Verizon Sues to Stop Privacy Rules; Wants to Sell Call Data

Jake writes "Verizon has asked a federal court to stop state regulators from enforcing new privacy rules that would prohibit telephone companies from using or sharing details about customers' calling habits without permission. Verizon, which serves nearly 1 million customers across Washington state, had plans to begin a data-sharing system that allowed the company and its affiliates to collect information on when, where and how often customers make telephone calls. It would use that data to sell new products and services to customers." "We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information," Verizon's PR person says. Great.

Re:Phone Taps

Australia having a higher rating of phone taps than the US

I think all prisons have their phones tapped.

Re:but daddy...

You certainly may, under certain loopholes.

For example, if you have a hotmail account and have unticked every box, to disallow them selling your email address/info/receiving spam - they won't reveal your email address

But they do sell the email address of every single person you email

Try this simple experiment. Sign up for an email address from anywhere else - somewhere you know is relatively spam-free. Check it for a month or two, and notice there is no spam. Send some emails to it from your own isp, from other relatively-spam-free accounts. Then send *one* email to it from a hotmail account. You then find you will be inundated with penis enlarging spams, university diplomas for free, and viagra.

The system doesn't work both ways. Anyone emailing TO you is giving out your email address to the companies handling those addresses, and they are NOT covered by opt-in, opt-out or opt-anything laws.

Re:So what we can do

Here [answeringservice.org] is a link to a California only answering service. For $9.90 per month, you get a four minute message and the ability to record as many messages (up to four minutes each) that you like. Couple this with a Pay As You Go phone card and the payphone down the block and you have a low cost alternative to anyones monopoly.

Rights? What about....

Yeah they have rights as a corporation, but what about my rights as a US citizen?

Re:Rights? What about....

In Washington state, where you're probably buying cellular, there's lots of choice.

In any state where you must be a verizon customer to get local service, there is no "right to choose a different phone company". As far as it goes, all the phone companies are doing this same crap, so there's no choice among business practices there either, realy.

And as for opt out...don't even get me started. I don't have enough time in my life to read every "privacy statement" from every company I do business with that proceeds to tell me "we're going to sell you out to the world because we know you want us to, unless you call our magical 800 number". If I got so much "benefit" from them reselling my information, I'd gladly opt in. The only reason for the opt out strategy is that they know that there is no real benefit to anyone but them, and they hope that making it a hassle to opt out means enough people won't that they'll still make their money.

Re:Rights? What about....

You have the right to choose a different phone company.

What makes you say that?

Re:Rights? What about....

This is interesting to Canadians too, believe it or not.

Rumor has it that Verizon has a huge chunk of Telus (the dominant telco in western Canada) shares, something in the 40% range. If Verizon can complete their little shopping spree at some point and take over, maybe their evil ways will seep north of the border.

The current US government doesn't have the strongest track record in regards to privacy. Lets hope that they truly only care about national security and finding terrorists and prefer to protect privacy in all other cases... and that view is shared by the judicial branch.

schweet

Only if they will sell the data to telemarketers. And then sell me telemarketing blocking services. Then sell the telemarketers blocking work arounds. That would be cool. Oh wait, they already do that!

Re:schweet

Can you track me now? Good!

YOu know what would be fun?

TO start following some of these yahoos around with a camera, and report their every move. See how they like it.
1:00 had lunch
2:15 in bathroom for 15 minutes.
2:30 goofed off
3:00 met girlfrined for lunch
4:15 called wife to say he was going to be late.
4:45 left office
6:00 went to girlfreind, see attached picture with her street address and bra size.
6:15- 8:35 freaky circus sex, see film from clandestine video hidden in tree.

Re:Free Speech?

but if the US had data protection laws like the EU...

As a libertarian myself, I feel the need to forestall an argument that some of my fellow libertarians might make: that such laws cannot be justly applied to the telecommunications market; that they are an improper restraint on legitimate trade, or free speech; etc. The fact of the matter is that the telecoms system as we know it is a construct of government regulation. Its "privatized" structure is merely a corporatized extension of national governments, like the old colonial "Companies" (think "British East India Company", etc.) which enriches investors whilst furthering government policy.

Free-market telecommunications have been systematically denied any chance to establish themselves. Most Americans believe that AT&T was a monopoly created by the market and dismantled by the government, for instance, but this is far from the case. The Cato report "Unnatural Monopoly" [cato.org] details the United States Federal Government's actions in creating the AT&T telephone monopoly, for various political and nonmarket purposes. In doing so, members of Congress went so far as to characterize market competition as "duplicative, destructive, and wasteful." (Many European nations did not even bother to allow private telecommunications systems, building them as government monopolies. In some cases, these were later "privatized" in such a way as to preserve the majority of their monopoly positions, while making money for rich investors. This is not a free market; it is state-capitalism.)

