Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Qwest Plan Stirs Protest Over Privacy 241

Posted by michael from the panopticon dept.
gilroy writes: "The New York Times has an article (free registration required) about customer reaction to a recent mailing by Qwest. Although the mailer only describes their privacy policy as it currently exists, apparently it's caught a few people by surprise." This hit David Farber's IP list a few days ago: see the original message or the follow-up. As Brett Glass accurately notes, most people believe that information about who they call is protected by law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Qwest Plan Stirs Protest Over Privacy More

Qwest Plan Stirs Protest Over Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • Qeast certainly would not have been the first company to do it. Ebay did it about a year ago and many other companies have as well. The people who chose to not opt out are the people who obviously won't mind having spam sent to them.

    • Re:Big deal... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stripes ( 3681 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:10PM (#2770844) Homepage Journal
      The people who chose to not opt out are the people who obviously won't mind having spam sent to them

      That's not quite the same as not only having your address/number sold to spammers, but also having a list of who you call and for how long (and who calls you) being sold.

      Look, she orders pizza 3 times a week, never makes calls on Friday...

      He calls 976 numbers...

      They use the Internet a lot...

      Look, he calls Land's End...

      In other words a somewhat bigger deal, even to people who normally throw away their privacy... (of corse I would have thought that about the supermarket savings cards, but...)

      • I manage to get the savings without giving any personal information. How?

        I signed up as a neighbor who died. According to the supermarket, I'm a 75 year old woman who buys a lot of diet soda and beef. And I get the discount, and they don't send me any junk mail.
        • You hand the cashier the "bogus" discount card and then proceed to pay with your own credit card?

          I find it ironic how much people complain about their personal privacy when they don't even realize how easy it is to track a great deal of things. Nor do people realize how long this has been possible.

    • Re:Big deal... (Score:2, Informative)

      by iansmith ( 444117 )
      It is a big deal.

      You can NOT opt-out from them selling your personal information, including when and where you are calling.

      Thats a serious privacy issue. Why should some telemarketer know who my friends and business relationships are? What if a competetor to your company decides they want a list of who you call? I can see them selling real-time information to telemarketers so whenever you make a phone call, you get 10 telemarketer calls right after you hang up.
      • You can NOT opt-out from them selling your personal information, including when and where you are calling.

        This is incorrect. You can opt-out of subscribing to their service. So what's the problem?
        • Did you read the links? When he calls the number provided to opt-out he gets disconnected with no confirmation, and when he tries the website he gets a 502 error.

        • Re:Big deal... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BrookHarty ( 9119 )
          Opting out only works if its not a monopoly.
          • in this....

            The New York Times has an article (free registration required) about customer reaction to a recent mailing by Qwest. Although the mailer only describes their privacy policy as it currently exists, apparently it's caught a few people by surprise."

            Read the horrors of people misusing your personal information!!! (must provide your personal information to access)

  • Let's Face It (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:07PM (#2770830)
    The United States Government is consitutionally unable to protect the privacy of individuals because of the countervailing property rights of other individuals --meaning corporations and the information they gather-- who have great influence over legislation (because of their sacred individual right to petition the government with their opinion$ and grievance$) and almost total control over public discourse.

    • Re:Let's Face It (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quintessent ( 197518 ) <my usr name on toofgiB [tod] moc> on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:28PM (#2770937) Journal
      Why does congress have to bow to corporations so readily? Think: Campaign finance. Corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to political parties as long as it is "soft money." In recent years, the parties have learned to skirt the rules and really use this money to win elections. The more this corporate money becomes essential to winning elections, the more politicians will be bowing to every whim of the big corporations.

      As long as there is no campaign finance reform, the RIAA, MPAA, copyright holders, and others will continue to buy your rights away.

      • But campaign finance reform will never happen, because the guys who would be writing the laws are the ones who'd be losing out. Isn't THAT a lovely pickle.

        I suppose you could get a petition drive going, but I'm not sure exactly how that works at a federal level.

      • Campaign finance is the best way to address the meta-problem that is causing most of the "ugly legislation" lately.

        My father was a local goverment county supervisor, and a big telco came wanting to put up cell phone towers. A few local residents came in against the plan for various reasons, and the big company was sent packing.

        I'd like to see this happen on the national level. The people in the USA too often are way behind the corporations for input on public policy simply because the big corporations make elections happen with big donations. Take away the candy they tease our lawmakers with, and you make issues & an informed electorate more important in the political landscape.

        The laws of the country lately certainly don't reflect the views of the public so much as they do the views of the corporations, and they are only getting worse. I think that Campaign finance reform is really the SINGLE important issue, and an emergency to get in place before more damage is done!

      • Re:Let's Face It (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sharper56 ( 142142 )
        Campaign finance Reform? The only fix for our problems is to return the process to the voters. All non-voting participants (corps, PACs, Unions) should have NO say in the process.

        Here's a first draft of the kind of simple rules we need:

        1. Only Registered Voters i.e. citizens of the US of A are allowed to donate to a politician.
        2. All money donated to a politician must be recorded and posted onto the election commission internet site with name, address and amount of donation. This site is viewable by any other registered voter.

