FCC Allows Bells to Sell Your Telephone Usage Data 508
Devistater writes "Spotted on hardocp. The FCC said in a ruling yesterday that telephone companies can sell your name, who you call, and for how long you talk to anyone who is an "affiliate." No longer is this required to be an opt in marketing approach, now its OPT OUT. Sounds like spam is coming to the telephone world, and what an egregious breach of privacy. Article on PCWorld has some of the details." There's also a short Reuters story and a good one on ecommercetimes.com.
The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX (Score:2, Interesting)
"Hello, this is Pat Robertson, I am calling to tell you that you're a sinner and condemned to burn in hell because you called 1-900-SPANK-ME and talked for 12 hours. Oh, we're also telling your boss, and reporting it to the credit agencies"
Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX (Score:2, Interesting)
"Hello, Pat Robertson? I am calling to tell you that you're a sinner and a hypocrite condemned to burn in hell because you called 1-900-SPANK-ME and talked for 12 hours. Oh, we're also telling your cul^H^H^Hcongregation, and reporting it to the IRS"
Man, that would be sweet.
Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX (Score:2)
With staying power like that, you'd be worshipped like a god, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also the issue of them knowing the names of people you call now. Think about it - they know your friends names now. Imagine the junkmail they could send. The sort of social engineering we normally only see in E-Mail viruses suddenly becomes much more powerful and much more personal. They can no longer just ape your on-line life to trick you - they can ape your actual real life - you can get a snail-mail from a friend you know saying how your other friend struck it rich doing X. It is, of course a scam - but it grossly increases the maximum IQ to fall for it.
So much for court warrants ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ya gotta admit, it's a neat end run around the laws that restrict government surveillance.
Oh, well, I suppose as a known computer programmer, I'm already on all the lists of suspected terrorists.
Re:So much for court warrants ... (Score:2)
The question at this juncture is: goes the gov't have to pay? Or will they be able to get this information under the guise of "national security"?
Time to dust off that anti-telemarketers script [junkbusters.com]...
Re:So much for court warrants ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine many of the slashdotters (and many techie non-slashdotters) out there work at these Bells and all these other companies engaging in these violations of civil liberties. Wouldn't the first place to initiate change be within the corporate walls? For all of you who work at companies selling information and using technology to facilitate the exchange, why not stand up and refuse to comply with corporate wishes until the issues of civil liberties are brought up and resolved? Of course, that may mean your job, but there are lots of jobs out there and lots of ways to make money without infringing on others privacy.
These "selling of information" activities cannot happen if there aren't people willing to build the technology to let the sales, marketing and boardrooms do whatever they want to make money. With all the news lately about corporate crooks, I'd think eventually the people that work at these companies would realize they do have power to change things. It's a matter of courage.
There's no way we can expect most lawmakers and CEOs to change what's happening (even though they should change it!). They are already protected from civil liberty violations. They have goons working to protect what they do and how they do it. Writing them/counting on them may help but in the end most of them have no idea what's involved with all the new technology and new culture surrounding that technology -- and certainly they won't be able to adjust the laws based on a few angry customers.
I guess the crux of my point is that there are a lot of techies out there enabling these activities. The RIAA must have techies working for them, so do the Bells, and so did Enron, on and on. Why did these techies build this stuff that let this happen? If you are one of the techies at these companies, speak up and tell us your reasoning why you build and maintain solutions that let people so easily violate our civil rights?
Re:So much for court warrants ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your right in some respects, the individual bargaining power era is over, if it ever existed in the first place. However, that wasn't exactly my argument. Instead, I suggested as a TECHNICAL COMMUNITY why do WE continue to PERPETUATE practices we don't agree with? Furthermore, we all understand that paying the bills is sometimes more important than righting the wrongs of corporations, yet our dialogues on Slashdot, in the breakroom, at the bars, and in our living rooms suggest that we care deeply about protecting our civil liberties. If we care so deeply, why do we enable the corporations we work for, build technology for, and buy services from to abuse this technology and our supposedly "down" economy by selling our information?
The "dot com rush is over"/"we're all commidities" is not a good reason to avoid ACTION, it's merely an excuse. And, you're right, techies are a dime a dozen -- well, at least, the ones that hole up and pretend that they are victims and not volunteers.