Much the same applies to radio, of course: the FCC and its ilk created an artificial scarcity [capmag.com] of the radio spectrum, parceling out freedom of speech via radio as if photons were the government's own creation. Those who choose to speak without a government license to do so, it criminalizes as "pirates" [mediafilter.org]. Radio equipment is inexpensive and not difficult to maintain; it is radio licensing that reserves the medium as a playground for large corporations. Moreover, when the government has the power to license speech, it has the power to censor, say the courts: hence the countless "words you can't say on television" though you may speak them freely in a meeting-hall.

(Too US-centric for you? Here, try Panama [slashdot.org], where the telecoms monopoly is using government threats to force ISPs to block competition in the form of voice-over-IP services.)

The telecommunications industry is not a free market; and its constructs are not private enterprises, no matter how many investors they may enrich (or bankrupt). They were created and empowered by regulation. Their markets are patrolled by censorship. They are firms granted the power to tax; government agencies granted stock-market symbols and an oligopolic pretense at competition. As such, they are no more entitled to sell data about their taxpayers (aka "customers") than is, say, the Internal Revenue Service.

riddle me this

"We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"

Question for the NAL's here: Does a corporation have "rights" at all? Real question. I would like to know.

Re:riddle me this

Question for the NAL's here: Does a corporation have "rights" at all? Real question. I would like to know.

According to the Supreme Court ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, they have the same rights as individuals.

This is when the U.S. began its slide from a representative republic towards a corporate plutocracy.

Re:riddle me this

Well, actually that case only applied the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to corporations.

The completely odd thing is that corporations are undisputably property, which means that if they have the full rights given to a "person" under the Constitution, then corporations are an illegal form of slavery.

I also wonder if corporate personhood could be used to declare tax laws illegal. There is clearly a discrimination between people and corporations. Does this violate the equal protection clause?

You're asking the wrong question!

You're asking the wrong question.

The issue is not whether "corporations have rights"; as a matter of law they do. That's pretty clear.

Here are the correct questions to ask in this case:

• Does commercial speech enjoy the same level of First Amendment protection that applies to other forms of speech, such as political speech?
• Does Verizon's intended use of its consumers' private data constitute an example of commercial speech, or political speech?

The answer to the first question is no. Commercial speech does not enjoy the same status as other forms of speech. Hence we have legislative restrictions on it. TV spots for pharmaceutical drugs have to mention the diarrhea, vomiting, rash, etc. Joe Camel cannot appear prominently in childrens' magazines, nor can any cigarette advertising appear on TV anymore. Newspaper advertisements designed to look like genuine articles have to prominently display the word "ADVERTISEMENT". Anti-spam legislation is beginning to appear in a few states. Nobody (successfully) raises First Amendment challenges to any of these laws because the question was settled long ago in case law. If it's commercial speech, then the First Amendment issues are a moot point.

And the answer to the second question should be obvious to anyone, unless they're being paid by Verizon to pretend they're too stupid to recognize that this is an example of commercial speech.

Regulated Monopolies are a Special case

First of all, corporations are a creation of the state, so they only have the rights the state gives them when it charters them -- if people don't like the set of rights and privileges that corporate structure gives them, they don't have to incorporate, but operate under different structures, such as partnerships. (You'll notice that most law firms and many accounting firms aren't corporations - they're partnerships of various sorts.)

Regulated monopolies are a very special type of corporation - they've convinced the state to forbid other companies to compete with them, and to give them lots of other special status, in return for regulation to limit their activities in ways that ostensibly protect the public from abuse of the monopoly. Restrictions on their use of customer data are a reasonable and highly appropriate restriction, and if Verizon doesn't like it, they can see if they can get the state to let them out of the regulations in return for giving up their monopoly status - fat chance they'll go for that. Or they can threaten to sell their phone company monopoly territory to other people.

I've spent most of my career working for various parts of The Phone Company (not Verizon...), and my view is that the whole "natural monopoly" theory that was invented to justify granting regulated monopoly status was a total crock, and that Theodore Vail, the robber baron who got the Bell System into its dominant monopoly status, could have done better things with his life and his company, and the US (and indirectly, the rest of the world), would have been able to do much more technical innovation if the phone companies and radio broadcasting quasi-monopolies hadn't been done. Needless to say, this is not my employer's official opinion, except for the approximately one three-millionth of them that I own :-)

It's garbage like this...

