You guys are all missing the point. The ssn requirement is there because sprint will be running periodic credit checks on its customers. Sprint is probably subsidizing the phone and, internally, they must have customer activation goals to meet (like, the number of new customers who remain active after X months and so on) The credit checks are there because, as sprint subsidized the phone, you'll be actually repaying it back in installments through the phone usage fees. they could sell the device at full cost, but then wouldn't be able to force you to sign up for a 18 month contract. After you become a customer, the ssn is used for credit checks. If your credit score indicates trouble, then sprint will use that information to either try to get you to move to another plan or will send the collectors to get their money before you actually miss a payment. This is not about privacy, but about managing an instrument sale.

Obviously the planet Mercury is a terrorist and should be destroyed. I'd suggest waterboarding it, but it's so hot there that it might like it.

(and, I know you later said that the actual savings were higher -- but the point is, you should _never_ just multiply reoccurring costs or savings by the number of periods to get the equivalent present value, especially for periods of years.)

out of legimitate curiosity... why?

really, I just want to know the implications of doing so and what needs to be done to incorporate that information into financial models

the uac model is inherently broken. I cannot understand how these paliative measures will improve security beyond just the sense of it....

Let's patent, then, a way to check if something is already patented.

That should short-circuit the whole system.