Re:So much for court warrants ... (Score:2)
Yeah, what's your point? The government can tap your phone now without a warrant. They can follow you to high-school and pay the girl who sits behind you to spy on you. They can even knock down your door in the middle of the night and drag you naked through your front yard without so much as probable cause.
Ya gotta admit, it's a neat end run around the laws that restrict government surveillance.
Why would you think that? They don't do these things because it would be completely pointless for them to do so. If they obtain evidence in any of these ways (including buying it) the evidence is useless in court. Since law enforcement agencies purpose is to put away criminals they would simply be wasting energy collecting evidence they could never hope to use. Judges don't apprechiate "end runs" and have thrown out improperly obtained evidence when the agents collecting it "should have known better." Here's a hint: they have to act in good faith.
It isn't "hard" for LEO to get the info they want given the legal authority to do so (and getting warrants has become somewhat easier) but if you believe that the FBI is really interested in doing serious surveilance on you without a warrant you are seriously deluded.
Re:So much for court warrants ... (Score:3)
What a relief! Next time a J Edgar Hoover type is running the FBI and harassing Americans who are guilty of thinking differently, and I'm all upset, I'll just remember:
HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.
The next time I'm pulled over on suspicion of being black in a white neighborhood, I'll comfort myself with this thought:
HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.
The next time some guy gets sodomized with a broomstick by people who are abusing their authority, I'll remind people that there's no harm done because HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.
I'm don't hate or distrust the government; overall it does a pretty good job. I do have concerns about handing excess power to individuals, whether they are presidents or rookie beat cops, because humans are flawed and make stupid decisions sometimes. Oh well, at least HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.
Re:So much for court warrants ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically, no, maybe they'll always want a warrant first - but they're also constantly trying to make sure getting that warrant is a "no-brainer". Ideally, they'd like a search warrant to be handed out like a piece of candy. It's simply a piece of paper that makes their activity look more legitimate on the surface.
It's not that the FBI loves collecting "evidence they could never hope to use". The problem is, technology makes it feasible to process much more raw information than ever before. If they can side-step traditional limitations on what they can and can't collect as evidence, they can start mass collection efforts, fed into computer systems, and have the machines do the work for them. Flag all the "interesting" stuff that pops up, get your warrant, and go check it out.
How hard is it for them to claim they "acted in good faith" when their expensive software "data mining" package said someone needed to be checked out? Nevermind they kicked in some gun dealer's door at 2AM and gave his wife a heart-attack, all because the software couldn't tell those large gun purchases were just inventory for his store - as opposed to "suspected terrorist activity".
Re:So much for court warrants ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah. What this sounds like is that they'll set up affiliates of all the phone companies and atuomatically get "pen registers" of all call made by everyone. These files will be analyzed by software that looks for interesting patterns. The customers that the software flags as "interesting" will then be examined in more detail.
All of it legal; all without any pesky court orders.
Win-Win for the Bells (Score:4, Insightful)
So where do you opt out? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So where do you opt out? (Score:5, Informative)
What I'd like to know is (Score:2, Insightful)
how much are they expecting to charge me now to "opt out" of this? I already pay a couple of bucks a month for the "privilege" of having an unlisted number.
Re:What I'd like to know is (Score:2)
Re:What I'd like to know is (Score:2)
Hello Mr Smith (Score:5, Funny)
We are bringing you this service to offer you a chance to keep us quiet with a one time payment of $500. Not only will you get piece of mind ( for now ) that we won't tell your wife but you'll also get a handy cookbook from Martha Stewart.
If you don't wish to have your marriage ruined please stay on the line while I transfer this call to an independent verifier
Have a good day!
Re:Hello Mr Smith (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hello Mr Smith (ot) (Score:2)
What an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.
I can't believe he thinks anyone will buy this aas anything but a cop out to corporate "donations". Too bad no one gives a damn.
argh. Time to call the phone company and sit on hold for a million years...
----rhad
Time for phone over IP (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Time for phone over IP (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot - where you can prattle on concerning stuff you don't know thing one about.
Re:Time for phone over IP (Score:2)
Re:Time for phone over IP (Score:2, Insightful)
(Yes, the middleman's ISP or POTS service could try doing traffic analysis, and many of the methods of avoiding that which work so effectively with email would be unacceptable due to latency issues with VoIP... but anyhow, this is substantially more complicated than running a simply sniffer and collecting data on who calls who).