... that makes me stay in my apartment and read. You can't go anywhere, buy anything, talk to anyone, read anything (oh crap, nevermind), or watch anything without someone using it to fuel marketing.

Welcome to the information age. The question is no longer whether you are being served, but to whom.

Let me get this straight..

They'd still be breaking the law, but they're asking to not get in trouble for it. What balls!

What? You didn't read your Phone Contract?

They have the right to view, modify, collect, own, trade, sell, transfer, move, and classify every piece of data they can collect.

By using their service you negate your privacy rights.

The fact that the federal court is forcing them not to is a legal argument within it's own rights.

Thank God here in Canada we're using Bell Canada who cares about our rights.......wait a minute...

Yo Grark
- Canadian Bred with American Buttering

Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract?

They have the right to view, modify, collect, own, trade, sell, transfer, move, and classify every piece of data they can collect.

As others have said in previous topics, just because it's in a contract doesn't make it lawful or enforceable. You most certainly do not negate your privacy rights simply by using their service. Do you really think that my phone service provider could record my phone conversations and distribute them as they please?

Freedom of Information

I can't take sides on this. I know I'll be marked as a troll. But the second we start saying you can't give such and such information out as a law rather than a contract clause, we're impeding the freedom of information. However, I value my privacy as much as most people here (hell, I use PGP with huge keys for my real emails). But Freedom of Information, or privacy. they don't have to be mutually exclusive, but we've got to be careful when we try to restrict others, otherwise it may come back and bite us in the ass.

A new Verizon commerical

Can you hear me now? Good! Now GO TO HELL!

you may believe what you want...

"We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information

This is the same stuff, in more serious package:
Finnish police arrest Sonera telecom executives in privacy investigation [canada.com]

Two high-ranking executives at Sonera Corp., Finland's main telecommunications company, were arrested Friday in an investigation into whether the company violated the privacy of its workers.
The employees are Jari Jaakkola, an executive vice-president, and Henri Harmia, who was in charge of co-ordinating Sonera's $6.2-billion merger with the Swedish company Telia. Both have been suspended from the company. The charges of violating Finland's data-security laws come just weeks after police began holding three other Sonera employees who worked with corporate security. Police are investigating whether Sonera monitored the call records of its own employees in 2000 and 2001.

Bell...

Verizon is an offspring of Bell telephone, broken up under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bell was broken up for being a monopoly and unfairly influencing the market to drive up prices without improving service. If Verizon is trying to sell personal data, and people still don't have any real choices in phone companies, then the breakup of Bell was unsuccessful, and the hazardous monopoly still exists between Verizon, SBC, Qwest, and Bell South, all of which are virtual regional monopolies and compaines formed from the breakup of Bell Telephone.
More Information can be found at Voices For Choices [voicesforchoices.com]

Yea, and that opt-out is a scam too.

At the best, they'll do like most companies and say that you have to "opt-out" every year to keep your information from being sold.

Think about it though. Even if you're sitting at your computer at the right time logged in and ready to click the button at the exact second you have to opt-out, they could a nano-second before you click zip your personal information to a third party.

Not to mention if they say, "Well, we'll send you a letter first to say you have the option to opt-out, but you'll be optted-in as soon as you recieve the letter giving them several days to pass your information along for money." Why else would they have us opt-out instead of in?Seriously, you can answer that question. I'm an openminded person.

We live in an IT dominated world now.

Information is $$$$$

Seems like a simple solution

Just as I did with MCI today, leave them and vote with you $$'s. MCI raised rates to attempt to recover some of the billions lost due to the WorldCom fiasco. Well and good for MCI it is their right to do so, but it is also my right as a consumer to choose not to be a victim. Tell Verizon how you feel in the ONLY manner which has ANY effect, with your $$'s. When you transfer make sure to tell them it is in direct response to their decision to attempt to market personal information without regard to my desires. I am kind of curious how a large corporation would view this item, anyone in the telecom area of a fortune 500 company out there ????

Re:Seems like a simple solution

No problem, I will:

A) Give up my number that all my clients, partners, friends, and family have.

B) Switch to another large corporation that is also looking to profit more and will probably be following Verizon's act.

This, my friend, is why we have regulation. Because really, in many cases, we don't have much of a choice.

