Slashdot Log In
Verizon Wireless Opt-Out Plan For Customer Records
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Oct 14, 2007 01:49 PM
from the no-just-no dept.
from the no-just-no dept.
An anonymous reader writes to let us know that Verizon Wireless is planning to share its customers' calling records (called CPNI) with "our affiliates, agents and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries." The article explains that CPNI "includes the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls and time spent on each call, among other data." Some subscribers, it's not known if it's all of them, received a letter in the mail giving them 30 days to opt out of this sharing by calling 1-800-333-9956. Skydeck, a mobile and wireless services company, seems to have been the first to call attention to the Verizon initiative on their blog; they also posted a scan of the letter (sideways PDF) from Verizon.
Related Stories
Firehose:Verizon wireless opt-out plan for customer records by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Verizon Wireless Opt-Out Plan For Customer Records
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 216 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
current versus past customers (Score:5, Insightful)
How you could have handled it... (Score:5, Informative)
YOUR ADDRESS HERE
DATE
A/C Number: aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to close my ISSUING COMPANY NAME Visa/Mastercard credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd. I enclose the one/two issued card(s), cut into pieces.
I have sent a check separately to pay the $$$$.cc balance outstanding on the current statement. I agree to pay for any transactions authorized by me that I have missed in my calculations as soon as you advise me of them.
Any further transactions to the credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd are not authorised by me, and I instruct you not to accept any further purchases or other debits to the account.
I also request that you remove me from your direct mail marketing lists and do not share my name, address, telephone, transaction, and other personal details with ISSUING COMPANY NAME's marketing affiliates or other organisations.
Yours faithfully,
YOUR FULL NAME
I got one of those (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.scareduck.com | Last Journal: Monday October 20 2003, @08:22PM)
Pretty painless (Score:5, Informative)
(http://russnelson.com/)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://rob.unend.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 03 2002, @11:17PM)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't called, but I'm gathering from you that they ask you to enter it once? They send a piece of mail (with their logo on it, so you know it's really them) to you asking you to call a number that could be anyone and ask you to enter your social security number? Thanks, Verizon, for making identity theft even easier.
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:4, Insightful)
Curious question (Score:2)
(http://members.cox.net/jmccorm)
They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://cliveholloway.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday February 28 2004, @05:54PM)
Actually. Maybe that would be a good business idea. Buy a PAYG phone and swap SIMS with someone at random. Maybe make it so you mail them on every few months. For the truly paranoid...
Re:They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course the smart-ass response is, do you trust Google more than Verizon?
just another example... (Score:3, Insightful)
This scenario is much like a criminal going to commit a crime no matter what, but he won't if you get his letter in the mail and then take steps and waste your time to tell him not too. Just so many things wrong with this story, but unfortunately not shocking and of course NO ONE will do anything to stop this trend in the country other than bitch and moan.
the Google model (Score:2)
I guess they want to follow the gmail model for advertising, etc.
Unfortunately, while many people have several e-mail accounts, you cannot
switch so easily between different phones. Moreover, gmail is nearly anonymous, while you
cell phone is anything but.
Really? (Score:2)
(http://www.unity08.com/)
Opt-out should be illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to do (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to d (Score:4, Insightful)
The people who consume the goods and services provided by the likes of Verizon have become less important than the companies willing to pay to mine customer databases. There's a lot of money in that, which means quality-of-service levels (and corresponding expenses) can be reduced while maintaining profitability. If that kind of information-sharing were simply illegal, perhaps our communications providers would have to get back to worrying themselves about what their customers want.
Re:Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to d (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.halley.cc/ed/)
This is why I find it important to distinguish from consumer and customer. The customer is always right. The consumer is just a resource. Problem is, we are the consumer. The corporation on the other end of the data-mining business is the customer.
Here's my favorite part: (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is common practice, but I'd still like to believe that this would be a non-binding contract. Especially since there's no mutual consideration. Here's an excerpt from the Michigan Law Review regarding Silence as Acceptance of an Offer:
The Virginia Law Review continues to talk about when silence is binding:
The difference here, though is that Verizon isn't acting to its detriment, they're going to be getting a big fat cheque out of this from a 3rd party. So, once again, it goes back to mutual consideration.
Re:Here's my favorite part: (Score:5, Informative)
(http://spiritraveller.blogspot.com/)
It was just a few years ago that everyone was up in arms about companies sharing our personal information. Congress was pressured to create some regulations to stop it. Instead of going for an "Opt-in Rule" where companies would only be allowed to share or sell your information if you affirmatively acted in telling them it was ok, they passed an "Opt-out Rule."
Under the current scheme, all a company has to do is tell you about it's information sharing policies and give you an opportunity to Opt-out. They don't need a contract. They don't need a meeting of the minds, consideration, offer and acceptance or anything but your silence. If you don't want your information shared, you'll need to get busy and start notifying every company you've ever done business with. You can thank Congress for this.
New Verizon Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
In Case You're Wondering (Score:1, Flamebait)
(http://www.doxpara.com/)
McNealy's law, people. You have no privacy, get over it.
--Dan
Verizon trying to bypass FCC mandate? (Score:5, Informative)
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into effect in December.
The process (Score:1)
(http://www.qcs-rf.com/)
Is the NSA an affiliate? (Score:2)
I'm guessing that the NSA/FBI/CIA/[insert TLA here] will be considered an affiliate?
In other words... (Score:3)
Meaning: In order to increase our revenue and profit margins ...
I guess it could be worse, they could be sharing your data with the NSA. Oh wait...damn.
It wasn't a separate letter (Score:1, Insightful)
Sideways PDF (Score:1)
Why is the default always to 'opt out'? (Score:2)
How I protested this action (Score:3, Interesting)
+1 mod for screwing the big guy.