Re:Time for phone over IP [addendum] (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Time for phone over IP (Score:2)
Simple solution... (Score:2)
Yes it's an interruption but get over it. and if more people would actually say NO then telemarketing would not happen (it would cease to work as a selling medium)
Yes it sucks to get marketing calls, but screw it. it isnt worth getting your panties all in a buch over.. Or simply have the phone company block all calls that have caller id blocked.. works great. and stops ony a very few of my relatives.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've found a method that's a bit more effective. Tell them, "please remove me from your list" before they can stammer out their opening stanza. They're legally obligated to cut you from the list, and they can't make more money off your number by selling it. (at least I hope that's the way it works).
Either way, I've noticed significantly less telemarketing calls since I started doing this.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:2, Informative)
I do that. Sometimes i tell them im interested and ask them to hold, put down the phone, and go back to whatever i was doing. Check back when i get bored, see if they are still on the line
Re:Simple solution... (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution... (Score:4, Informative)
At this point they may hang up, or get confused and put you on with a supervisor who will know about this and take the information.
Now that they have the information, request to be added to their No-Call, and No-Sell lists. By this point you've cost them a lot of phone time, often with a supervisor, plus they usually actually do mail you the no-call policy, and you get blacklisted for being a pain in the ass who knows the law, thus helping make sure you don't get any more calls.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:4, Informative)
I did this some 12-13 years ago, and since then I get maybe one or two junk calls a year (including the recorded type).
The majority of telemarketers work from a nationally-circulated master list, so if you get removed from one call center's list, you'll fall off all of their lists. Daily News or any affiliated paper is a good one to have initially remove you, as they do use a master list.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the correct thing to say is, "Please ADD me to your Do Not Call list." Removing you from one list doesn't mean you won't appear on another list, but if you're on the Do Not Call list, you should not get another call from the SAME COMPANY. Note that the person calling probably doesn't actually work for the company they're representing; telemarketing is outsourced, and the DNC list probably applies to the telemarketing company rather than the company who wants you to buy stuff, so you may continue to get calls from other telemarketing companies on behalf of the same company, but not from the same telemarketing company again. That may vary somewhat.
Your state may also have a state-wide Do Not Call list; mine does [ornocall.com].
A suggestion (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution... (Score:2)
Re:Better solution... (Score:2)
Real people who knowingly, and willingly engage in a profession which consists entirely of annoying and scamming people. They became fair targets when they accepted the job.
Ever notice that few people would actually engage in the tactics that telemarketers use in a face-to-face situation? Ever notice that if somebody used those tactics, you'd probably end up telling them to sod off and you certainly wouldn't make a purchase from them? Something about talking over the phone makes it easier for them to ignore the fact that they're disrupting peoples lives, and they could at the very least just hang up when the person politely expresses that they have no interest in the product/service.
heh (Score:2)
--------> Michael Copps
I win!
I hope this doesn't become a precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole concept of advertising right now is getting absolutely ridiculous. It seems now that the onus is on us as consumers to pay attention to all advertisments, rather than the advertising to attract us by being clever, funny what have you. Simply by being a possible consumer, the advertiser somehow got the right to harrass me.
What's the point of having a telephone, if I am going to be getting the ringing equivalent of pop-up windows? It's bad enough with telemarketers.
Screw it, if any one needs to reach me, send me a damn letter (email's worse!), if its important enough for me to know it can wait a week sheesh...
Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent (Score:5, Funny)
You mean like:
- You may have already won $10,000 !!!
- You have been Pre-Approved for a credit card
- You have won a small island in the South Pacific, call 900-SUCKERZ to claim your prize. Hurry!
- Here is a book of coupons for shit you will never buy.
- Please donate to some organization you have never heard of before.
- Get 500 CDs for the price of 1 (plus shipping, handling, and handing over your soul)
- Dear (last person who lived at this address) you have been Pre-approved for a credit card!
- Are the bills getting you down? Debt consolidation can help.
- A special offer just for you Homer J Simpsoy.
- Limited Time Offer!
- We can beat your insurance rates, and save you money $$$$.
- Dated material, open immediately!
- Postal Carrier, do not forward. This is a fantastic prize intended only for the recipient shown below.