The New Rules

Under new Washington rules, telephone companies:

• may not use "call-detail," such as when, where, to whom, or how often calls are made, to sell services unless customers give express permission
  
• may not share call-detail information with other companies without permission
  
• must allow customers to "opt out" -- take their names and numbers off lists the company shares with other companies
  
• must make it easy for customers to opt out, using e-mail, a toll-free number or postage-paid return card
  

Jeez! This is not some extreme set of rules - this is barely within what I'd call reasonable rights for the consumers. They can't share call details without permission? They have to let people opt out? Come on now, the details of who you call is private information. By what right does Verizon or any company get to share this very personal information without permission? And on top of that they're fighting to keep people from being able to opt out? In my mind, this sort of thing should be purely opt in - and I mean really opt in - not the type where the option is already selected for you unless you find it and deselect it.

OK, OK, I'm ranting. This kind of shit pisses me off. Sorry about that.

Re:Sick of this crap

"Organize, resist, refuse! I paid $14 the other day for an item at Safeway that would have cost me $5 if they could have tracked it. Hopefully, I'll be able to continue to afford the fight."

OK, I agree with your thought - You seem to be using the "refuse" method in this case - I prefer "organize." What I do, and I invite you and all others reading this to join in - is share a card. I started one of those "club cards" with Safeway about a year ago and have since shared it with as many people as possible.

To my knowledge there are probably 12 or so households using this card, and probably more since many of my firends who use it also encourage others to share it. The wya I see it, this eliminates the tracking element of the card while avoiding the punishment of higher prices for not using the card.

So, I invite you and any other Slashdotters who shop at Safeway to use my card. Obviously they aren't going to give us enough copies of the same card to each carry one, so you need to enter it by phone number. The number I use is: 510-843-7226
It's easily remembered since it spells out 510 THE SCAM.

This is not my phone number, last I checked it was an unused number, but either way, I'd appreciate it if the current owners of the number didn't receive any silly prank phone calls as a result of this posting.

Thanks,

Russ

Opt-out

I recently got a letter from Verizon telling me to call them to opt out if you didn't want them to make sales pitches to you. I called, and at the end of the call, he tried to sell me additional services (to help me avoid unwanted sales pitches).

Somehow, I only swear on the phone when I call Verizon...

I just want to put this on the record

About a month ago, I switched from DSL to Cable, got a cell phone (cheaper than landline, long distance included), ...

AND DROPPED VERIZON FROM MY LIFE!

Yes folks, I excercised my power as a consumer, and I'm happy about that.

Why is it never the other way around?

Why is it the phone company never sends out a mass-mailing saying "Hey, everyone! We've got a great new way to give you targetted service that you'll really love! Just tell us it's OK for us to give your number to some select companies, and you'll receive lots of interesting offers!"

I know you think I'm kidding, but I'm serious. Why is it always "tell us if you *don't* want us to do this, not "tell us if you want this". By that logic, I should be able to shoot in the head anyone who does not "opt-out" of me shooting them in the head.

This sounds suspiciously like "We have a constitutional right to make money." I don't know about you, but that argument always scares me more than angers me, because so many people believe it to be true.

-----
This brought to you by the government that remembered to give them a payraise that triples the average national income, but forgot to ensure that 1 MILLION people didn't starve over christmas because their unemployment benefits ran out. Thanks, Uncle George!

Is this the same Verizon...

Is this the same Verizon that's fighting for the privacy rights of its DSL users? [slashdot.org]

I swear, modern corporations have some kind of severe split-personality disorder.

Government good...corporations baaad...

Okay, here's what I don't get. The new Homeland Security Bill just passed, which authorizes the government to construct a huge database that contains not just info about your calling patterns, but also about what websites you view, what books you read, everything you buy with your credit card, etc etc etc. Now, Verizon wants to use info about your calling patterns so they can offer you long distance savings, and you guys are reaching for your pitchforks. The government wants to use this info to decide whether or not to kick your door down, haul you off to an undiscolsed location, declare you an "enemy combatant" and thereby deny you any due process rights, like Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber." Hey, no big deal, don't get excited about that, now. We got bigger fish to fry, right? Damn telemarketers.

Re:Stop the insanity....

Something inside of me wants to start killing the people responsible for the way things are getting, but I don't know who to blame and I don't know what would help. All I know is that something needs to be done before it gets much worse and I...

I don't even know. Somewhere along the line the American Dream became the American Nightamre. Growing up, I used to hope I'd be able to live better than my parents; these days I just hope I'll be able to pay back my student loans. Yet still, at every corner somebody is trying to sell me something and somebody else is making money by telling them about my cock size so that they know how to actually get me to buy it.

My ancestors came here looking for streets of gold & rivers of cream; a chance at a fresh start; the land of Golden Opportunity. I look arround me and I see the land of greed, where I'm stuck paying for the mistakes of those that came before me, of living my life so that Corporations can thrive.

