Is this discrimination?

Diji1 on 26/05/2015 - 12:25

Bought a cheap SIM the other day and had the Woolies ladies tell me they no longer need to bother with ID verification or filling out forms.

Weee!

But then I ring Vodafail to port my number and had a conversation with a reasonable sounding person who nonetheless refused to believe who I was because I wouldn't produce an SA Drivers Licence number. I've been a repeated customer of theirs for a while now but only for a few minutes before i port back to a Telstra service :p

I already had a Proof of Age card ID with them so I argued with the guy without getting too mad about it but there really seemed to be nothing he could do for me other than say go into a shop.

I have a multi-faceted disability with all the evidence required to substantiate it (long term documentation from multiple recognised sources), sometimes this is an impossible task for me.

Would you say this new policy, presumably part of new Australian gov surveillance laws, is discrimination on disability grounds?

Feel free to weigh in if you really think it isn't because I'm just trying to gauge what to do about it and perhaps I'm being unreasonable, I'll cop to that on occasion.

Mobile

Related Stores

Vodafone
Vodafone

Comments

  • ESEMCE on 26/05/2015 - 12:40
    +18

    No.. you're being treated like anyone else would be..

    If anything, having an exemption because of your disability would be discrimination!

    • Diji1 on 26/05/2015 - 13:19
      -6

      Yeah I see that side of the argument (not that I want one ;) but I know a number of other people who are fairly non-functional … basically they couldn't make it to the store.

      So it seems to me that they are worse off in terms of just being able to access a mobile phone service with this new policy.

      I would really like to know if it's as a result of new legislation being passed because I don't want to be worse off than I was before when I didn't have an issue with the telco who is obliged to follow Australian laws.

      • ESEMCE on 26/05/2015 - 13:34
        +3

        As far as I'm aware you've always been required to provide identification to activate a Mobile Phone Number..
        Drivers Licence is the most commonly accepted form of ID. Other forms of ID will be accepted.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2015 - 14:05

        I presume that you did not produce a drivers license because you don't have one?

        If that is the case then you are well within your rights not to have one, many people are unable to drive for any number of reasons from simply not wanting to drive, all the way to not being allowed to due to seizures or other medical conditions.

        • dazweeja on 26/05/2015 - 15:29

          I think it's a case of only being able to activate a SIM with certain IDs online (eg. drivers license or passport) or over the phone, but for other forms of ID you are required to go into a store to present the ID in person.

          There's nothing unusual in this circumstance because a proof of age card is usually only 25 points in a 100 point ID check while a drivers license is 40.

        • kima on 29/05/2015 - 11:29

          @dazweeja: I don't see why proof of age card doesn't have the same recognition as license.

          its disappointing to see people to uncompassionate for those with disabilities. sometimes they just are not smart enough to use discretion

          just lodge a complaint with TIO and then it will be escalated to the specialist team, they will actually try to help you then.

        • dazweeja on 29/05/2015 - 16:08

          @kima:

          It doesn't have the same recognition and that applies to banks, the SA police, Australia Post, etc. Vodafone have a perfectly reasonable, non-discriminatory policy that is spelled out clearly on their website:

          http://support.vodafone.com.au/articles/FAQ/Types-of-identif…

        • iridiumstem on 29/05/2015 - 16:10

          @dazweeja: That's slightly different since it's based on prepaid. If you want to get a postpaid, you need to go through 100 points (or some random point system) where you need to provide driver's license or other photo identification like passport + more to fill up the points. I think university ID was not one of the IDs that get accepted as "photo identification" even though my university card has my photo on it. At least, that was my experience (from few months ago, but I definitely needed my passport).

        • dazweeja on 29/05/2015 - 16:23

          @AznMitch:

          Isn't the OP talking about a cheap prepaid SIM from Woolies? I only mentioned the whole 100-point thing to make the point that proof of age cards are almost always treated as an inferior form of ID to a driver's license. The idea that Vodafone are being discriminatory for having this policy seems a bit ridiculous to me. Besides, if the OP had done even the most basic research (eg. the link in the last comment) they would have found that a Medicare card was sufficient and surely they have one of those.