        3. No person is allowed to donate money to both candidates in any election.


          1. Rule 1. Get rid of PACs, Corporations, all groups donations (inc Union), and foreign interest donations.
            Rule 2. Tells me who's buying the politicians.
            Rule 3. Gets rid of money as access, as it forces you to pick your political horse and ride them until election day.



        Resiving the current system completely is the only way to fix the problem and return the power back to you and me.

  • hmm (Score:1)

    by nomadic ( 141991 )
    Are they required to send out their privacy policy? Or was this done willingly? If the latter, I can easily see this preventing other companies from doing the same, figuring people are happier ignorant.

  • SpamHaus? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Manuka ( 4415 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:15PM (#2770864) Homepage
    According to spamcop, about 80% of the websites mentioned in my spam are hosted by Qwest.

    I don't think this is a coincidence.
    • If only you could blacklist major corporations like this. Of course, I've heard that MAPS has threaten to blacklist AOL a few times.
    • According to spamcop, about 80% of the websites mentioned in my spam are hosted by Qwest.

      Qwest is my local phone company; I don't remember ever seeing them in Spamcop. I've seen GlobalIPX listed quite a few times though.

  • this is slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:16PM (#2770866) Homepage Journal

    Rather than just rant about it on slashdot where a small percentage of people will see it, I'd recommend people send the link to their grandparents on AOL, non-tech friends, et al.
    Companies don't make such decisions without forcasting the outcome. Throw a wrench in Qwest's gears and spread the word to the masses. Maybe the beancounter that figured this would be a relatively painless sell-out will be on the unemployment line in 2 months... :)

  • The new rules. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by El Camino SS ( 264212 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:16PM (#2770868)

    Unfortunately, this is becoming more of the norm than the exception anymore.

    There has been a lot of deregulation that came down about two years ago... can anyone remember what bill this was that allowed subsidiary sharing?

    Some other things you will soon notice... same newscast on different competing channels. Television stations can own more than one in any particular area.

    Cable-television station-power and lights-commecial gas all in one companies. Many of you have seen this already if you live in Southern Indiana, where Vectren, the power company, controls services package for telephone, cable TV, broadband, power, and natural gas for your homes.

    I have a friend that pays one bill a month. One huge, overpriced, amazingly illegal-until recently-deregulated bill.

    By the way, the company was accused for decades of price gouging.
  • I wish I used a company such as this. That way I could end my relationship with them.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:17PM (#2770877)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I have had qwest for about 3 years on the east coast and have not had any problems with billing or usage, excepting some problems around 9/11. I am not happy about htis privacy thing, but from a service stand point it has all been good.
    • One of my clients has a T-1 provided by Qwest. The running joke has become: "Ride the light, at the speed of sound."

      I agree with austad - If they annoy you, and you have an option, dump them and go with someone else. If you're feeling _really_ benevolent, you might let Qwest know exactly why you're cancelling your service with them, which if enough people did, would give them an opportunity to correct their error, assuming the company has half a clue and compiles and analyzes reasons their customers are terminating service.
    • Wait.

      you mean Qworst actually fucked up your phone bill? But they have such a good reputation for not doing that! I don't know a single customer who has been fucked by them aside from everyone I've ever talked to that has them as a local telco.

      that's a pretty good service record if you ask me. Not like those other companies. Do you know how pissed off I was to find out that AT&T and Xcel energy billed me exactly what they said they would for a month's worth of service. Not to mention a lack of hidden charges! ARGH!

      Besides, I'm actually starting to like this 256k DSL connection I have through them. I probably just would have been irritated by them setting up the 648k pipe I actually ordered.

  • Hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by mESSDan ( 302670 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:17PM (#2770878) Homepage
    An article about privacy on a website that REQUIRES its users to register. C'mon, this is satire begging to happen.
    • Everyone knows that BIOSes have an option to require the password at startup... However, the wording of those messages differ greatly. On one system that I uncovered at work, (an IBM if I remember correctly) booted immediately to a prompt that said:

      "They Keyboard Is Locked.
      Type Your Password To Continue"
      [sic]

  • Qwest Arrogance (Score:3, Informative)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:18PM (#2770881)
    I had an internet account with Qwest, back when ( was stupid enough, and Qwest thought it was above the market by offering only three internet access packages - none of which were unlimited use. Because of a project I was working on which required a lot of internet access one month, I got socked with a huge bill. I asked if they were more interested in keeping me as a customer, or more interested in collecting the amount on the bill (it's not that I expected free service, just something more reasonable).

    Guess which option they chose.

    I can only thank Qwest at this point, because I've been happy with Earthlink ever since.

    I was VERY unhappy when I heard that Qwest acquired US West - US West certainly had its problems, but combining US West's telecom infrastructure with Qest's arrogance, it turns out, was a recipe for exactly what we're seeing now. The only thing I can suggest is to limit the use of, or completely cancel Qwest service. There are enough alternatives now that this isn't *that* big of an issue. There needs to be a sudden drop in revenue to get their attention - it's unfornately, the only thing they understand. Ethics and morals are completely outside the box in terms of the way Qest conducts itself as a corporate entity.
    • Because of a project I was working on which required a lot of internet access one month, I got socked with a huge bill. I asked if they were more interested in keeping me as a customer, or more interested in collecting the amount on the bill (it's not that I expected free service, just something more reasonable).