At least the French knew who to execute when they had their revolution.

Public vs private privacy

I find it odd that when we have cameras in the streets in England all the US peeps here start ranting on about privacy yet with this case they are all saying "so what?". I cannot see what the issue is with privacy in a public place. It seems contradictory to me to see a public place as a privacy issue. Yet when someone wants to release private details everyone is saying "so what?".

I would be seriously pissed if they sold my details and would take any company that sold my details without my "given" permission to court. I have private privacy and would fight to keep it yet I cannot see that such a thing as public privacy exists.

USPS /FedEx?

Hopefully this will not give USPS any ideas! They could get an almost perfect profile on you if they wanted. What about FedEx? They would know who bought what kind of stuff on the Internet and would be able to put together a superbly targeted direct mailing list for almost any business. The problem with FedEx is that the "stuff" is readily available in machine readable form.

Balance of Rights

Ok, so let's say that Verizon does arguably have some sort of "right" to use personal information of their customers.

Let's also say that consumers certainly have the right to not allow some other entity to use their personal data.

Let's say that those rights are equal in the eye of the law.

Let's say that the weight of the rights of the entity 'Verizon' is equal to the number of people that make up that entity (all Verizon employees and shareholders).

Let's say that the weight of the rights of the Verizon customer base is equal to the number of those customers

Now, put one group on each side of a balance scale.

Two questions:
Who would have more weight?
Who should have more weight?

Using my likeness...

Just a thought, but why can't this thing be legally stopped on the basis of Verizon (or my bank, mortage company, credit card issuer, etc) using my likeness without my permission? They're effectively selling my life story (cheaply, to be sure), and selling a statistical picture of me. I'm certainly not a public figure, so if someone took a picture of me in a non-public place (eg. my home), they couldn't sell it without my permission. So how feasible would it be to apply the same restrictions to my life's story and statistical profile? Any lawyers lurking?

I Wonder...

how most of you would react if it was anonymous tracking with no way to connect you specifically to the account. Say, for example, they tracked that a particular client made 3 calls in a day: one from a pizza parlour, one from a gas station, and one from a dry cleaners, but did not keep any information about that client except the age and gender. I don't think I would mind that at all, to be honest, and I would probably allow them to associate my age and gender with the information. I can't be tracked by it. I mean, do you have any idea how many 21 year old males there are in my city alone? And I'm not even in that big a city, only having 760,000 inhabitants.

It's actually within the company's rights to sell that information, because all they're tracking is what hardware was used to connect to their networks, and where the connection was made. It's their information to sell. The point that most of you are concerned about, I think, is not that they're tracking where the hardware was used, but that they have the potential to track who belongs to that hardware.

From the article.... "We completely concede that customers' privacy must be protected," They also say that Verizon ... does not share call-detail outside its companies and needs to monitor calling habits to offer customers better deals on phone service. While I don't know if it's a particularly trustworthy source, it seems to me that they're on the level, since it would be counterproductive for them to sell information about your calling habits to the competition....


I'd still insist on anonymity, but I don't think I would object to my phone company tracking my calling habits if it meant that I could save 5 bucks a month on my phone bill.

NY Bell tried this already

Before Verizon acquired them, about four years ago NY Bell announced in their bill that they would be sharing customer phone listings with direct marketers. Imagine that, the entire phone book listing handed over to the telemarketers in digital readout form. There was an immediate outcry and this plan was withdrawn. Now there are new owners and they're about to repeat the same error.

If you want to get results:

Phone your Verizon rep and voice your opposition to their appeal to the federal court

Tell them you do not want your personal information given to direct marketers

Tell them you do not want your personal information used to receive products and services courtesy of Verizon.

If they do business in your state, they are obligated to state business laws.

Enough!

My Verizon Story

I was with Verizon for a few months. Midway through my service contract they suddenly, without warning, changed my plan on me. Mysteriously my "Nationwide Roaming" suddenly changed to "Roaming in California Only." Mysteriously my roaming charges, and charges for going over the monthly limit of minutes went from .15 and .10 respectively to something like .88 and .55 cents respectively. Mysteriously my 1000 mobile to mobile minutes with other Verizon customers seemed to go away.

After I discovered what happened (after I recieved an exorbidant phone bill one month that I travelled outside of California extensively), I checked my service agreement that I signed.

First of all, I had no barganing power on that service contract. Cell phone companies can put whatever they want there, and you have to sign it if you want a cell phone. Every company has a similar agreement. Even so, Verizon STILL seemed to break their contract with me.