- Here is a check for $5000. By endorsing it you agree to open an account with us for that amount, with 27% interest. (this is a real one I got)
- Dell Catalogs
- Victoria's Secret catalogs (OK, I don't mind those)
Warrant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Warrant? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. You're wrong. Law enforcement (broadly speaking) needs a warrant. The phone company doesn't. Don't you feel better now?
Re:Warrant? (Score:2)
It probably has something to do with the fact that the US is now run by a fellow who has in all seriousness described himself as "America's CEO". He really, truly believes that the government should be run as a business.
This is how businesses do things. If you have a product, you sell it. If we don't like this, we'll just have to find ourselves a CEO who thinks the government should be run like a government.
Of course, we'll first have to make the presidency an elected office
Re:Warrant? (Score:2)
Of course the government is involved in this. The Bell companies are a government-regulated monopoly. If they weren't, I might be able to pick from three or four local phone companies and find one that doesn't sell my info.
By allowing the Bells to operate as a monopoly, the Bells became a quasi-government operation.
If you can't visualize why this might matter, imagine that phone companies were actually government agencies and private companies were legally banned from competing with them.
Re:Warrant? (Score:2)
4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is NOT a free speech issue to tell other divisions, "partners", or anyone at all for that matter who I call. I don't think this you can find a better example of violating a person's right to privacy (4th Amendment) than to sell or otherwise disseminate details about a person's personal phone calls (date, time, number, duration).
This is a clear example of corporate takeover of government. Citizens - you're doing it to yourselves. Take political action; you don't have to quit your job. Just take a few minutes one day a week to contact your representatives to gripe and organize locally, whether you're an independent, a Green, a Republicrat or a Demopublican.
Corporate personhood (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment? (Score:2)
Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to call (Score:2)
I believe there are similar registries for other states. Every quarter, the registry is published and all non-exempt telemarketers must *not* call you if you appear in the registry under penalty of law. Getting in the registry is free and can be done from the above website, if you are a NY resident. Other posters can probably give URL's or addresses for other state registries.
-Andrew
Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca (Score:2, Funny)
What rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, sorry, my mistake. That right's not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, I must not deserve it.
I'm not a person, I'm but a lowly consumer. I exist to fuel other people's economy. I should just shut up and consume.
We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass no matter how self-seeking.
-- F. G. Withington
Re:What rights? (Score:2)
Wait a minute, I just described our economy over the last 50+ years... oh well
Opt out... Completely (Score:2, Interesting)
Until cell phones become 24/7 unlimited flat rate, I don't see the FCC being able to get away with allowing this there.
Bad news (Score:2)
Re:Opt out... Completely (Score:2)
Technology (Score:2, Funny)
I've heard good things about the "Two cans and a piece of String" company based in Florida. Perhaps the solution is right there?
Let them trace these calls (Score:5, Funny)
Powell Michael K CM-CH (202) 418-1000
In this day and age... (Score:2)
This sucks for one main reason. As soon as that info is sold, there is no getting it 'back'. It will be resold, repackaged, sorted, sold, crosslinked, sold, and sold again. This info does not belong in the hands of companies who "do buisiness" with a telecom company.
With that, here are the other post headers.
First Post
FROst PisT In other news
Imagine the privacy concerns
No way in hell!
BOYCOTT TELEPHONES NOW
I don't Care, I use VOIP
They can have my Pizza numbers if they want
Workarounds?
OT: your sig
What we really need
Solution is Simple: use the TeleGRAPH!
Idiots should not be allowed computers
What are they going to do with this? Eschelon and you
Use a repeater node and bannana peel
Wireless Networks?
My uncle works for AT&T
TIme to Move to Canada
What do you Expect?
Micro$oft and Telecoms
I did this...
and finally...
In this day and age.
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
It is time for Michael Powell to go (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Qwest (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Qwest (Score:2)
Re:Qwest (Score:2)
1) Qwest doesn't want any more bad press or anymore state regulators breathing down their neck about their business practices and hence doesn't pursue further sales of marketing data. This is desired outcome, I think.
2) Qwest is so desperate for cash they will sell anything, and they decide to start selling customer info to anyone. This is a likely outcome, money and corporations being what they are.
Use an answering machine for call screening. (Score:2)
You have reached (555)555-1212.
