Verizon Sues to Stop Privacy Rules; Wants to Sell Call Data 502
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.
but daddy... (Score:2, Funny)
Can't I PUH-LEASE Daddy
Re:but daddy... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
not just hotmail (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a university account which, for 4 years has never received spam - mainly because only 5 or so people have the address (family, a couple of friends and girlfriend). For everything and everyone else I use a couple of free webmail accounts.
This summer my girlfriend was in europe, and set up an excite account so she could email friends while on vacation. Very shortly after getting email from her I started getting tons of spam, many with excite as a return address. I forwarded them to abuse and postmaster@excite and they bounced - mailbox full.
Finally I had to set up a server side filter that filters out anything from excite.com, but I still get several spams per day from other sources. There is no doubt in my mind that excite harvested my email address from the to field and sold it to spammers.
Rights? What about.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:2)
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for how much it cost them to run the line, it didn't cost them shit, because all that was paid for years ago by the Bells, and in no small part with federal money.
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:5, Funny)
What makes you say that?
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Those frequencies are public resources, same as National parks or interstate highways, and their use by companies like Verizon should be subject to regulation/legislation for the public's best interest. If we want to tell them they have to hop on one leg and squawk like a raven to have rights to the frequencies, we should be able to do that.
Re:How are they "your" frequences? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people don't realize that prior to the New Deal, the Court just about never ruled in favor of individual rights other than property rights and freedom for the wealthy and powerful to be unoppressed. Nowadays with the Court swinging back to that old way of thinking and with wealth and power more concentrated than ever, there could be big changes coming for America.
Re:Rights? What about.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's probably more "fortunate" than "unfortunate."
What an 18th century revolutionary politician might have considered important enough to itemize as a list of rights, perhaps even implying excluding anything not on the list is not a right, might not compare to what we find important today.
I think it's quite fortunate that the founders saw fit to spell out one of the most revolutionary concepts ever brought forth in government: That people have all rights, except those limitations which are specifically imposed.
schweet (Score:5, Funny)
Re:schweet (Score:5, Funny)
YOu know what would be fun? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
You just gave me an idea (Score:3, Funny)
I bet those guys at ECHELON play this game all the time.
ob python: "Blackmail" (Score:3, Funny)
That sounds like the Monty Python sketch called "Blackmail" [graphicszone.net]
But right now, yes everyone is the moment you've all been waiting for; it's time for our 'Stop the Film' spots! As you know, the rules are very simple. We have taken a film which contains compromising scenes and unpleasant details which could wreck a man's career. (gasp) But, the victim may 'phone me at any moment, and stop the film. But remember the money increases as the film goes on, so,.... the longer you leave it, the more you have to pay! Tonight, 'Stop the Film' visits the little Thames-side village of Thames Ditton.
(music--announcer's voice over)
Well, here we go, here we go now, let's see...where's our man. Oh yes, there he is behind the tree now.... Mm, boy, this is fun, this is good fun.... He looks respectable, so we should be in for some real...real shucks here.... A member of the government, could be a brain surgeon, they're the worst.... WHOW! Look at the *size* of that.....briefcase. Aah, yes, he's, he's up to the door, rung the doorbell now.... O-oh, who's the little number with the nightie and the whip, eh? Heh-heh. Doesn't look like his mother....
Free Speech? (Score:2, Insightful)
Free license to make a buck, more like...
I know this comes up after every goddamn
Re:Free Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
Question for the NAL's here: Does a corporation have "rights" at all? Real question. I would like to know.
Re:riddle me this (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Re:riddle me this (Score:5, Interesting)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 :-)
Re:riddle me this (Score:2)
I believe I have the right to pour a vat of LSD into the Washington DC water supply and dance naked around the Washington monument with George W. I believe I have the right to walk into your house, steal your children and raise them as super-soldiers on my secret base in Iceland. I believe I have a right to educate all primary schools children in the proper way to roll a joint, and the principles behind the gravity bong. I can believe whatever the hell I want to believe.
Just don't try claiming that what you believe are your rights are actually your rights, or are even legal.
I also believe that lawyers should all attend compulsory re-education camps, but that's a different story.
Re:riddle me this (Score:2)
In the case of Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the supreme court used the 14th amendment to define corporations as "persons" and ruled that California could not tax corporations differently than individuals. It followed that, as legal "persons," corporations had First Amendment rights as well.
It's garbage like this... (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome to the information age. The question is no longer whether you are being served, but to whom.
Let the techno-illiterate in on why this is bad! (Score:2, Insightful)
Just one man's rant.
Let me get this straight.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? (Score:2)
Yo Grark
Re:Phone Contract? What they need is a EULA!!! (Score:2, Funny)
"Press the * key to acknowledge acceptance of the EULA in operating this phone..."
Bell Canada cares.... (Score:2)
Half the problem is the whole issue of competition. If I make two companies compete, both will look for every way they can to compete and make money, including abusing their customer base data. And of course, if every company does it, there isn't a choice. Until someone demonstrates that people are willing to pay extra $$$ for NOT selling this info, then their will be a financial (and therefore competitive) advantage to doing so.