Interestingly enough, it said that Verizon had to give me notice if they planned on altering the contract. They gave me no notice whatsoever.
I opened every single piece of mail they sent to me, and never once did I recieve such notice.

I couldn't get a straight answer from Verizon WHY my plan was changed on me, except that the plan I signed up for no longer existed. I wasn't sure exactly what plan I had been placed on, either, even from reading my bills and looking over every single one of their plans. On more than one occasion I was hung up on by Verizon's service representatives.

I cancelled my service and was billed $200 for early termination, even though my service agreement said I'd be billed $150. (Despite that fact, paying through the end of my contract would have still cost me more).

Instead of paying, I followed the proper instructions and immediately reported and challenged the high bills as well as the early termination fee to the Public Utilities Commission. I sent the entire contested amount to the Commission, as instructed, so that Verizon would be paid if they declined my request.

I properly informed Verizon that I was doing such as instructed so that I would not be considered late with my payments.

Along with the contested fees, I sent the Commission a copy of my service contract and a full explanation of why I believed Verizon broke its part of the service contract by not properly informing me that they were altering my service, and that I should not be subject to any early termination fees because they essentially breached their contract.

In the end the Public Utilities Commission declined my request. It took about a month.
The kicker is that even though Verizon was payed by the Commission, they charged me LATE FEES since it came to them a month later due to the whole ordeal.

I've checked a few web sites and other people's stories, and apparently similar things have happened to other Verizon customers, while it is rare. Many more complaints were made about their DSL service and landline telephone service on the east coast, however.

In one case Verizon overbilled a business DSL customer. Verizon dragged their feet for several months, and did not return the $700 or so they owed him.

If a customer owed $700 dollars to Verizon and then didn't pay for a few months, Verizon would no doubt have collection agencies on their ass.

My experiences and things conveyed to me by others who have been screwed by Verizon have convinced me that...

1) Verizion is comprised of bloodsuckers who use their service contracts as a right to screw anyone as they see fit.

2) Verizon's customer service representatives are either highly incompetent, don't care, or are ordered to seem that way. It can be tough to get information from them.

3) Appealing to the proper government authorities rarely does anything. I don't know why. Perhaps they view people who complain as being "slackers who don't want to pay their bills." Perhaps they are just too bogged down that they don't even read complaints. Perhaps they don't do anything since public officials recieve brib^H^H^H^H contributions from companies like Verizon.

Be Proactive

I think we can all agree that this is both illegal and immoral, but what can we do about it? You have two options.

1. Cancel your Verizon cell phone service (and landline if you can) and switch to a more expensive carrier (chances are that you are using Verizon because it is cheapest, if you have a choice, that is).
2. Write to your local politician.

Which would you say is a more effective method? Those of you who guessed the second are correct. When you cancel, one of three things will happen. The first is that you will get an automated box. The second is that a person will handle your cancellation. The third is that a person will handle your cancellation and ask you why you cancelled. If it was because the invasion of privacy, do you think they care? No. They will only record it if it were something out of their control (moving, etc.).

So, why is going to your local politician a better option? The answer is that they can do something about it. You cannot (or, if you can, it's only a small fraction of what they can do) change these things. They can. They can enact laws, they can petition for laws revoked, they can influence people that are higher up. Hell, maybe one day they will become FCC Chairman and your little phone call with influence them!

The moral of the story is that you need to do something about it. Don't cancel your service, do something more proactive. Write your local politician. Contribute to the EFF [eff.org], actually vote for someone who cares and will change things, there might even be a referendum relating to this that you can directly vote for/against. Do something.

Corporate Rights?

There is some small movement in the US to take away Constitutional rights from corporations. This is a bad idea in many ways, but it looks better and better every day with this kind of news. As recent discussions of the right of the government to monitor clickstream data without a warrant show, there is not always such a clear separation of content from addressing information for our modern data streams.

For example, if they can monitor whom I call, then it would be legal for them to call me back and ask me to repeat my pizza order because they fouled it up, then dispatch a pizza to my house to beat the pizza delivery service that I called. Same for plumbers, ambulances, electricians, any kind of home delivery or repair, flowers sent by 800 number to relatives across the country, etc. What fun!

Talk to the Right People.

Everyone talks about the companies, but not the people who RUN the company.

Maybe you heard of a scum bag over at the RIAA, Hillary Rosen?

Look who runs Verizon.

James R. Barker, Chairman of Interlake Steamship Co. and Vice Chairman of Mormac Marine Group, Inc. and Moran Towing Corporation. Director of The Pittston Company. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1976-2000); Chairperson of Public Policy Committee and member of Audit and Finance Committee. Age 66.

