Slashdot Log In
Verizon Wireless Opt-Out Plan For Customer Records
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Oct 14, 2007 01:49 PM
from the no-just-no dept.
from the no-just-no dept.
An anonymous reader writes to let us know that Verizon Wireless is planning to share its customers' calling records (called CPNI) with "our affiliates, agents and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries." The article explains that CPNI "includes the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls and time spent on each call, among other data." Some subscribers, it's not known if it's all of them, received a letter in the mail giving them 30 days to opt out of this sharing by calling 1-800-333-9956. Skydeck, a mobile and wireless services company, seems to have been the first to call attention to the Verizon initiative on their blog; they also posted a scan of the letter (sideways PDF) from Verizon.
Related Stories
Submission: Verizon wireless opt-out plan for customer records by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
current versus past customers (Score:5, Insightful)
How you could have handled it... (Score:5, Informative)
YOUR ADDRESS HERE
DATE
A/C Number: aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to close my ISSUING COMPANY NAME Visa/Mastercard credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd. I enclose the one/two issued card(s), cut into pieces.
I have sent a check separately to pay the $$$$.cc balance outstanding on the current statement. I agree to pay for any transactions authorized by me that I have missed in my calculations as soon as you advise me of them.
Any further transactions to the credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd are not authorised by me, and I instruct you not to accept any further purchases or other debits to the account.
I also request that you remove me from your direct mail marketing lists and do not share my name, address, telephone, transaction, and other personal details with ISSUING COMPANY NAME's marketing affiliates or other organisations.
Yours faithfully,
YOUR FULL NAME
Parent
I got one of those (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty painless (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't called, but I'm gathering from you that they ask you to enter it once? They send a piece of mail (with their logo on it, so you know it's really them) to you asking you to call a number that could be anyone and ask you to enter your social security number? Thanks, Verizon, for making identity theft even easier.
Parent
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Pretty painless (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Dear Americans: EU is not a paradise (Score:3, Informative)
I am from Europe and I don't like the way the governments here have chosen to protect our data. In the US the government doesn't care much (in theory - in practice it actively collects your data) and so you are responsible for protecting your own data, but here in Europe the government acts as a nanny to the point that it is very difficult even to keep an address book, and there are not good definitions explaining what personal data are. At least, that's how I see the situation. I think the best thing wo
Curious question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. The information they are sharing (who you called, when, and for how long) is basically the same information the police can get from a pen register. The Supreme Court decided long ago that pen registers do not require a warrant.
The immunity the telcos are seeking relates to allowing the NSA to evesdrop on calls. On
They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually. Maybe that would be a good business idea. Buy a PAYG phone and swap SIMS with someone at random. Maybe make it so you mail them on every few months. For the truly paranoid...
Re:They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe. (Score:3)
Don't normally agree with AC trolls, but this is truly the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Perhaps you're not aware that the only thing that makes a SIM interesting to phone companies is the number its attached to? Swapping SIMs == swapping phone numbers. If you're paranoid enough to randomly get a new phone number ever
Re:They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course the smart-ass response is, do you trust Google more than Verizon?
Parent
just another example... (Score:3, Insightful)
This scenario is much like a criminal going to commit a crime no matter what, but he won't if you get his letter in the mail and then take steps and waste your time to tell him not too. Just so many things wrong with this story, but unfortunately not shocking and of course NO ONE will do anything to stop this trend in the country other than bitch and moan.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the Google model (Score:2)
I guess they want to follow the gmail model for advertising, etc.
Unfortunately, while many people have several e-mail accounts, you cannot
switch so easily between different phones. Moreover, gmail is nearly anonymous, while you
cell phone is anything but.
Really? (Score:2)
Opt-out should be illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to do (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to d (Score:4, Insightful)
The people who consume the goods and services provided by the likes of Verizon have become less important than the companies willing to pay to mine customer databases. There's a lot of money in that, which means quality-of-service levels (and corresponding expenses) can be reduced while maintaining profitability. If that kind of information-sharing were simply illegal, perhaps our communications providers would have to get back to worrying themselves about what their customers want.
Parent
Re:Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to d (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I find it important to distinguish from consumer and customer. The customer is always right. The consumer is just a resource. Problem is, we are the consumer. The corporation on the other end of the data-mining business is the customer.
Parent
Here's my favorite part: (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is common practice, but I'd still like to believe that this would be a non-binding contract. Especially since there's no mutual consideration. Here's an excerpt from the Michigan Law Review regarding Silence as Acceptance of an Offer:
The Virginia Law Review continues to talk about when silence is binding:
The difference here, though is that Verizon isn't acting to its detriment, they're going to be getting a big fat cheque out of this from a 3rd party. So, once again, it goes back to mutual consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't breaking that law because they already -have- your agreement. It's your disagreement they are asking for, and you
Re:Here's my favorite part: (Score:5, Informative)
It was just a few years ago that everyone was up in arms about companies sharing our personal information. Congress was pressured to create some regulations to stop it. Instead of going for an "Opt-in Rule" where companies would only be allowed to share or sell your information if you affirmatively acted in telling them it was ok, they passed an "Opt-out Rule."
