Verizon Employees Fired For Snooping Obama's Record 344
longhairedgnome writes "The curiosity in President-elect Barack Obama's phone records came with a high price tag for Verizon Wireless employees. According to CNN, the workers who snooped on Obama's phone records have been fired.
'This was some employees' idle curiosity,' a company source told CNN and added 'we now consider this matter closed.'
Justice served? What about legal possibilities?" Can we expect anyone who followed a warrantless wiretap from the Bush administration to also be fired then? I mean, they violated our privacy as well.
Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
The article says that the employees did not access the "contents of the calls"... wait does that mean that Verizon has stored electronic recordings, or transcripts?!?! of all of Obama's calls?!?!
Or does this mean that Verizon does not store that information? And who here believes them?
Was encouraged to do this in credit card industry (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to work doing telephone customer service for First USA Bank. In our training class, they actually encouraged us to look up the accounts of random celebrities. My whole class would come up with names and type them in to see if they had an account with us. We'd also frequently show each other particularly bad credit reports that came up on applications.
A private affair (Score:4, Interesting)
The employees were fired for violating company policy (ie, without management approval). As company policy is to assist police in warrantless wiretaps, employees who helped with those would not be fired. This kind of thing happens in hospitals, debt collection businesses, and government all the time. It is not really newsworthy unless a pattern of abuse can be demonstrated.
Well, Obama voted for FISA. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama voted for FISA after saying he wouldn't. He and his cronies really don't have any room to complain. Why should Obama be able to snoop on "the people" when "the people" cannot snoop on him? Obama is potentially (being president at all) the most dangerous man in the nation as he is Commander-In Chief and probably the most powerful man in the world.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any military secrets or stuff, of course, but the irony is just rather amusing.
Re:Not likely illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
But these were VZW employees who were given the ability to look at records as part of their job.
the ability to do something does not equal authorization to do it. By your logic cops aren't breaking the law if they start shooting people randomly on the street, and surgeons are free to do anything they want to you once they get you under the knife.
Re:How many? (Score:5, Interesting)
Snooping is easy, getting away with it is not. A friend of a friend was a telecom employee snooping on records and got fired (girlfriend looking up her ex-boyfriend's phone log and possibly text messages).
I don't know how it works, but queries like that into the customer records throw up flags that management can see. Apparently, they're not doing a good enough job instructing employees that these safeguards exist since it happens so often.
I work for Verizon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, Obama voted for FISA. (Score:2, Interesting)
The real problem is the granularity of many bills is too large. That is NOT Obie's fault. You have to vote Yes or No on a big blob of stuff. Line-item veto's don't exist. He stated he did not like the immunity portion of the bill, but felt the other parts outweighed that. Plus, the relationship between the immunity portion of the bill and employees misbehaving is slim to none. You are oversimplying a complex issue.
and that's the problem...... (Score:3, Interesting)
But these were VZW employees who were given the ability to look at records as part of their job.
Maybe they shouldn't have that ability? If I was Verizon I would design the system such that the Level 1 CSRs don't see any details about the account until they enter some verification info provided by the customer. They always ask you for your account password or SSN to verify who you are when you call -- so why not design the system such that they don't see anything either until that information is entered?
I can't think of a ligitmate reason that a typical call center person would have for needing to access my account unless I'm on the phone with him. If I'm on the phone I can provide the information needed to unlock the account. If I lose or forget that information then I have to go to a store and show ID to verify whom I am -- this is how it currently works if you forget your account password so it wouldn't be a new policy.
Those with a business need to access accounts of customers they aren't talking to can be provided with that access. Presumably they have been with the company longer and the company has more reasons to trust them.
Not where I work, and not me... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm at a major financial institution. technically, I have fairly broad access to records that could include payment and credit information, personal information, and even a great deal of info on the places people shop.
It would not only not occur to me to look up someone's records just because they are a celeb etc, but if I had a case involving a recognizable person or business, I would be very careful and keep my inquiries to a minimum. I would expect our security teams to be watching accesses to any number of accounts.