Edward H. Budd, Retired Chairman, Travelers Corporation. Director of Delta Airlines, Inc. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1985-2000); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Corporate Governance Committee. Age 68.

Richard L. Carrion, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Popular, Inc. (bank holding company) and Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. Director of Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc; Wyeth. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1995-1997); member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 49.

Robert F. Daniell, Retired Chairman, United Technologies Corporation; Chairman (1987-1997). Director of Shell Oil Company. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1996-2000); member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 68.

Helene L. Kaplan, Of Counsel, law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Director of Exxon Mobil Corporation; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; The May Department Stores Company; Metropolitan Life, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1990-1997); Chairperson of Corporate Governance Committee and member of Audit and Finance Committee. Age 68.

Charles R. Lee, Chairman of the Board since April 1, 2002. Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer (June 2000 - March 2002). Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, GTE Corporation (1992-2000). Director of Marathon Oil Corporation; The Procter & Gamble Company; United States Steel Corporation; United Technologies Corporation. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1989- 2000). Age 62.

Sandra O. Moose, Senior Vice President and Director of The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. Director of Rohm and Haas Company; CDC-IXIS Funds. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1978-2000); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Corporate Governance Committee. Age 60.

Joseph Neubauer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ARAMARK Corporation (managed services); President (1983-1997). Director of CIGNA Corporation; Federated Department Stores; First Union Corporation. Director since 1995; member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 60.

Thomas H. O'Brien, Retired Chairman, The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Director of BlackRock, Inc.; Hilb, Rogal and Hamilton Company; USAirways. Director since 1987; Chairperson of Audit and Finance Committee and member of Public Policy Committee. Age 65.

Russell E. Palmer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Palmer Group (corporate investment firm). Director of Honeywell International Inc.; The May Department Stores Company; Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1984-2000); Chairperson of Human Resources Committee and member of Corporate Governance Committee. Age 67.

Hugh B. Price, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Urban League. Director of Metropolitan Life, Inc. and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Sears, Roebuck and Co. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1995-1997); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Corporate Governance Committee. Age 60.

Ivan G. Seidenberg, President and Chief Executive Officer since April 1, 2002. President and Co-Chief Executive Officer (June 2000 - March 2002). Chairman of the Board (December 1998-June 2000) and Chief Executive Officer (June 1998-June 2000); Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer (1997-1998); Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NYNEX Corporation (1995-1997). Director of Boston Properties, Inc.; CVS Corporation; Honeywell International Inc.; Viacom, Inc.; Wyeth. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1991-1997). Age 55.

Walter V. Shipley, Retired Chairman, The Chase Manhattan Corporation; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (1983-1992; 1994-1999). Director of Exxon Mobil Corporation; Wyeth. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1983-1997); member of Corporate Governance Committee and Human Resources Committee. Age 66.

John W. Snow, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, CSX Corporation (global freight). Director of Circuit City Stores, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; United States Steel Corporation. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1998-2000); member of Human Resources Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 62.

John R. Stafford, Chairman, Wyeth (pharmaceutical and healthcare products). Honeywell International Inc.; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Director since 1997 (Director of NYNEX Corporation 1989-1997); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 64.

Robert D. Storey, Partner, law firm of Thompson, Hine & Flory LLP. Director of The Procter & Gamble Company. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1985-2000); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 65.

Free speech my ass.

Verizon arguement about selling people's personal info as free speech is bullshit. Consider the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. The courts have ruled that free speech is not protected under these circumstances because there is a direct threat to public safety. In this case, the public's right to a safe environment to precedence over the individual's right to free speech. This is no surprise considering that the speech in question was aimed at causing a riot. Now consider Verizon's idea of selling your personal information. Does selling a 3rd parties' private information without consent constitute free speech or does it violate the person's right to privacy? Well, first we need to decide if call records are really speech or is it just data. Is raw data eligable for free speech? Secondly, if it is speech, then we're faced with a case of two rights in conflict with other -- the right of free speech vs. the right to privacy.

Let's look at the first question: Is data free speech? I would say no. Free speech has almost always been equated with the right of human expression, whether it be expressing an opinion or viewpoint thru actual speech, writings, music, art, dance, clothing, whatever. Call data doesn't fit this description at all. So to say this data constitutes speech is inconsistant with the ideals of human expression both in spirit and function.