I use this machine to screen my calls and
I may or may not be at home and
there may or may not be a recording device attached
so at the tone clearly say your name, your phone number and very, very brief message.
Then, if I'm home, I'll have a decision to make.
Cell Phones? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean seriously, I'm paying about the same price for a completly mobile phone, that includes long distance calls, works damn near anywhere in the US (Sprint PCS) and NO sales calls! Use your dollars to tell the phone companies to screw off!
Ways to defeat automated calling systems (Score:4, Interesting)
Just always remember that it's better to use their own system against them, then to just sit there and take it up the a$$.
Rob
Voice your complaints! (Score:5, Informative)
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Customer Service Standards:
Send your comments to:OMDCSSTF@fcc.gov
General e-mail should be sent to: FCCINFO@FCC.GOV
Remember: a complaint should be a well thoughtout, polite, disagreement NOT a psychotic rant.
bankruptcy? (Score:3, Interesting)
As a related matter, the FCC is currently seeking industry comment on the use of information about customers whose telecommunications carriers have gone out of business or have filed for bankruptcy protection.
If it follows rulings similar to dot.coms, then those records are assets and will be sold to the highest bidder to pay debts. Ouch!
Oh Goody!! (Score:3, Funny)
How about an anonymizer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if the entity were under scrutiny if there were enough calls in and out, matching up a caller with a callee would be not 100% reliable. Add in a little randomness (don't connect calls immediately, have the entity randomly dial out every so often).
So then we'de be at the point where in order to find out who you were talking to they'de have to tap each and every phone call. And after that bill passes we're really screwed...
In related news... (Score:3, Insightful)
In related news, after learning of the FCC's new policy on the sale of customer phone usage information, the United States Postal Service has announced a new initiative to close its budget shortfall. For a fee, it will provide details of every item mailed from a particular address. "We already use OCR to automatically deduce the ZIP+4 information; we envision additionally scanning the return address and generating a database of all items sent by an individual or company. Also tracked will be each item's dimensions (width x height; weight) and its delivery service (1st Class, Priority Express, etc.) The spokesperson would not comment on rumours that UPS and FedEx were also contemplating developing similar capabilities.
But seriously, at least I could omit or obfuscate my return address for snail mail. It's a bit more complicated with UPS or FedEx, especially when they stop by a business to pick up the packages to be shipped.
Imagine the value if my company could get a list of a competitor's vendors and customers.
But, that also means: my competitors could get a list of my company's vendors and customers.
I forsee a great increase in the use of e-mail, encryption, tunneling, and VOIP.
Imagine, also, doing a reverse look-up of all calls to: alcohol treatment centers, rape crisis lines, police departments, "massage" parlors, etc. Victims would face further attacks... by marketers. "Hello. We noticed you called the Rape Crisis Line last night. I'm calling to offer you a discount on our pregnancy detection kit and our abortion services, too."
There was mention in the articles of being able to opt out; but no mention of how to do so. Maybe the EFF could come up with a standard form that I could submit to my phone company that would explicitly and reliably force my info off the list.
Dilution of the meaning of Spam (Score:2)
It used to be that spam (in the internet sense) was about email-based advertising that got sent you numerous times by someone you'd never heard of. They got your address by dictionary attacking with phone book names, or spidering the web for people who left addresses lying around.
Generally, it was porno, which upset people even more.
Currently, if you were to believe the
The fact that we are bombarded with ads in a supply-side economy DOES NOT mean that every advertisement is SPAM.
In fact, with data-mining and the vast info-trail people leave behind them, i hope that in a world of advertising, newer campaigns will at least be directed at me when there's a good chance I'll be interested.
SPAM is popping up all over the place... (Score:2)
This is scarier than spam (Score:2)
There are companies out that purchase every mailing list possible. No, they're not spammers, they're collating all of these mailing lists into a huge psych database, keyed against your name. In addition to every magazine subscription you've ever had, they can tie it against voter records, DMV records, credit reports, ad naseum. Some of them even key to usenet postings.
This is mostly used by investigators/perverts to determine gobs of information about someone just by typing in their name and paying $5. The fact that phone companies will now start sharing detailed information about their customers means that these profiles are just going to become THAT much more detailed.
Hooray for information!
Stage 1, Complete (Score:2)
The phone company is in the same boat as the post office... they're both antiquated services that are in the process of being replaced by both the internet and cell-phones. They should be doing things to ENTICE more users, not anger them and drive them away.