        • iridiumstem on 29/05/2015 - 16:31

          @dazweeja: I assumed it was not, since he was talking about porting numbers. My bad.

          It may have been just an idiotic staff confusing policies as well. Happened to me with optus, I had to spend 2 hours walking back and forth gathering papers that I didn't need, I didn't think it was out of racism but thought the staff was a complete idiot.

        • kima on 30/05/2015 - 00:22

          @dazweeja: yes I understand I just don't agree with it. its just plain silly - since its the same process and same issuer.

  • Chef-Johnson on 26/05/2015 - 12:48
    +5

    this is a joke right?

  • pjetson on 26/05/2015 - 12:53
    +2

    Under federal and state legislation, unlawful discrimination occurs when someone, or a group of people, is treated less favourably than another person or group because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin; sex, pregnancy or marital status; age; disability; religion; sexual preference; trade union activity; or some other characteristic specified under anti-discrimination or human rights legislation.

    How do you think this applies to your scenario? Are you being treated differently to anyone else?

    presumably part of new Australian gov surveillance laws

    Why have you presumed this? Did they say that?

    If I understand your post, you have been asked to produce an SA drivers licence number. I imagine that everyone else is being asked to produce one as well, so that doesn't seem discriminatory in itself.

    Perhaps the issue is that you do not have an SA drivers licence, and therefore cannot produce one. That may well be discriminatory in some circumstances. Did you ask whether any other forms of identification were acceptable?

    perhaps I'm being unreasonable

    With only your side of (an unclear to me) story, that's hard to gauge.

    Did you ask to speak to a supervisor?

  • ozhunter on 26/05/2015 - 12:54
    +3

    No.

  • Hikey on 26/05/2015 - 12:59

    They accept other documents, like passports as well. The drivers licence is not a requirement. I also cant see how you are treated differently from anyone else?

    • Diji1 on 26/05/2015 - 13:31
      +2

      The problem is that you're expecting everyone to be treated the same whereas people with a disability actually lack the ability that allows you that access.

      So in a sense, likely without meaning to imply it, you are saying everyone is the same as me although they're not similarly abled. This is sometimes accompanied by refusing to treat disabled people any differently. Despite the fact that they are not not similarly abled or they wouldn't have their own term that doesn't apply to you (I'm assuming).

      For example a depressed person with a significant chronic pain problem issue is unable to leave the house and get a drivers license or show the previous form of accepted ID. Do you think that person deserves the same access with regards to a telecommunications service despite the fact they they're unable to physically travel like you (presumably again)?

  • Diji1 on 26/05/2015 - 13:22
    -3

    Yeah thanks everyone - you guys have helped me see it more clearly (it wasn't a joke :| ) and I guess my problem isn't discrimination but more that I feel worse off under new legislation that applies to everyone but I feel like I'm worse off as a result of it being passed.

    • drdolphin on 26/05/2015 - 14:36
      +2

      Theres no "new" legislation, you're just being asked to do what everyone else is and has been for years.

  • NancyCat on 26/05/2015 - 13:23
    +5

    Given you have managed to go to Wollies to buy the sim card, then why can't you go to the Voda store next time you go out. A little inconvenience, sure. Discrimination, NO.

    • kima on 29/05/2015 - 11:37
      +1

      A little inconvenience

      you do not know how much inconvenience or inability it is to this person.

  • spackbace on 26/05/2015 - 13:37

    But my question to you is, did you feel like you were being watched when you made the call?

    So anyhow to bring this possible boring story to an end in light of all this: today i went and bought a new SIM starter kit. As they didn't ask me to fill out any forms or show ID and so on I enquired as to why this is. The lady told me that there's no longer a requirement to collect and verify the identity of anyone buying a SIM card.

    So you pretty much just made that whole post pointless didn't you? :)

    • ausmechkeyboards on 28/05/2015 - 12:50
      +1

      Holy shit. Every single one of his forum posts have a comment linking back to one of his older forum posts, going all the way back to 2014. I feel like Alice going down the rabbit hole.

  • ChrisLevo on 26/05/2015 - 14:26

    "Would you say this new policy, presumably part of new Australian gov surveillance laws, is discrimination on disability grounds?"