The second question is less clear: who's rights take precedence? I would argue that this point is moot given that I don't believe call data is free speech. But let's say that it is in some sort of perverse way. Since it's been established that rights can have limits when they risk injury, I would conclude that the right to speech must yield to a person's right to privacy in this case. This has already come up in the courts regarding candid cameras. While it's perfectly legal to use a candid camera, it's not ok to use it to single out individuals by name for public ridicule. Selling personal phone information opens the door to such ridicule. Consider if you made a call to a medical clinic for reasons that you'd rather not be made public. Would you really want that info sold and made publicly available to every sleezy telemarketer?

I really hope that Verizon loses on this. Corporations are out of control in this country. They seem to have lost all respect for the public in general and it's getting worse.

BTW: You can thank that moron Duhbya for the FCC rule change that's allowing this to happen.

Here's an idea

I think that I will start harvesting every last bit of information that I can about any employee or business partner of any company that behaves in this manner, and then proceed to make THEIR information available free. I'm saying post entire lists with every available name, phone number, email address and even their personal information if I come across it, all over the internet in thousands of locations, and actually call telemarketing firms and provide the lists to every telemarketer firm that I can get my hands on. That way they can't get any business done, since they will be recieving literally thousands of unsolicited contacts per day. See how they like it for a change, and also send a polite (anonymous) email to everyone on your list, explaining exactly why they are recieving all of these contacts all of a sudden, and urge them to stop selling customer's information before more *drastic* measures have to be taken. If they can sell my information, is there any reason that I should give their's away free?

Re:Washington, D.C., not Washington state

That's interesting, since we just bought a cell phone and 1-year contract from them. No wonder our coverage sucks.

(posting from Poulsbo, WA)

Re:Businesses *should* have the right.

I don't have the time to check out every possible scenerio available with every company out there. It's their job to take the data they have and then present me with their best offers.

If you don't want to spend time shopping for the best deal, then go ahead and opt in--no one wants to take that away from you.

For myself, I will shop when I want a service, and would prefer to be left alone until such time. No calls. No mail. No e-mail. Definitely no visits.

Re:Businesses *should* have the right.

And that's fine. But they want to sell your calling habits to other companies.

Are you ok with that?

qz

Re:Businesses *should* have the right.

However, the watriess sould not be allowed to stick her finger down your throat to make room "in case you want dessert"

Re:Businesses *should* have the right.

bmetzler wrote: It's their information to use to server *you* better. It belongs to them because you are their customer, and it is irresponsible for then to not use it in order to serve you better.

hmm.... Funny, I should ask my lawyer, priest, doctor to start pitching around my information to serve me better with crap I don't ask for. That would be responsible of them. No, business want to make money, this has nothing to do with serving anybody better. They only want to serve themselve at your cost.

In the same way Verizon should be able to use sales records, and other data to create new services and products and offer them to me. Perhaps I make a lot of long distance calls, but only in the evening after 9pm. Then they should call up and offer me a plan that takes advantage of that. Or maybe I make a lot of long distance calls during the day, and they have a flat-rate plan that gives me 500 minutes of long distance a month. They should call and offer me that.

No, they are going to sell it, not offer you better service plans. The only time they'll offer you a cheaper service plan is when you are with a competitor, not with them. There's no incentive to make you pay less money to them if they already have you. Case in point, call a credit card company and threaten to drop them, if you are a decent customer suddenly they'll offer you a better interest rate than you had before. They don't go out of their way for this type of thing, by themselves.

I don't have the time to check out every possible scenario available with every company out there. It's their job to take the data they have and then present me with their best offers.

That's your fault, but Ignorance is bliss. I pity you, if you believe this. You are an ignorant fool consumer that believes that the company will provide you with an unbiased picture of their and the competitors. If this was the case, I'd still be using IE with ten million pop-ups, instead of Mozilla. My business would be on Microbloat Windoze upgrade treadmill, along with hardware upgrades every two years, instead of that "user unfriendly, hard to learn, non-compatible" linux. And I would be buying the Windows Office suite, whose CD costs more than it's weight in gold instead of using the "only 99.5% perfect" Open Office.

Maybe I'll say no. In fact, I usually do say no. But at least I know that it is available. It isn't just phone companies either. Basically every company that does business should feel obligated to collect the information available to them and use it to serve the customer better

I don't want to have to say no, infact I don't want to have to say anything at all, leave me alone, I want to be the one starting the business transaction. Leave me alone, unless there is something wrong with my account. Don't deluge me and waste my time with crappy offers. Don't send me junkmail, unless your willing to pay my entire trash pick-up bill. Don't call me, unless you want to pay for a $120 an hour consulting fee. Don't serve me better, serve me what I ask for.