Hey, wake up Ma Bell, you *DO* have to care nowadays!
just like amazon? (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, maybe eminem was on to something (Score:2)
Why is this surprising? The FCC Sold Out Long Ago (Score:2)
The FCC is supposed to administer the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (which is no more someone's property than gravity) for the common good of our nation. Instead, it sells wholesale the use of this precious resource to the people with the most money, leaving less and less available for the common person, much less the HAM radio operator or casual experimenter.
It is therefore no surprise that they are taking money from anyone that has an agenda. In this latest case, phone companies and others that want to invade your privacy for the purpose of saturating your every nook and cranny with commercial advertizing.
My proposed solution is that the FCC executive board be made up of at least 50% volunteer personnel (read $0 pay) and that they are not allowed to receive money from ANY source other than the national budget as approved by Congress and the White House. Will that solve the problem? No, but it might put a damper on it.
Now, leave me alone. I have to go patent my coin-operated gravity dispenser.
Vortran out
Just give up land lines.. (Score:2)
At any rate, I get very few calls on my cell phone, and once I tell them it's a cell phone they actually VOLUNTEER to put me on their do not call list.
We need to rein in our "public servants" (Score:2, Interesting)
I am serious. But let's do it legally; we can start with a constitutional amendment allowing petition based public-initiated referendums in all states. That would allow us to generate and hopefully pass laws and vote on them at the polls. Then, we pass a law that allows us to take confidence votes on elected and appointed officials. There could several options for a poor vote of confidence: for example, if the official (e.g., the President) receives a confidence vote of less than 40%--fire him; if less than 30%, imprison him 1 year; These people are our servants; let's start acting like it. This sort of control by the people has a long and distinguished history. You ever hear of the phrase, "Let them eat cake"?
We can also start by taking control of our airwaves, and setting aside a significant portion of time to free political speech, some of which may be randomly donated by lottery.
That is all....
------------
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://www.cryonet.org
Pass the buck along to the government....... (Score:2)
Don't blame the FCC (Score:5, Informative)
Taken from Chairman Powell's public statement [fcc.gov]:
"But we conclude, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that under the court's constitutional analysis, companies may satisfy the somewhat less stringent requirement of giving consumers the chance to "opt-out" of intracompany communications-related use of CPNI.(1)
(1) The court instructed the Commission to consider an opt-out strategy, which the court concluded was "an obvious and substantially less restrictive alternative" to opt-in. U.S. West v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1238 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 530 U.S. 1213 (2000)"
Contact the Court of Appeals [uscourts.gov] and complain. Also, contact your local representative [house.gov].
-Lucas
Re:Don't blame the FCC (Score:3, Informative)
In 1999, This court vacated the FCC's previous opt-in only policy in this ruling [fcc.gov]. This means that the FCC used to have an opt-in only policy but the court forced the FCC to change it in favor of commercial interests.
I confess that my first reaction was to get pissed at the FCC, but it ain't that simple.
A couple of interesting facts about the 10th circuit appeals case:
Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard Professor of Bush v. Gore 2000 election fame, was the lead attorney for the Telecoms against the FCC.
The Supreme Court failed to grant this case cert., meaning that they refused to consider the appeal to this ruling. It'll be interesting to see what happens if this new FCC ruling gets challenged in court and then whether the Supreme Court will take on the CPNI privacy issue then. That's when the final interpretation will be determined.
In the meantime, I too encourage everyone who wants the opt-in policy back to contact your Senators and Representatives.
Embrace the telemarketers... and waste their time. (Score:2)
Bring it on! I'm sitting at the computer desk playing quake, no reason I can't take calls and say "uh-huh" and "can you explain that again?" a few times.
As for my privacy... well, I think I'll start wardialing telemarketers in the evenings. That should really screw up my calling profile, and entice more telemarketers to call and waste even more time and money on me. Ah, feel the power!
Qwest customers: You're already opted-OUT (Score:3, Informative)
Just once.. (Score:3)
However, like man bites dog, I doubt I'll see it often or at all.
Re:It's their service (Score:5, Insightful)
1) You have to decide if their violating your privacy constitutes harming you. I think it does. So, just like drug makers can't sell you poison (doing you harm,) the phone company can't sell your phone records to people who want information on you. The harm is, I will grant, less severe, but it is still harm.