      This is rich, you're complaining about their arrogance? You entered into a contract in good faith and then when you get the bill you try to get out of it assuming that they would rather have a customer who may try to get out of paying his bills in the future instead of just getting what is rightly theirs.

      You sir, make me sick!
    • I was VERY unhappy when I heard that Qwest acquired US West - US West certainly had its problems, but combining US West's telecom infrastructure with Qest's arrogance, it turns out, was a recipe for exactly what we're seeing now.

      Hate to break it to you, but US Worst's arrogance made Qworst look like the model of customer satisfaction.

      US Worst never gave a tinker's damn about their customers. Qworst buying them out was just the a continuation of past practices. I switched away from US Worst after a three month running battle with them over slamming problems, billing inter-lata calls to the intra-lata long distance provider, etc...

      I'm with Cox now for phone, and while they're not perfect, I've had less down-time, cheaper rates, no billing errors, and I've never gotten a bad attitude from their service folks.

  • Mistaken information (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:20PM (#2770893)
    A couple of years ago I signed up for local service with Bell Atlantic. Somewhere along the way, the woman taking my information made a mistake, and instead of using my actual first name, she decided to list my phone number under the name of a fairly obnoxious celebrity.

    I found out about the mistake within a billing cycle, and called them up to have it changed. This operation was completely successful, but it did nothing to stem the tide of calls coming in from other parts of the country-- where apparently the local phone information was a long ways from its next five-year synchronization point.

    Now imagine the wonderful mistakes that will occur when Qwest (the company known for its aggressive slamming practices [salon.com] and disastrous customer service) starts distributing that data.

  • NYT Password! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:21PM (#2770894)
    Username : goatse
    Password : goatse
  • It's common knowledge that some ISP's collect info about where you surf and sell it. My solution is to run my own DNS server even though I'm on dial up. It may not be foolproof, but it's a start.

    • Re:What about ISP privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <greg@gksnetworks.com> on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:46PM (#2771008) Homepage
      It's common knowledge that some ISP's collect info about where you surf and sell it. My solution is to run my own DNS server even though I'm on dial up. It may not be foolproof, but it's a start. Ummmm...

      I hate to tell you this, but running your own DNS is not going to keep the ISP from knowing where you surf and when. Your only real option is an anonymizing proxy outside your ISP. But those guys will also know where you surf and when, at least until your IP changes.

      There is no such thing as absolute privacy on the internet, and you are foolish if you think there is a way to achieve it, even with encryption or VPN's, someone, somewhere will always be able to know your habits, and if interested and in the right part of the pipe, even more.

      • I find rotating web proxies (not that hard to find), works pretty well.. ok if they scan the packets I send to the proxy sure they know, but other than that noone has my surfing *habits*, a page here and there but not the big picture.

        Kjella
        • Unless you're encrypting your connection to the web proxies, your ISP can probably figure out how to hire a $25/hour Perl programmer to sniff the URLs you're visiting, en masse.
          • But packet scanning usually requires a search warrant.. oh was that a request to a proxy or containing some confidential information (which should be encrypted anyway, but beside the point).. unlike logging target ip of every packet, which never contains anything of sorts.

            Kjella
  • Quote : "Although the mailer only describes their privacy policy as it currently exists, apparently it's caught a few people by surprise."

    Just like puppies are not just for xmas, online agreements are not just for clicking through without giving the slightest glance!

    Seriously, if you sign a contract and then cried foul when you realise you what you just signed, but then claimed your excuse was "but i didnt read it, i just accepted it!", all but the most money grabbing of lawyers (i mean that in a nice way guys) would laugh at you.

    If you really dislike it that much use another provider - otherwise keep quiet and remember to have "I will always make sure to read the click-thru contract" tattooed onto the back on your eyelids for the next time something like this happens.

    Have a happy new year all!

    PS. the lack of sympathy could just be me or the booze, ask again in 24 hours...
    • If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. Why? Because being in the Tech Support biz, we always see people who (Deary me!) didn't agree to any 'Terms and Conditions' (even though it is prominently shown during the installation and sign up process for the major US ISP that I worked for)...

      It's amazing what people will agree to if it's SMACK DAB in the middle of one of those T&C thingies. One day, go check out all the major and minor ISP websites (Search Google for ISP) and check out their terms and conditions if available. Makes for interesting reading during a long shift at the Help Desk. Or a long shift anywhere, for that matter.

      Happy New Year.

      --
      Bonus New Year's Sig:
      Many people should add "RTFM and RTFT&C" to their New Year's resolutions. I'm adding "WTF" to mine.
      • I would like to see a study detailing the total percentage of your time that would be involved in reading the complete T&C attached to every modern service and convenience used by the average person.