    This is the first time that I have heard of a new government law being enacted to encourage discrimination against the disabled.
    Better put the Alfoil hat on.

  • Forfiet on 26/05/2015 - 14:58
    +3

    "I already had a Proof of Age card ID with them" You need to speak to his supervisor, this is basically the same as a Drivers license in SA(Issued at the same place too.) Its a valid form of ID in this state(used mine for everything).
    P.S Some companies want a drivers license number, while your card does not provide this it still has a unique alpha-numerical code in the top left corner I believe.

    • iridiumstem on 26/05/2015 - 15:23

      I thought you needed 100 points and passport and other government issued photo IDs are like 80 or something (I think I still needed to provide extra when I handed in my passport). Not sure :S It's been so long since I've dealt with telcos.

    • dazweeja on 26/05/2015 - 15:32

      It's a lesser form of ID than a drivers license in SA (25 points vs 40) which is why it isn't enough to activate over the phone:

      https://www.police.sa.gov.au/services-and-events/100-point-i…

      • Forfiet on 26/05/2015 - 16:49

        indeed…. that's annoying to hear :(

  • bargainbot12 on 26/05/2015 - 15:16

    Yes you are required to provided ID when activating a new mobile number, but purchasing a SIM card or Locked Phone at a retailer no longer requires ID.

  • Cheeper on 26/05/2015 - 16:13

    If you are genuinely so incapacitated as to not be able to go to your local voda retailer and get them to fix your problem then you would have someone who is authorised to do these sort of things for you.
    It seems you do not. This causes me to wonder just how incapacitated you are?
    Having a disability /s does not always make you incapacitated.

    If you are so incapacitated??, how did you manage to get to WW to buy the sim?

    Proof of identity is a requirement for anyone activating a mobile phone service, no exclusions.
    It is also not a reason to cry discrimination…

    • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2015 - 23:11
      +2

      It's institutional discrimination.

      I live with someone who, after running an errand, needs to rest for the rest if the day. For them, it would be a choice between using their spoons to activate a sim card, or doing something mundane like cooking a meal, or washing the dishes. Having a disability is not something able bodied people can understand. Saying, "well you made it to Woolies, you can't be that disabled" is not helpful. This isn't one significant thing. This is every day. From not being able to sit in the disabled section on the train because it's full of yuppies with bikes, to not being offered a seat, or being told you're making it up because you don't have a visible disability.

      Is it discrimination that breaks the law? No, but the law is written by and for able bodied people. It's one more thing that is unnecessarily much harder for disabled people to do

      • Cheeper on 29/05/2015 - 00:44
        -1

        No need to spell it out bud.. :-) While I feel sorry about your friend and other GENUINE disabled people we all know that claiming to be disabled in Australia is abused to the hilt. Most have just eaten 50 more hamburgers than they should have.
        While you know someone who is "disabled", we both know that many are just riding the system.
        Check out the disabled parking permit holders… what a bloody joke that is.
        Also for your information… I am disabled.. to the stage where I am entitled to a parking permit… I choose not to use it as the exercise from walking further is more beneficial.
        The "disabled" tag is grossly rorted in Oz.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2015 - 10:18
          +1

          So, what's your point. We both know most people aren't really disabled, … So we shouldn't care about those who are? So we shouldn't believe them unless there's visible proof? We shouldn't believe them unless we decide they are disabled enough?

          I'm sorry but that's a bad attitude. That's the same attitude which says poor people are actually not that poor, or they don't deserve nice things. That homeless people are actually living it up on welfare, off of your taxes. That indigenous people aren't black enough. (Ala Andrew bolt) That refugees aren't actually in danger and don't deserve or help.

          Claiming that people aren't genuine is a thing politicians do to make you distrust a particular group of people. It's playing gate keeper to who can and who can not claim that identity, and often who can and who can not ask for help. And more often than not, it's a method used by people who are most definitely not party of that group.

        • spackbace on 29/05/2015 - 11:33

          @mnermner:

          So, what's your point. We both know most people aren't really disabled, … So we shouldn't care about those who are? So we shouldn't believe them unless there's visible proof? We shouldn't believe them unless we decide they are disabled enough?