But are consumers that smart? They talk a mean game but most of us look for the cheapest rates and live with the side effects. Sad.... but true.
Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:What? You didn't read your Phone Contract? (Score:3, Insightful)
Verizon is desperate to get this state law invalidated, otherwise they can't get people to sign away the privacy rights in question because it would nto be legal to do so.
Rights? (Score:2)
Yep, they do have rights. For example, they have the right to remain silent.
Freedom of Information (Score:3, Insightful)
My right (Score:2)
Well, then I have no problem telling Verizon to GET THE FUCK OFF MY PHONE. Then again, I don't have to deal with Verizon, because I think they're a bunch of tools, so I don't do business with them.
Of course, you've got Joe Sixpack who doesn't know why his telemarketing calls are about to increase - oh, well.
Re:My right (Score:2)
imo verizon should be allowed to do this if they disclose that they do to their customers, *and* they only do it to customers that have a practical choice in providers. That way if they don't like it, then they can use someone else who won't sell their usage data.
A new Verizon commerical (Score:5, Funny)
you may believe what you want... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
More Information can be found at Voices For Choices [voicesforchoices.com]
Yea, and that opt-out is a scam too. (Score:3, Offtopic)
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 $$$$$
Re:Yea, and that opt-out is a scam too. (Score:3, Informative)
Because they want to be able to harvest the information from all the people who just don't care one way or the other. If you have to opt out, you're only getting rid of the ones who actively refuse. You get to keep everyone else.
-72
Verizon (Score:2)
I hate telcom companies... they sell your number to telemarketers, sell you caller i.d., and now sell spam blocking services.
Now they want to sell our calling habits?
I guess you can't make a profit just by providing a reasonable service at a reasonable price anymore.
I think I should cancel my Verizon home phone (CT) and only use the cell. Cheaper long distance...
Bastards...
Seems like a simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems like a simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Seems like a simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
One of those regulations is that if you switch local providers, they have to let you keep your #.
Re:Seems like a simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the guy/girl transfering you is probably someone making 7$/hr in some call center who couldn't give a rip about your problems or what the company is doing (or even knows).
Only reason I know this is because I work in one...
The New Rules (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sick of this crap (Score:2, Insightful)
"But this is infringing on our rights of corporate free speech", whines Verizon. Free speech? Possible first amendment violation? Come on, why the hell did we sell this country to the highest bidder? How the heck can a CORPORATION have rights to do anything other than exist for the good of the consumers it serves.
I don't know if I'm going to have the stomach to live in this country in 10 years if things continue to progress in the way that it looks like they are.
All Verizon has to do to get the public behind them is offer a few cents off phone service or something and most sheep will gladly let Verizon target marketing to them based on how often they called their girlfriend.
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.
Tell your friends about this if you live in WA state, write your reps, write your newspaper editor, if it passes, CANCEL your verizon service.
Sadly, it all seems futile, but I'm reminded of a Gandhi quote which I'm going to probably slightly misquote: "Whatever it is that you do will be insignificant, however it is extremely important that you do it."
Re:Sick of this crap (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Rights vs. Right (Score:2, Insightful)
Any company that has plans to survive needs data about their own market. I would fully expect any phone company to maintain data pertaining to call usage and frequency. Important decisions are based on this sort of thing, like "Does our infrastructure for handling Australia calls need upgrading"? However, you only need aggregate data for this sort of thing. As soon as you start invading other people's privacy by profiling and selling data to third-party companies so that they can solicit you, something is going wrong.
My time is much more valuable to me than who provides my services. It's time that all corporations, not just phone companies, started to wise up and see this. I suppose that's just wishful thinking, but if they choose to de-value my time, I choose to de-value their corporation, and they shan't receive any coin from me.
Opt-out (Score:5, Funny)
Somehow, I only swear on the phone when I call Verizon...
I just want to put this on the record (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
I swear, modern corporations have some kind of severe split-personality disorder.
Government good...corporations baaad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop the insanity.... (Score:2)
I got my long distance bill from sprint yesterday. I make very few longdistance calls, and my bill was 78.55 - 62 of which was an 11 minute call to the phillipines which I didnt even make. They charged 5.60/minute for that call. but since I couldnt prove to them that I didnt make the call - all they allowed me to do was take 50% off the call.
First of all no phone call to anywhere should be 5.60 per minute.
I am so tired of telecom companies and all of their billing tactics.
What can be done? do we as a nation of millions and millions just sit around as any semblamce of a financially happy and fair existence erodes around us forever?
Are any of you out there as fed up as I am with the way we are gouged for every "service" out there.
Cable, phone, internet, gas, power - you name it and the price fixing monopolistic ways and the insidious support from plastic politicians is totally out of hand. and it seems that the populous is so numb to it that not only have I lost faith in all business - but I am quickly losing faith in people in general?
OT i know - but i would like to hear some of your opinions - are you experiencing the same thing? are enough people experiencing this so that maybe some momentum towards making a change will start?