        Remember, that includes those contracts whose full terms aren't listed above the signature line (credit card or delivery receipts), of which the difficulty of obtaining might be considerable.

        I would imagine that it would take at least 25% of our available time. Perhaps the best solution would be to require that all service providers insure that their customers have read and understood the terms before accepting a signature. That would certainly clear a lot of the problems up.

        • Personally I consider commercials, unsoliciated emails and phone calls all to be a waste of my time. Considering that your time on earth is a (relatively) constant value, and there is nothing the corporations can do to give you back the time they waste, use of your time should be billable at whatever rate you specify (up front, through some means).

          Corporations won't like it.. but this only applies to targeted ads. Billboards are still usable, but ads while you withdrawn money from an ATM are not.

          Think of the last time you were forced to waste 30 seconds of your day listening or watching someones advertisement for a product you didn't want. Think about something else you could have been doing and ask yourself, how much was that 30 seconds worth to me? Be reasonable. I don't think you could honestly ask for more than your salary, but you should at least be able to ask for compensation.
      • Excuse me, but who in this world, except lawyers, has the knowledge to read and understand all those liscenses and terms. (And they probably don't have the time.)

        These type of things are written to be obscure, misleading, and innocuous sounding. On top of that, the mass market consumer has very little negotiating power over these things. This differs greatly from 'real' contracts, like employment contracts and home mortgages.

        I damned well took the time & energy to read and understand all those things when I bought my house, and feel good about it. Doing the same for every piece of software or service I purchase would be a waste of my finite lifetime.

        Soooooo, what's the answer? There are laws regulating all types of contracts. These laws often include consumer rights that cannot be disclaimed or negotiated away. Laws that protect little old ladies from usury and such. Lobby the Gov to make similar laws for privacy.

        AND post to slashdot or other populist web sites to educate the public about how bad these things are.

        rbb

      • When you install ISP software, it will present a software license and in most cases the Terms & Conditions of the service for approval. But no ISP I know of presents its Privacy Statement in the course of installation or signup. They do sometimes tell you where to find it on the web, or even provide a link.

        What they don't want to do -- and correct me if your ISP does this -- is put it in front of people's faces. Unlike software licenses and TOS, people will read a Privacy Statement. The reason is, most ToS and software license agreements don't affect your life outside the use of the specific service. Privacy affects your life.

      • Cool, so if I put a sign up in front of my house saying, "By parking here, you agree to give me your car" (or whatever the legalese for that is), I get all those cars?

        I mean, it's right there in front of their face, and anything that's written in legalese is legally binding, right?

        I might even get a better haul if I used my T&C sign downtown...

        --
        Benjamin Coates

    • Re:So hands up who did not read the agreement... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:37PM (#2770967)
      Seriously, if you sign a contract and then cried foul when you realise you what you just signed, but then claimed your excuse was "but i didnt read it, i just accepted it!", all but the most money grabbing of lawyers (i mean that in a nice way guys) would laugh at you.

      What the heck are you talking about? None of these people signed any contract that included the information on this mailer. That's why the tiny, anonymous mailer was sent out-- to "clarify" your rights under the law-- which most people, including even some RBOCs, read as preventing the sale of personal information like call logs. It then names some arbitrary 30 day period (starting when?) after which your information can and will be given out.

      On top of that, as the response to the writeup demonstrates, even an attempt to "opt out" of the unilateral "agreement" that Qwest has made you party to is doomed to failure. Both the phone response and web response system seem to be broken.

      So again, I see no evidence that these people "accepted" anything-- given the difficulty Qwest will have in proving that their response system is functional, or that this move is even strictly legal (a contract cannot override the law.) And yes, people should ditch Qwest. Problem is that since Qwest bought US West, they're a regional monopoly-- I don't know if most local customers have anywhere else to go.

    • There is one flaw with your finger-pointing:

      One company creates a legal document that it sends out to millions of people and requires them to accept to use its service.

      The same company therefore has the resources to make the legal document really, really, long and complicated and incomprensible by the average reader. The amount of obfuscation is purely up to the company.

      Millions of people do not have the same time to devote to deciphering the said document. Even though each of us may care a lot about these issues, there is a limit to our individual intelligence and/or patience.

      • Yes, but that is really a secondary issue of can joe public understand it - this was simply a legal "cover our ass" manouver.

        A caring company (or one who wants to seem caring and doesnt have any nasties lurking in their that their competitors dont) will spell it out nice, simple and in big print, like my insurance company chose to this year.

        The problem here looks to be that they wish to start using those loopholes they left in the legal-ese the first time around so they can bring in extra revenue. Now to do this without getting ripped to shreds by the "i didnt know" crowd they are making it known that these are their terms which in some way or other all customers have accepted. That then leaves them cleanly covered as far as legal goes - "But judge honestly we told them all. Persons X, Y and Z chose not to opt-out like we said they could, so thats why we used their details".

        • It's not so much a question of whether Joe Public can understand (while he/she probably cannot), but of whether he should have to invest the time in giving legal recourse to a service provider. Qwest should require a signature on the document from each customer to secure legal absolution from sharing data. If every one of your service providers did this, you'd spend your whole life reading contracts....
      • The same company therefore has the resources to make the legal document really, really, long and complicated and incomprensible by the average reader. The amount of obfuscation is purely up to the company.

