit report for a particular customer without verification and then having to go back to the customer to get it.
There is no requirement to name the parties to a contract I just bought a cup of coffee. I did not give my name to the other party to that contract and while I know the name of the shop, I do not actually know the legal entity I contracted with. Nevertheless, we have a binding contract and, for example, if that coffee gave me food poisoning, I would have legal recourse under that contract. Similarly, there is no difficulty signing a contract under a pseudonym - it still creates a legally binding relationship. The practical difficulties While there is no legal problem, there is an evidentiary one - if someone enters a contract and later disclaims doing so, how do you prove that they did? Or vice-versa, if someone alleges that it was you that entered the contract, how do you prove that you didn’t. What you need is some way of definitively but anonymously tying the person to the contract. I can think of lots - a fingerprint, DNA, public key cryptography, a trusted third-party intermediary to name just a few. This is essentially a technical problem rather than a legal one.
Legal Services Society is a non-profit organization created by the BC Legislative Assembly through this act, created in order to serve the legal needs of certain classes of society, defined vaguely with reference to "a reasonable person of modest means". Accordingly, they have rules regarding who they can and cannot serve. and they are constrained financially. With vast demands on their resources and little by way of resources, prudent triage is called for. That is, when you show up, you shouldn't expect to talk to a senior attorney (or an attorney). From what I can determine, you cannot expect to get your problem solved right away. It is also not clear that your problem is within the scope of what they do (criminal, incarceration, serious family matters, immigration). "Giving legal advice" is something that only a few people are legally allowed to do – lawyers, who have you as their client. If the person were an attorney, they still couldn't give you legal advice until the appropriate relationship is created (and they have the relevant facts). The person you met with may be a paralegal or a law student. Under the law (sect. 8 of the act), you cannot sue them for damages because of their actions, except if carried out in bad faith. The waiver might be a bit redundant, but it is a wise idea to tell people that you can't sue them. If you want to know what you can expect from the lawyer, this publication will be helpful, though it is generic and not specific as to your particular issue.
Some jurisdictions do that. Others don't (see, for example, the Dutch national identity card). My New York driver's license is in all caps, and I rather suspect that it's a holdover from the days in which licenses were processed using a computer system that had only upper-case characters. But that's just a guess. The real answer is that the premise of the question is incorrect.
Yes, but ... It doesn’t protect you. Let’s imagine you put such a clause in and a person in Europe used your service notwithstanding: they’ve broken the contract but you’ve broken the law. You get the fine and they get ... nothing. Because you can’t contract outside the law you never had a valid contract with them so you have no basis to sue. Further, because you are purporting to something you can’t legally do, you are probably on the wrong side of misleading and deceptive consumer protection law: which is another fine. If you can ensure that you don’t breach local law - like by not operating over the internet - then you can choose not to deal with e.g. Europeans. If you can’t guarantee that, then you’re stuffed.
Let me be sure that I understand the situation. You set up an account with Big Company, which uses BigCo as a trademark. You want email about that account to reach you with a unique address, so you set up 'BigCo@RichDomain.Com" and gave that as your email when setting up tha account. You don't plan to use that address for any purpose but communications from BigCo to you and from you to them. (Of course these aren't the actual names.) Have I understood the situation correctly? It seems that you ar not using 'BigCo" in trade, nor are you likely to be confused with an official representative of BigCo, so you are not infringing their trademark. However, someone using such an email more generally could perhaps be so confuse, so BigCo has a somewhat legitimate concern, as they cannot know the very limited use you plan to make of this address. The only way that the could force you not to use such an email address would be via a court order as part of a suit for trademark infringement, whcih under the circumstances I doubt they would get. However, unless they have some sort of contract with you to the contrary, they can control who registers on their site. and could refuse to register you using an email address that includes their name or alias. Convincing them to accept your registration, even though it does no harm to them, will almost surely be more trouble than it is worth. Give them "BigFirm@RichDomain.Com" or something else that is not their name, but will suggest their name enough that you will know who it is. This will serve your purpose fully, and avoid a long argument with people who are reading from a script (once you get past the automated process, if you can even do that). This is all assuming that I have understood the situation correctly. I am also largely assuming US law, since you didn't mention a jurisdiction. (EDIT: UK law should not be very different on these points.)