Re:Stop the insanity.... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Stop the insanity.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Public vs private privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Public vs private privacy (Score:3, Informative)
Second the issue with public cameras you stated is an issue because we don't want big brother looking over our shoulder everywhere we go.
Don't try to generalize Americans, it never works.
USPS /FedEx? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:USPS /FedEx? (Score:3, Insightful)
They do not need to know what CD's only that you buy CD's and at what frequency. Now what else do you buy? You got stuff from NewEgg, most likely computer equipment and you had a couple of items delivered from TheGap.
Now I am launching a new Designer Multimedia oriented PDA. Would I want you on my direct mail list? You bet.
Do I want the person that monthly gets a package from a pharmaceuticals shop and has twice had something delivered from Wheelchairs-R-Us? Probably not.
Balance of Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Balance of Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Two questions:
Who would have more weight?
Who should have more weight?
First, let me say that I wholeheartedly condemn Verison's blatant power grab here (no surprise hearing that on /., eh?)
I'm a little leery of any argument based on the notion that the majority is always right, and that the majority's rights are the most important. Sometimes it takes the efforts of a very determined minority (and very effective lobbying) to foist good policy on a stubborn majority. Laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, and so forth come to mind. Very unpopular when introduced in certain jurisdictions. Still unpopular in some, still not even in place in others.
Using my likeness... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Using my likeness... (Score:3, Informative)
The government however contradicts this in many cases saying, no, people have a right to privacy and can not be forced to sign it away.
This is why Verizon is suing if I understand it correctly. They want their license agreements to actually be enforcable.
I Wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
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
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.
Re:I Wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
But associating all the other data-bits with all that is just the flip of a switch, say by subpeona? (sp) oh, oops - wrong person. oh - very sorry we forgot to turn that off.
OH - hey mr. homeland security agent. Whats that? you want call tracking info for every client whos name contains the strings "moha" "mad" "al" "ali" - sure no problem. Oh - dont worry I promise i wont tell them that you requested this info...
ya- you know I really dont care if they were to know about my age and gender and what pizza and porn shops I make calls from - what bothers me is giving them the approval to create such a system that can so easily be abused and I would never know about it.
But thats why i refuse to have a cell phone at all.
NY Bell tried this already (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
I think we can all agree that this is both illegal and immoral, but what can we do about it? You have two options.
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Washington, D.C., not Washington state (Score:3, Informative)
(posting from Poulsbo, WA)
Re:Washington, D.C., not Washington state (Score:2)
Re:Washington, D.C., not Washington state (Score:2)
I was very happy with Verizon figting with FBI about its customer privacy. Not happy at all now. Looks like Verizon only value customer privacy until they have a chance to make money from violating it.
RTFA (Score:2)
And it doesn't affect the areas you list, as it is a state law being challenged. Washington state.
If you're going to be arrogant, at least be right.
Re:Washington, D.C., not Washington state (Score:2, Insightful)
*However*, Verizon always has, and will continue to be a East Coast focused company until they can gobble up another Baby Bell.
It costs an average of $1200-$1500 per household to lay down local loop. The lines your DSL service is coming in on, if you use Verizon outside the Verizon home territory, are leased from the Baby Bell in your area because it is too expensive to lay down new infrastructure.
The US is basically down to four (from the original seven after the AT&T divestiture) Baby Bells now: BellSouth, Verizon, SBC and Qwest. Qwest is about to fold.
So, the US getting back into an oligopoly as far at the telco industry is concerned, perhaps even a duopoly.
This is the failure of the Telco Reform Act that you read about in the papers.
923,000 Verizon customers in Washington State (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Phone Taps (Score:5, Funny)
I think all prisons have their phones tapped.
Re:Phone Taps (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Phone Taps (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are going to monitor everyone, then they better well go after everyone for every infraction. Otherwise, it's not equal protection under the law. I realize that's a US law, but I'm sure you folks have something similar.
If every single drug user went to jail, we would have realized that the war on drugs is a horrible detriment to our society a long time ago. These bad laws would have gone away. Uneven application of laws leads to very bad things.
Re:Phone Taps (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what we can do (Score:2, Interesting)
-kaplan
Re:So what we can do (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So what we can do (Score:4, Insightful)
I should have used preview.... (Score:3, Interesting)
They are not 100% perfect, but if/when something happens, they've made it a point to notify customers of what was going on. Without even complaining, I received a $5 refund for a 1 day outage. They also have very good customer reps that answer your email/calls quickly and professionally.
I never liked Verizon from the first time I moved into their service area. Their customer service seemed more wary of me as a new subscriber than happy to do business. I used their automated online system to order service, and they did not activate my phone service the day I requested. I called up to find out why, and they wanted me to pay $250 deposit. $250 deposit for phone service? WTF? That's at least 6 months worth of service. After bitching, they then offered to waive the deposit if I got my old phone company to right a "letter of recommendation" saying that I was a previous customer in good standing. Uhg.. pain in the ass, but worth saving $250.
Re:Businesses *should* have the right. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you ok with that?
qz
Re:Businesses *should* have the right. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Businesses *should* have the right. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.