        Millions of people do not have the same time to devote to deciphering the said document. Even though each of us may care a lot about these issues, there is a limit to our individual intelligence and/or patience.

        Instead we just waste our time reading Slashdot ;)

    • Name one court that has actually found click-thru "contracts" to be binding.

      Seriously, there's a damn good reason why UCITA explicitly states that "click-thru" licenses are enforceable - few if any courts have found them acceptable in the past. At best they were "just" mandatory (don't like the license, then don't use the software... but you will NEVER get a refund under any circumstances). At worst they were so "abusive" as to shock the sensibilities of any court that looked at the contract.

    • I will bet you dollars to donuts that this "existing Privacy Policy" was not (until very recently) a published privacy policy, and was not part of any signed contract.

      An honorable man would return those mod points.

  • We need an opt-out resource! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tsar ( 536185 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:25PM (#2770915) Homepage Journal
    What we need is some kind of clearing house of opt-out info, a la SpamCop [spamcop.net], that would allow us to look up all the companies that we do business with and see what their real policies are. A nice feature would be the ability to generate legally binding letters of notification that we could send to those companies, preemptively opting out of all possible dissemination of our data.

    Is this already available, or is someone working on it? If not, I'll get busy. Comments and suggestions welcome! [slashdot.org]

    • what we really need (Score:4, Insightful)

      by markj02 ( 544487 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @04:02PM (#2771056)
      What we really need is decent privacy legislation so that we don't have to opt out of these things. The default shold be privacy; if you see a benefit in some business sharing or retaining your information for marketing purposes, you can always opt in.
      • What we really need is decent privacy legislation so that we don't have to opt out of these things.

        I mean no offense, but whenever I hear the phrase, "What we really need is... legislation," it makes me want to head for the hills. Society is obviously teetering on the brink of collapse when people can say things like that with a straight face.
        • I mean no offense, but whenever I hear the phrase, "What we really need is... legislation,"

          I doubt that Qwest, before it swallowed US West, would have pulled this sort of crap. Too many customers would have defected. Unfortunately regional telcos like US West are government enforced monopolies. There's tons of legislation that allows them to exist, and even keeps out competition. So I appreciate your "no legislation is good legislation" sentiment, but until we actually embark on a plan to break these government-mandated monopolies and undo the effects of the existing system, we do need some decent legislation.

          Some telcos would like to take advantage of the sort of anti-regulation paranoia evidenced in your reply to get Americans to accept the fucked-up deregulation plans they're buying in Congress. Sure, these companies are still monopolies, and they still love to take advantage of government regulation where it benefits them and prevents a true competitive environment. But if they play up the regulations they're opposed to, lots of otherwise intelligent Americans will resonate to the mindless "Government Regulation Is Bad" rhetoric they've grown up (sometimes rightly) believing. The telcos can then make a smooth transition from government-mandated, regulated monopolies to government-tolerated, unregulated monopolies without the pesky middle-step where competition is allowed to flourish.

          ...makes me want to head for the hills...

          No offense intended, but occasionally when somebody provides a more "detailed" argument: "government shouldn't regulate these companies, instead consumers should just boycott them", I actually do envision a bunch of righteous libertarians living in the hills. In little shacks with no electricity, no jobs or bank accounts, no phone service.

        • Legislation is only codified application of pressure. Frankly, in this case the only alternative I can see is... well, I doubt I have to describe it but I will. Periodically, my phone begins ringing, and if I answer it, it hangs up. Eventually one of these times, I get a telemarketer and tell 'em 'take my name off this list!' in no uncertain manner. I've learned this situation can be attributed to phone-dialing networks that call thousands of people and only hand over a smaller number of live phone-answerers to an operator- except that there aren't enough operators, hence the mechanism devolves to ringing me up randomly to hang up on me.

          Without the legislation compelling these people to have a do not call list, without a system of rules to control their behavior, it becomes like email spam only live- and, as I've sometimes calculated for download and deletion of email spam, X% of my life is wasted responding to a telephone inquiry by a machine that hangs up on me. That X% is not a fixed number. There are a lot of people in the world dumb enough to think they can use shotgun methods to get business, and X% can be arbitrarily large, just as it can with email spam.

          You cannot expect to hand people what is effectively a weapon and not expect them to use it. Whether it is spam or telemarketing, the concept is always 'we can force X number of people to interact with our annoyance mechanism if Y% of them end up buying from us'. The cost of this is the concern: if people could only bug you door-to-door, that puts a cap on how many of them any given marketer can employ. If they only have to use a phone, that expands their range of attack. If they only have to monitor a war-dialer in hopes it will weed out answering-machines and disconnected numbers, their range of attack expands still further. If they need only run a program to spam the Western World with 100 messages in everyone's mailbox- etc etc.