And I wouldn't be whining if in a moment of weakness I went too far. There are some things you just don't do. Someone is watching. Count in it.
I also know a few people who provide services or support to the sort of customer you would consider a person of note. We don't discuss anything of a sensitive nature, though I offer them congratulations when I recognize they did something exceptional for a customer that made our newsletter. If we are working on issues that disclose sensitive data, I just work the issue and keep my comments to myself. And I secure any data I work with temporarily, destroying it when I don't need it any more.
Seems incredibly stupid, on a par with the ID10Ts looking through Britney's medical records not so long ago. I hope these VZW ex-employees find work, but perhaps a stint at McDonalds will give them the proper perspective on privacy. An expensive lesson, and one earned from the sounds of it.
There is no excuse.
Re:Privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not. It's perfectly feasible for a large telcom to do this. Because it's illegal? Phhft! Here's a modest proposal I drafted some time ago, based on some conservative estimates. Not sure if I already posted this, but since it's not entirely off topic, what the hell. I'll indulge my inner conspiracy nut.
Average US telephone usage: 600 minutes month, say 900 mins
= 30 mins/day = 1800 sec/day
Telephone Codec data rate: ~10KB/sec
=> Average user needs 18000 KB/day to store conversation ~1.76 MB/day
For one million users ~ 1.68 TB/day
Approximate cost per Terabyte(Hard Disk) as of 2007 ~ $300USD per TB
=> Give 2x data redundancy ~ $600USD per TB
=> ~$1,008 USD per one million users per day
World population ~7 billion
=> ~$7.1 million USD per day
=> It would cost approximately $2.6 billion USD per year to permanently store all the telephone conversations of everyone in the entire world. Assuming talktime rates of ~900 mins per month.
Addendum:
Approximate NSA budget (estimated) ~$3.6 billion USD
So for the paranoid amoung you, don't worry about people listening in on your phone calls. They probably already have.
Re:Why politicize this? (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe because there's been entirely too little public outrage over the warrantless wiretapping?
Re:Justice Served (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm talking both sides... *ANYBODY* making a career of politics is going to lose touch with the people he is supposed to represent after a period of time. By forcing them out after a set period of time, they might actually try to get something *real* done instead of constantly trying to stay in office.
Oh wait, this is the public we're talking about... *sigh*
Re:Cluster B personality disorders (Score:3, Interesting)
Wikipedia + mistrust of wealth does not equal valid psychology, skipper.
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Bad spelling and grammar not withstanding....
In a military trial, 'following orders' is not a valid defense. In other words, if I am your commander, and I issue a direct order for you to kill the prisoner, you will still be up on murder charges (along with me.) An illegal order is an illegal order. This has been established many times in military and civilian courts.
Apprantly, though, when the commander-in-chief issues an illegal order, he can then get the law changed to make it legal after the fact, and to protect his cronies from the consequences of his actions. An order is no less illegal when it comes from the top.
Re:Cluster B personality disorders (Score:3, Interesting)
Could you point to some statistics regarding your claim of "millions of people", specifically celebrities, criminals and politicians being studied? I have run across no such studies (maybe if you added up the samples of every study ever done on personality, whether they're relational or not).
Re:Cluster B personality disorders (Score:2, Interesting)
This has been discussed for years, and is one of the major issues that tends to divide psychologists from psychiatrists. The reasoning is simple-- psychologists deal with these diagnostic criteria exclusively in a "talk" setting, as they cannot prescribe medication, while psychiatrists only use "talk setting" (if they do at all--they are not required to) as one of a myriad of tools to tackle mental illness, the largest one in their arsenal of course being pharmaceuticals.
I'll leave the math as an exercise for the class.
Re:Justice Served (Score:1, Interesting)
The only *real* thing they will get done within their term limits is concentrate on making sure their business partners needs are met so their new cushy office will be ready for them to kick back in when their term is over.