Verizon Wants To Share Your Personal Information 236
hyades1 writes "Gizmodo reports that Verizon is sending out notification letters infested with virtually-indecipherable legalese. In their sneaky, underhanded way, they're informing you that you have 45 days to opt out of their plan to share your personal data with 'affiliates, agents and parent companies.' That data can include, but isn't limited to, 'services purchased (including specific calls you make and receive), billing info, technical info and location info.' If you view your statement on-line, you won't even get the letter. You'll have to access your account and view your messages. However, Read Write Web says the link provided there, called the 'Customer Proprietary Network Information Notice,' was listed as 'not available.' No doubt Verizon would like to reassure you that everyone they're going to hand your personal data over to will have your best interests at heart."
Frogs in boiling water (Score:5, Insightful)
Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
While people will complain about this now, and talk about switching to Comcast or whoever, what will happen next is that Comcast &c. will do the same thing, and there'll be noplace left to switch to.
Since it's unlikely there will ever be any sort of sufficient regulation of this behaviour by the government, the obvious solution is for everybody to use VOIP and run TOR. But that's unlikely too.
Standard Fare for CC Companies (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess what I'm saying is, I've lost all faith in large companies to do the right thing. After I saw my tax dollars pay CEOs large bonuses, I just gave up. Game's over man.
Of course, this happens right as people start forgetting about how much Verizon sucks at math.
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:5, Insightful)
its not 'share' its SELL (Score:5, Insightful)
dammit.
file 'sharing' is wrong. or so we're told.
but DATA sharing, if done by multi million corps - that's ok. yeah....
its not sharing, its SELLING.
orwell was right - you can control thoughts via language. give words an incorrect meaning or redefine them and you're halfway there.
similarly, copying bits is not THEFT but copyright violation. again, manipulating our words to make things not quite what they really are.
Re:Oligarchy Only Slightly Better Than Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad that this has to be pointed out, but I do understand that it's honestly an odd concept nowadays: You can still carry a cell phone for when you need it and not be "on call" by turning the little sucker off. I get questions sometimes, but when I ask "you got my voicemail, didn't you?" it usually shuts up the inquirer.
OT, I was going to switch to Verizon this spring, but given the crappy service you get at their stores and now this crap, I'll be sticking with something a little bit more private (pay a friend $20 a month for a "family plan" cell phone on a different network. Even if the same data is tracked, it poisons the information pool a bit by having mis-association with owner/activity).
Re:boy am I glad (Score:3, Insightful)
They're a regulated monopoly.. why do they need other "revenue streams"? They're not a "normal" company in that they can ask for rate increases to cover any operational losses... they have no need for income streams from other purposes... they shouldn't be handing out customer data.. because you have no real way to opt out of their monopoly.
Re:Standard Fare for CC Companies (Score:3, Insightful)
The other sneaky one, "Your payment of your next bill indicates your acceptance of the changes to the Terms and Conditions outlined in this letter". Wow. Nice. I guess "Agree to these changes, or watch us fuck your credit score" might be likely to alienate too many people outright.
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the stance you take ignores the whole concept of barter which has been part of human existence since a guy first decided to sell apples. Only with the advent of mass marketing has it been acceptable for a company to entirely dictate the terms of the apple sale. Before, I could walk into a store and ask them if they'll sell me that package of apples for $.80, and it would be totally okay. There are markets in other countries where this is still considered acceptable, and where merchants price items specifically so that they can haggle down to a reasonable price. The fact that we accept without question that companies just sell us service for a flat rate means that they don't have to compete as directly with each other.
Furthermore, we don't believe in our unalienable right to those apples. We believe that we have the right to negotiate the price of those apples or seek apples elsewhere. Reasonable people realise that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to part with anything without a fair exchange. We would only quibble over what constitutes fairness. Maybe you're the one being irrational? Isn't it a bit irrational to expect people not to negotiate for anything at all?
Case in point, I asked a bank teller if one of their fees was reasonable, and she promptly removed it after thinking about it herself. It's okay to want to negotiate.
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
Our government used to stop these things, but they got bought out by the corporations about 20 years ago.
Re:boy am I glad (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit about obligations to shareholders. The shareholders invest their money of their own free will. If they think they've made a bad bargain then they shouldn't have invested or should sell their shares. And it stops there. If someone gives me £500, I'm not obliged to go out and kill their rich grandparent for them. Why not? Because it's against the law and they didn't give me the money on the expectation that I would go out and indulge in unethical behaviour on their part and if they did then more fool them.