          It is technology that sets up this situation, and in the absence of legislation it is an arms race that cannot be won. You can have your resources rendered USELESS by the actions of nothing more than marketers at a high enough intensity. I've put my phone on no-ring machine-only with the speaker volume all the way down, at times when I was being really hammered by telemarketwardialers. That's an attack on a resource that I pay for and 'own', just like it was a DOS on my webpage.

          THAT is why we have legislation, and why we need the legislation to deal with this particular stuff. It's not even about 'privacy' for everybody, so much as it is about having our resources assaulted by machines, spam and similar technological innovations that can attack us more effectively than we can chase them off.

          THAT is why we need legislation, foobar.


        • I mean no offense, but whenever I hear the phrase, "What we really need is... legislation," it makes me want to head for the hills.

          Were you in the hills when laws were passed against assault? murder? rape? Violation of my privacy deprives me of my rights, and if laws don't forbid it, what possible control do I have over information that is out there in the control of anyone who can buy, borrow or steal it?

          What do you propose? Ask them nicely? Depend on market forces, when market forces will always favor the person who cheat, lies and steals? You may not mean offense, but knee-jerk libertarianism (like knee-jerk anything) makes me sick.

      • At the moment, the first and greatest good in the USA is money. The default state of affairs is that which generates revenue, jobs, and taxes. Wasn't always this way, won't always either, but it is now.

        Only when a problem rises in enough minds to tickle the conscience of the legislators do counter-monetary things happen.

        There are two types of people: Those who use money to live, and those who use money to measure their self-esteem. The 1% who own over half the country are in the latter camp, and subscribe to the Golden Rule.

    • Re:We need an opt-out resource! (Score:4, Informative)

      by tregoweth ( 13591 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @07:11PM (#2771696)
      The CDT's opt-out resource [cdt.org] might be what you're looking for.
  • I have Verizon as my local phone company, long distance phone company, wireless company, and probably other things that I am not aware of yet. Recently I had a problem with my cell phone (over billing) and called to cancel the service because of it. As it turns out, they refused to cancel it because they think I have a 2 year plan (keyword is think). They are not sure though since they can not read the paperwork and the carbon copy of it is almost blank.

    Besides that anoying problem they also call about once a day to try to sell a new plan or upgrade my existing lines etc...

    If thats not enough, I find lots of other companies that are 'friends' ov Verizon calling trying to sell me new phones, caller ID boxes, computers, etc...

  • Opt-out number? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by badvilbel ( 540006 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @03:27PM (#2770929) Journal
    I called the number listed in the article to opt-out, and found it to be disconnected. Was the number transcribed wrong or is this further complication by Qwest? ;)
    • Read the followup linked to in the post. Another person had nearly the same problem, but instead just kept getting disconnected and got a 502 upon trying from the website.
  • Qwest hasn't sold anything to anybody. Federal law just says they can, and they reserve the right to. The FCC tried to pass a law requiring people to opt-in to data sharing which was struck down by the federal court, resuting in the current opt-out policy. According to the article, Qwest favored the opt-in version of the law. They're not the ones screwing you out of your privacy, so if you want to rant against someone, let it be the federal government.

    -Ma'at
    • Blockquoth the poster:

      According to the article, Qwest favored the opt-in version of the law. They're not the ones screwing you out of your privacy, so if you want to rant against someone, let it be the federal government.


      I have to assume, if you read the article, that you are referring to David Sobel, whose "organization favored the commission's original "opt in" approach, which would have prohibited companies from using consumers' data without their express permission". Unfortunately, if you actually read the article carefully, you see that David Sobel works not for Qwest but for EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center).



      If Qwest truly supported an opt-in policy, then they could create an opt-in policy. They could explicitly waive the rights they claim they are merely explicitly reserving via this notice. The federal government is not holding a gun to their heads saying "You must use opt-out." In this case, it most certainly is the corporation choosing to do the wrong thing.

  • I'm so glad I dropped Qwest as my carrier for ANYTHING. Hopefully one day there will be laws to protect us from this crap similar to the laws that allow us to keep from being harrassed by telemarketers.
  • When ever they make a profit from selling your private info, send them a bill.

    You have a right to share in the profits, afterall, it's thanks to you they have something to sell...

  • A about a week ago, I got an email kicked back to me that I had tried to send to someone I know with a Qwest account. The email said that they're address was now xxxxx@msn.com.
    It seems that Qwest migrated them to MSN, now their service is even worse (hard to imagine, I know!). They were assimilated!
    • As much as I hate Microsoft, THIS IS A GOOD THING. Qwest.net (Qwest's ISP, formerly uswest.net) sold out to MSN. That means Qwest (a phone company) is no longer running a residential ISP! That means, hopefully, eventually, no more anticompetitive bundling crap!

      Phone companies are natural monopolies, and should not be allowed to compete in other markets such as ISPs. All other dialup and DSL ISPs have to rely on the phone company for the lines; it doesn't make sense that the company they all rely on should also be a competitor.
  • As we develop new services, we want to maintain your trust while continuing to meet your service needs with innovative products. By sharing account information among Qwest's family of companies, and by
    aggregating information to learn more about trends and purchasing patterns, we can serve you better.