          See 1 of the OPs posts here

          Let's start with the title - Any suggestions for gyms to try in Adelaide CBD?

          And this:

          Features I need are lockers to use, sit down cycles, treadmills and the usual free weights and equipment (benchpress and squat racks specifically)

          Now let's revisit what xywolap said:

          If you are genuinely so incapacitated as to not be able to go to your local voda retailer and get them to fix your problem then you would have someone who is authorised to do these sort of things for you.
          It seems you do not. This causes me to wonder just how incapacitated you are?
          Having a disability /s does not always make you incapacitated.

          Now think…

        • kima on 29/05/2015 - 11:47
          +1

          @Spackbace: what is your point? that disabled people cant do exercise? I guess physiotherapy must be redundant.

        • Cheeper on 30/05/2015 - 01:01

          @mnermner:
          Talk about reading between the lines and assuming… you take the cake.
          I base my opinion on people I know that are "disabled".
          One example … has not worked one day since 1964 because of a bad back… been on a disabled pension all that time, has the parking permit, the full set… While that person has a bad back he never had a problem playing 18 holes of golf, standing on a bridge fishing all day or standing at the bar of the local pub for hours on end.. That is just one of many I personally know that are the pretend disabled.

          I know there are genuine disabled so get off your high horse. There are many that are that way because they have abused themselves to the point where they demand that society has to be their ongoing support system…

          We do know there are many that abuse our privileges and benefits gifted to these people and those people do not deserve blindly accepted just because they have learnt how to moan to the right tone to get the sympathy vote of bleeding hearts.

          If you truly support those that are genuinely disabled then you would be against those that abuse the system and rort the benefits reserved for those in genuine need. It seems that is where you choose to turn a blind eye.

    • kima on 29/05/2015 - 11:42

      then you would have someone who is authorised to do these sort of things for you.

      I would like to know where you get your information, because last I checked you are not magically assigned people to help you.

      This causes me to wonder just how incapacitated you are?

      its none of your business what this persons disabilities are

  • Davo1111 on 26/05/2015 - 17:35
    +2

    a drivers license is not mentioned in the discrimination act

  • Squidmcsproggen on 26/05/2015 - 17:43
    -1

    Yes your being discriminated because you are acting like someone who has something to hide.

  • RockyRaccoon on 27/05/2015 - 06:24

    Its been part of Australian Law for many years under the telecommunications act. That calls must be able to be traced. Obviously not touted by any in government.

    http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-act/telecommunication…

    This Act was in 1997. But carried over the same provisions from previous Acts, that date back to at least the 60's or more

    A simple explanation (yes it might be oversimplification)

    With Landlines its fairly easy, as they are located in one spot and that spot is owned by someone.

    Mobile phones are different, so the best way is to attach that phone to someone's identity.

    If you dont have identification that can be checked on line, then you will have to show it at a place which can verify this.

    Woolies and other places used to do this, but most probably given the training they had, too many phones were issued without proper checks, so the Telco's may have been told they cant rely on these checks.

    Given that why have people checked twice.

    It's not new, its just a change on how the checking is enforced.

    And yes even the Post Office can get checks wrong etc, and people give away phones with sim cards, and criminals get other people to buy etc , and people speed, steal etc

    So it's not discrimination, its inconvenient, it's a factor of balance.

    Many of us dont want identity cards, which would solve your problem

    • Cheeper on 29/05/2015 - 00:46

      In short… you must have ID to access the network on a communication device, the reason for that is simple.

  • Nynaeve on 27/05/2015 - 07:25
    +3

    Ring again, get someone more reasonable and use your medicare card or credit card. I don't have a drivers license either and that's what I use.

    • kima on 29/05/2015 - 11:56
      +1

      yours is seems to be the only helpful comment on here. the rest are just abusing the op

      • Forfiet on 30/05/2015 - 18:33
        +1

        …. I tried :(

        • kima on 30/05/2015 - 19:39
          +1

          true yes you did. Thanks Forfiet and I checked I already did + your comment :)

        • Forfiet on 30/05/2015 - 20:30

          @kima: lol, In truth dazweeja needed to correct my info tho :P

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join