Am I missing something here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon is not alone though (Score:2)
(http://www.kajmereso...io/journey_in_BB.ram | Last Journal: Tuesday May 18 2004, @10:41PM)
When I signed up for Wall Street Journal print subscription, I used my abbreviated name in the mailing address in case they decide to print it and throw it out in the yard. Surprise surprise, within about 6 weeks, I started getting offers from other print media and magazines such as businessweek and economist with the exact same variation in my mailing address confirming that Wall Street Journal had already sold that data!!
It is sad that you have to opt out (they make it as difficult as possible) instead of opting in. And with acquisition of companies like Doubleclick, it seems that our darling Google is headed the same way!!
How can I know this is the right number? (Score:1)
How about calls I made to Verizon customers? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't even get that info (Score:2)
(http://www.burr.cc/~egburr)
Where is this new FCC rule for Dec 2007 ? (Score:1, Interesting)
Verizon is following rule #1 Opt-Out. Though I find the way they do it unethical.
Several posters have remarked that there is a new rule for Dec 07:
Opt-out list can then go to Homeland Security (Score:1)
Truth (Score:2)
I've got a plan though.
If enough of us forward calls from suspeted telemarketer numbers to suspected terrorists, we may be able to get rid of two turds, err I mean birds, with one stone.
Not working (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 13 2004, @02:58PM)
Opt-out requires info I don't have! (Score:1)
(http://www.cit-r-us.com/)
Strange, Verizon shares anyway. (Score:1)
The only thing that was in my maiden name the last time this happened was the Verizon land line bill. So if it isn't Verizon that is sharing the data, then who else could it possibly be?
I'm glad we ditched them finally, the old prepaid phone we have ended up being cheaper in the long run.
Business Customers will LOVE this (Score:1)
VZW opt-out (Score:1)
(http://tilluma.com/)
Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://tilluma.com/)
Why yes, please hand my info to the FBI... (Score:1)
Re:Time to switch (Score:2)
(http://zulupad.gersic.com/)
Re:Time to switch (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.last.fm/user/schmod)
I was actually on with AT&T Wireless before they were Cingular, and they actually were *very* nice to us. Even once they were Cingular, their customer service was great even though they did sort of alienate their former AT&T customers. A few of the price plans that the old AT&T had right before being absorbed into Cingular were far better then anything Cingular or Verizon have ever offered. If you wanted to modify your plan, however, you had to switch to a Cingular plan which would inevitably cost you more money. There were a few tricks for getting new phones out of the deal as well, although it got a lot harder over time. Still.... you have to give them major props for honoring the plan -- I held onto it for a few years after the merger. You also didn't have to pay for incoming text messages on any plan, something that no other US carrier does to my knowledge (most European countries have legislation which forces the caller to pay for both sides of the conversation, making incoming calls and SMS free)
However, as time went on, Verizon improved its coverage in my area, while there were no improvements in GSM service. Frustrated by not being able to get a signal at home, I switched to Verizon. A year and a half down the road, and I'm fed up to the point where I'm switching back the day my contract runs out. I've been overbilled, had my service disconnected, had my plan changed without my consent, and Verizon gave my old number to somebody else after they "lost" it while porting. And of course, in order to resolve any of this, you either have to call them and wait on hold for hours on end, or visit one of their stores -- which are more and more resembling the DMV these days (I've seen actual fights break out on more than one occasion).
You can keep Euro cellphone billing. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://kadin.sdf-us.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @01:46PM)
It doesn't strike me as illogical. If it cost people more to call cellphones than landlines, the uptake of cellphones would have been a lot slower. I certainly wouldn't be able to use a cellphone as my primary business line, since it would be obnoxious to charge people more (and, hence, discourage them from calling me) because I want the ability to take calls on the road.
The U.S. pricing structure means that text messages are a bad deal (which is why they're little used here compared to in Europe), but it also sped the adoption of cell phones to many people who wouldn't have bought them otherwise, particularly business users, and it prevented people from consciously avoiding making calls to cell phones because of the expense. It puts the expense of owning a cellphone on the person who wants the convenience of being mobile, rather than on the caller.
Re:Time to switch - all telcos suck (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.patch.com/words/)
Re:Time to switch (Score:2)
Re:Time to switch (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 15 2003, @05:16PM)
something else?
Re:Time to switch (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.ferrus.net/)
The government breaking the law and private citizens breaking the law are radically different things. The government is an artificial structure defined by the law - if it breaks that law, then it can no longer be trusted to serve it's intended purpose rather than some unwanted purpose. And when a government is serving unwanted and unintended purposes that's a very bad thing.
Re:Initial versus second reaction (Score:3, Insightful)
A clue ?
Re:Initial versus second reaction (Score:1)
I'm not grasping something here. On your analysis, the government is your enemy, and your only enemy?
Verizon trying to bypass FCC mandate? (Score:4, Informative)
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into affect in December.
Re:Time to switch (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Saturday April 15 2006, @06:21PM)
don't you get it? OP is dropping one telco thats sells your personal data for another that just outright spies on you...
sheesh
Re:Time to switch (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 27, @04:36PM)
Re:Initial versus second reaction (Score:2)
(http://cafepress.com/phototravel?pid=5934485)
Both — the diminishing of privacy and the abundance of misdirected advertising [catalogchoice.org] — are bad, and it is not at all obvious (to me), which is worse.
And the expectation of privacy of cellular calls (it is Verizon Wireless we are talking about) is unfounded. The calls aren't encrypted and, AFAIK, it would not be illegal to build and install devices collecting the dialed numbers and the durations of calls. Eavesdropping on the actual calls may be illegal (although still possible), but not collecting (and selling) the end-points' numbers and call-durations...