    So this would include MSN? Are they part of the big family too? [qwest.com]

    Wouldn't surprise me - them sharing information. Glad I'm no longer on Qwest DSL and Phone.
  • This is rather ironic in light of a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision. I don't know the details - just a quick blurp on the evening news - but in the past few weeks the CSC ruled a case where a woman sued for "invasion of privacy" after a financial fraud newsletter discussed her 2-year-old conviction for financial crimes.

    The court held that the story was still newsworthy, so she had no protection. However outside of legitimate news stories and the like, everyone else has the right to control ALL uses of their name and likeness in this state. This is far stricter than in every other state...

    Given this ruling, all of this "information sharing" may now be considered an "invasion of privacy" in this state. If I pay hard cash for an unpublished (not just unlisted) number, I think I can reasonably consider all other optional services to be equally private.

  • Important followup (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brett Glass ( 98525 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @06:24PM (#2771547) Homepage
    Here's a followup. Apparently, Qwest's bold move is due to a recent lawsuit in which Larry Tribe and other high-powered lawyers, working for the Bells, managed to derail the FCC's attempts to establish rules that protect consumers and promote competition. (See the decision at http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-9518 .htm [kscourts.org]). In this poorly drafted decision, two of a panel of three judges came to the absurd conclusion that requiring telephone companies to keep ANY customer information private -- including the details of whom you call and when -- violated the companies' First Amendment rights! (The same reasoning would cause any law requiring companies to keep information in confidence to be rejected on Constitutional grounds and would essentially negate all privacy legislation of any kind.)

    While the third judge's ringing dissent demonstrated that there were some serious problems with the resoning and legal basis of the ruling, the Bush FCC, which is said to have a bias toward corporate interests, has thus far failed to appeal it.

    Qwest and the other Baby Bells thus feel empowered to violate ALL of the plain language of 47 U.S.C. 222 (part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), which states:

    Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunication service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.
    The language here is quite clear and unambiguous. Regardless of whether or not the Bells can tie the FCC's rulemaking process up in the courts, the activities proposed by Qwest in its brochure are patently illegal.

    Yet, the Bells press on to sell users' private information. Apparently, they believe that the agency charged with enforcing the law has been rendered so toothless that they may break the law with impunity. But the fact is that if they implemented the policy stated in their little "notice," they would be breaking the law.

    Perhaps it is time for private and/or class action lawsuits, or suits by state Attorneys General, to enforce the provisions of the law? At the very least, states should make the company's proposed conduct illegal and fight attempts to destroy consumer privacy.

    --Brett Glass

    • We should lock the pricks up (Score:4, Interesting)

      by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @11:26PM (#2772412)
      The language here is quite clear and unambiguous. Regardless of whether or not the Bells can tie the FCC's rulemaking process up in the courts, the activities proposed by Qwest in its brochure are patently illegal.

      [...]

      Perhaps it is time for private and/or class action lawsuits, or suits by state Attorneys General, to enforce the provisions of the law?

      Perhaps it is time we started imprisoning CEOs and board members of companies that willfully break the law like this, counting on endless court battles and legal thuggary to allow them to gain the profits of their illegal actions before they can be compelled to adhere to the laws the rest of us are expected to abide by. As long as it is simply a numbers (financial) game one of the most important, and potent, deterrents against breaking the law will be rendered impotent, namely the consiquence of doing time for violating other people's rights. (Including the right to privacy ... after all, we lock up individuals who do this sort of thing, usually applying the label "voyeur" or "peeping tom" so why should we be any less stringent with organized, by some definitions conspiratorial, violations of our privacy?)

  • Opt-Out Forms (Score:3, Informative)

    by futuresheep ( 531366 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @06:43PM (#2771613) Journal
    Privacyrights.org has some very useful information on this very subject: Privacy Rights.org [privacyrights.org] There's a form letter available to let companies know that you wish to opt-out of their information sharing: Opt-Out [privacyrights.org]

  • OT Quest Rant (Score:3, Informative)

    by filtersweep ( 415712 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @06:59PM (#2771656) Homepage Journal
    I use qwest for a DSL line and had received ISP service through them prior to this impending MSN disaster (where they are assimilation the Qwest ISP customers).

    I switched to a local ISP rather than using MSN, although I was billed by Qwest ISP for a few extra months. Afraid the lackeys would disconnect my DSL line rather than the ISP services, I waited awhile before mustering the courage. I actually finally spoke with someone (after being transferred to numerous people) who was able to cancel the ISP charges AND credit me for several months of unnecessary charges.

    I was content with the fact that nothing was screwed up after dealing with a company that insisted a needed a new email/user name when I simply moved a few blocks away a few years ago, and left me without DSL for over a month (I eventually "got my good name back"- with considerable hassle and grief).

    However, Qwest charged me $30 for simply making a change to my service. I called them yesterday out of principle. They stated any change to DSL service results in the charge. This makes no sense to me whatsoever since the actual DSL change occurred months ago (with no charge) and at this point I was cancelling ISP service (which SHOULD have occurred months ago, but I digress).