Companies don't exist as indivisible entities. Somewhere there are people saying "lets violate people's privacy" and they should be personally held accountable because they are personally responsible.
Re:boy am I glad (Score:5, Insightful)
Opting out was painless, just had to call a number and it was automated... *however* people should have to opt *IN* not opt out.
But then they'd have to offer you something in return, to entice you to opt in. The underhanded way they're doing it, it costs them nothing. Most likely, their income from selling customer information won't be reduced unless quite a lot of subscribers opt out.
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's call a duck a duck. It was thanks to Ronald Reagan, the greatest almighty president, that corporations got more and more power. For those who were too young to know, or forgot, banks also had a limit to how much interest they could charge on a credit card, but Reagan decided it wasn't fair and made them free to charge whatever they wanted. Good Morning 29% APR. Thanks George W. Reagan!
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:4, Insightful)
Name ONE person that enjoys junk mail and unsolicited phone calls during supper about getting your windshield repaired, or refinancing their credit card debt, or unneeded car insurance.
Yours is an indefensible position. Nobody wants what Verizon is trying to do with their personal info, and every rational person knows that.
Although it's true that we can't dictate the exact cost of a service, having personal information sold to other companies at no benefit to the consumer on an opt out basis is wrong, regardless of the context.
If it's a way to have your bills reduced or if it's on an opt in rather than opt out basis, then maybe I'd be more sympathetic to your stance, but, as it stands, Verizon is selling private information to other companies with no benefit to the end consumer. There is no way, regardless of your convoluted view of the system, that such a situation could ever be considered fair or right.
Re:boy am I glad (Score:4, Insightful)
That certainly is the purpose. And a child can say that his friends told him to do something wrong. In either case the purpose is to pretend the responsibility lies elsewhere. That doesn't mean it does.
Law, especially the law around very big businesses, is not always the same as what is right and wrong. We shouldn't allow the passing of a law to change our principles. Laws can be changed.
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:5, Insightful)
> Our government used to stop these things, but they got bought out by the corporations about 20 years ago.
Let's call a duck a duck. It was thanks to Ronald Reagan, the greatest almighty president, that corporations got more and more power. For those who were too young to know, or forgot, banks also had a limit to how much interest they could charge on a credit card, but Reagan decided it wasn't fair and made them free to charge whatever they wanted. Good Morning 29% APR. Thanks George W. Reagan!
I'm not going to disagree with you about who started chipping away at the public good in favor of corporate greed. Sadly though, I think that both major parties are guilty. Priority goes to getting yourself re-elected, which involves bringing the most pork into your district and making the corporate lobbyists happy so that they don't overthrow you on the next election.
When advertising and lobbyists started having more effect on elections than the actual facts on the ground, the general public lost out.
Now it's just like herding sheep.
Re:Frogs in boiling water (Score:3, Insightful)
They've been forced to allow LLU, which breaks the monopoly somewhat, and they're also compelled to offer competitive prices with their Wholesale packages.
However, cable companies aside (who are only available in specific areas), BT still own the entire infrastructure, and while they may be complying with the Anti-Trust ruling, they'll still do everything in their power to maintain their dominance.
You try and start an ISP in the UK, and let me know how far you get without BT's involvement.
Re:boy am I glad (Score:3, Insightful)
One man cannot win any battle, but it only takes one spokesperson to rally a thousand supporters. It's a question of who is willing to put their neck on the line. If I could guarantee that the rest of the nation wouldn't be the apathetic, TV-hungry baffoons we know them to be, I'd be first in the queue, believe me.
Verizon misdeeds... (Score:1, Insightful)
VZ top mgmt would sell their own mothers. Of course, they want to sell YOURS first.
Re:boy am I glad (Score:3, Insightful)
actually I disagree. That is one of the things a corperation does, and is, in my mind, a perversion to be considered the only reason.
The purpose of a corperation is to make money for its shareholders by providing benefit to community by fullfilling one or more of their needs in exchange for money.
The benefit to the community should be considered as much the purpose of the busisness as the making of the money, and whenever it isn't, is when you see these sorts of gross abuses.
Frankly, I think we should have regulation that forbids the formation of any company that doesn't state as part of its purpose that one of its core purposes is anything other than benefit to the community.
After all, thats why we give them the privilege of limited liability.
-Steve
You mean officially? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because unofficially, I bet they are doing it already. No everyone who pays enough or is a TLA (three letter agency)