Under the current scheme, all a company has to do is tell you about it's information sharing policies and give you an opportunity to Opt-out. They don't need a contract. They don't need a meeting of the minds, consideration, offer and acceptance or anything but your silence. If you don't want your information shared, you'll need to get busy and start notifying every company you've ever done business with. You can thank Congress for this.
Parent
New Verizon Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Verizon trying to bypass FCC mandate? (Score:5, Informative)
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into effect in December.
In other words... (Score:3)
Meaning: In order to increase our revenue and profit margins ...
I guess it could be worse, they could be sharing your data with the NSA. Oh wait...damn.
How I protested this action (Score:3, Interesting)
+1 mod for screwing the big guy.
Am I missing something here? (Score:3, Interesting)
How about calls I made to Verizon customers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to switch (Score:5, Interesting)
I was actually on with AT&T Wireless before they were Cingular, and they actually were *very* nice to us. Even once they were Cingular, their customer service was great even though they did sort of alienate their former AT&T customers. A few of the price plans that the old AT&T had right before being absorbed into Cingular were far better then anything Cingular or Verizon have ever offered. If you wanted to modify your plan, however, you had to switch to a Cingular plan which would inevitably cost you more money. There were a few tricks for getting new phones out of the deal as well, although it got a lot harder over time. Still.... you have to give them major props for honoring the plan -- I held onto it for a few years after the merger. You also didn't have to pay for incoming text messages on any plan, something that no other US carrier does to my knowledge (most European countries have legislation which forces the caller to pay for both sides of the conversation, making incoming calls and SMS free)
However, as time went on, Verizon improved its coverage in my area, while there were no improvements in GSM service. Frustrated by not being able to get a signal at home, I switched to Verizon. A year and a half down the road, and I'm fed up to the point where I'm switching back the day my contract runs out. I've been overbilled, had my service disconnected, had my plan changed without my consent, and Verizon gave my old number to somebody else after they "lost" it while porting. And of course, in order to resolve any of this, you either have to call them and wait on hold for hours on end, or visit one of their stores -- which are more and more resembling the DMV these days (I've seen actual fights break out on more than one occasion).
Parent
You can keep Euro cellphone billing. (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't strike me as illogical. If it cost people more to call cellphones than landlines, the uptake of cellphones would have been a lot slower. I certainly wouldn't be able to use a cellphone as my primary business line, since it would be obnoxious to charge people more (and, hence, discourage them from calling me) because I want the ability to take calls on the road.
The U.S. pricing structure means that text messages are a bad deal (which is why they're little used here compared to in Europe), but it also sped the adoption of cell phones to many people who wouldn't have bought them otherwise, particularly business users, and it prevented people from consciously avoiding making calls to cell phones because of the expense. It puts the expense of owning a cellphone on the person who wants the convenience of being mobile, rather than on the caller.
Parent
Re:Time to switch - all telcos suck (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know why people don't like them, but I must be the exception. That, or I care about not dropping calls when I am downtown.
GSM is a great idea, but in the USA CDMA has better coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to switch (Score:5, Insightful)
something else?
Parent
Re:Time to switch (Score:4, Insightful)
The government breaking the law and private citizens breaking the law are radically different things. The government is an artificial structure defined by the law - if it breaks that law, then it can no longer be trusted to serve it's intended purpose rather than some unwanted purpose. And when a government is serving unwanted and unintended purposes that's a very bad thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically every single person in the country trusts their private conversations to telecom companies. If a telecom company breaks that trust and shares those conversations with a government agency (without a court-issued warrant), they damn well deserve to lose business over it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From there it is easy to decide w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you'd actually read any history, you would know, that not only illegal wiretaps were authorized by the "war president" Roosevelt, but also a few apparent rub-outs of American citizens by foreign (British) secret agencies.
That was also wrong, just because it has been done in the past doesn't mean it is a good thing.
But do tell me, how NSA (or its clients) could've abused the gathered information.
You mean how they can use unlimited information on all phone calls made by US citizens, because that is what they have. If you believe that somehow "terrorism": has to be involved then you're a fool, after all the whole point of there being no safety measure sis that no one is there to verify why the information is used.
Some of the more interesting uses are against perfectly legal opponents of the current govern
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.
You're naive if you think AT&T is the only carrier assisting various TLAs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A clue ?
Verizon trying to bypass FCC mandate? (Score:4, Informative)
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into affect in December.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Give them their own address and phone number. At least at Radio Shack they always have a business card at the counter. So many clueless clerks never even noticed. The few that do notice, "Hey, that's our number/address!" you can just chuckle and reply, "Yeah, you can field my junk mail."