    Of course if you *migrate* to MSN, there is no charge... now I could care less about the $30, and frankly I'd gladly pay it to NOT be a MSN customer, but it is the principle of the matter that bothers me the most. As it relates to the article here, it is yet another "unfair" business practice that favors vendors and subsidiaries with a special relationship to Qwest.

    I tried to explain to the phone rep. that it made no sense to charge me $30 to change ISPs when they would have changed me for free anyway... or that my ORIGINAL service with Qwest's ISP will no longer exist- that if I had wanted to be an MSN customer I would have done so years ago, that their material disclosed that migration to MSN would occur automatically if I took no action to switch ISPs, that I NEVER agreed to be an MSN customer in the first place, blah, blah, blah...

    I still cannot find any info regarding a fee for a change in service, and I am under no contract. The amount of ignorance EVERYONE I've spoken to at Qwest about switching ISPs is remarkable (barring the one exception).

    Qwest basically is a monopoly, and they use their position somewhat exploitively. I guess if a business practice does not relate DIRECTLY to phone service, the public utility commission has no jurisdiction?

  • The Evil Silver Lining (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaveWood ( 101146 ) on Tuesday January 01, 2002 @10:14PM (#2772250) Homepage
    So the talk tonight is about your phone call history being for sale. Perhaps it's already happening, or perhaps the water is merely being tested... the groundwork laid. But let's speak generally, and think about the future. If privacy is outlawed, look at the bright side. There should be a lot of interesting things for sale!

    If the telephone company will sell the dirt on who calls who and when, then they should sell it to anyone... even you, right?

    Of course, they may refuse to sell YOU such information (for whatever reason). Then you have an interesting double-standard to explore... Why do they deal with Mr. Make Money Fast and not with you? It might be a question for the courts. And you can probably fool them into dealing with you anyway - start a "fake" shell company, pretend to be someone they will deal with, etc...

    I would be surprised if it's so hard, though. If they've really gone to the trouble of gearing up to sell this data, shouldn't they be selling it to every customer they can find? No, the worst possibility is likely that they will make it a little bit expensive. But this won't be a bother to a public interest group which can pool resources.

    Now picture yourself holding the binder of DVDs (or the u/p to the database) - phone records for whole regions for whole years. You now have access to all kinds of nifty information about all kinds of interesting people. Celebrities, government bureaucrats, policemen, your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, your boss, your employees... The more detailed and revealing the data, the better!

    An apocryphal mountain of dirt will be at your fingertips. Start mining it, and start abusing it! Anyone you embarass or blackmail is an instant convert to the cause! The more marks you horrify, and the more wealthy and powerful they are, the better. Get creative! Take out a full page in a local paper and fill it with names of everyone in the neighborhood who calls 900 numbers for pr0n. "Stalk" your mayor/congressman/sherrif/principal. Try to catch people cheating on their spouses. Try to catch businessmen calling politicians - and vice versa! Have fun watching how much police talk to organized criminals - and when!

    Of course, the really interesting targets (members of congress, secret service, military, movie stars) might somehow manage to get themselves hidden - although many won't, since the opt-out trap works on powerful and meek alike. Regardless, you either get everyone, or you get another exploitable double-standard, from which comes either the ability to make trouble for the marketers, or the ability to get yourself off the lists too.

    Hey, that's one of my favorites - the myth that you can "opt-out" at all - meanwhile, everyone who's already bought your data has resold it to 100 people, and each of those resold it to another 100... You could print a regular column of detailed information on those people who have "opted out" by buying the data regularly and comparing versions. I just kill myself sometimes.

    The worse damage they do, the more egregious the privacy violations become, the better the opportunities for successful protest. If some people (dare we say, even the majority of people) lack the imagination to understand what the erosion of privacy rights is doing to them, then they need some preventative medicine, and (according to the gov't!) you have every right to give it to them. It will be your social duty, not to mention smashingly funny, to unleash some tough marketing love, if you will, on the unenlightened. You know what they say: we only realize what we love by how much it hurts when it's lost.

  • Background - How we got here (Score:3, Informative)

    by MacRonin ( 112572 ) on Wednesday January 02, 2002 @04:50AM (#2772957) Homepage
    Just thought I'd post a few background links that I got from the Privacy Digest [privacydigest.com] archives
    • Privacy Digest: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 [privacydigest.com].

      "CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations [cnn.com] - August 25, 1999.

      A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.

      The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.

      "FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.

    • Privacy Digest: Saturday, August 28, 1999 [privacydigest.com].

      Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs? [wired.com].

      A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 [kscourts.org] ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.

      But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.

      The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.

    • Privacy Digest: Monday, November 1, 1999 [privacydigest.com].

      ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy [aclu.org].

      In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes.

      The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States.

      The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.

    • Privacy Digest: Monday, June 12, 2000 [privacydigest.com].

      Political News from "Wired News" - Court Sides With Telcos on Info [wired.com].

      The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling that overturned a federal regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain customer approval before using or disclosing information about their account for marketing purposes.

      The justices declined to review a ruling by a Denver-based U.S. appeals court that the FCC violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment when it adopted the regulation in 1998.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close