2) The guv'mint provides a regulatory backdrop that makes the telephone system possible. The system was built by Bell, originally, but with government help. If there were really more than one system - if, say, Sprint and AT&T customers could not call each other - than you might expect less guarantees about their behavior. As it is, they are selling access to the single, public, telephone network. They should not be in a position to dictate the terms under which that network can be accessed.
3) In the past, your phone records have been more-or-less private. This is a PRECEDENT. Precedent is more powerful than logic; if you engage in an illogical business practice long enough that people expect you to do it, you can't stop. Unfortunately, this principle has no force of written law, but as a practical guideline it pops up all the time.
Re:It's their service (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's their service (Score:4, Insightful)
Free market zealots crack me up, because their philosophy is based on the mistaken idea that free markets even exist.
In the ideal free market, I want to do task X, company A produces widget A to do task X, company B produces widget B to do task X, company C etc. etc. etc. If one company bothers me, overcharges me, abuses my privacy etc. I just take my business elsewhere. This is a fine model for TVs, cars, etc. etc. but there are many sectors of the economy where this is an entirely false model.
As a most eggregious example, take the California energy crisis. People (or perhaps, if you're bitter politicians paid off by energy companies) were fed up with the innefficiency of the California public utilities. So they privatized the whole thing. Theoretically this was supposed to create a handful of competing companies all trying to undercut each other to provide service X (here, electricity) to as many people as possible. This didn't happen. They got together and fixed prices and engineered a shortage to create demand. Blackouts started, and people's power bills went up. Enron had a big hand in this. Someone tell me, at any point in that company's entire history did they do anything that helped anyone other than a small group of principle shareholders?
The record industry works in the same way. Label A and label B don't compete with each other for customers. They have carefully carved out territories and their prices are fixed by a trade organization (RIAA)
I used to really believe in total free-market capitalism, it's a beautiful theory. But like communism, it fails miserably in practice. You need a strong regulatory government to preserve free trade and competition, because the market naturally tends toward consolidation. Unfortunately, we don't have that. We have a strong government that is more often than not, working to HELP the price fixers and tycoons. There are times when I think our current system is actually worse than total deregulation.
Wow... that went on for too long.
Anyway, back to phone companies. These are companies operating in a government sanctioned monopoly (as the parent post mentioned) in such situations, I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability. Wheras in a monopoly, people have no option other than to do without a needed public service. We should have had nationalized railroads years ago, as well, but the democratic party was too addicted to the money that labor unions gave them to support trucks on interstates to bother with it.
Re:It's their service (Score:2)
This isn't some random website or company we're talking about - it's the PHONE COMPANY. It's extremely difficult to do ANYTHING in modern society without a phone - you can, of course, but it locks you out from a huge portion of society. Lack of running water or electricity is less of an inconvenience. And it's not like you have a whole lot of options to take your money elsewhere - you have no choice of local carrier, and the LD carriers will all have the same policy.
Re:It's their service (Score:2)
And, on a side note, if you ever want to live in the REAL world, and not the one you made up in polisci classes, you're welcome to come and hang out.
Re:It's their service (Score:2)
Were you born yesterday? They won't publicize this at all. The average consumer will be lucky to find it in the six pages of crap that gets stuffed into their phone bill. And if they do find something that looks a little odd, they won't know what it means because of the obtuse language these announcements employ.
You mean like the people who were signed up with that major ISP who opted out only to find that the ISP had changed the policy and automatically opted everyone back in again? And without informing their customers? How many affiliates received their email addresses (and God knows what else) before they found out that their opt-out had been changed without notification?
You must not have a job or a life if you have the time to visit the web site of every company that you do business with to check up on the privacy policies and ensure that you haven't been opted back in. How often should I check? Daily? And how many people will get your private info when the policy changes five minutes after you've opted out again.
If someone tells a company that they don't want their information sold or revealed, that should be it. Consumers should not have to play this little game of ``How about now? No? OK. ... pause ... OK, how about now? No? ... pause ... OK, then how about now?''
i'll vote with my fist up your ass (Score:2, Insightful)
let me make this clear. your boycott of the RIAA did NOTHING. your boycott of the MPAA did NOTHING. your boycott of the phone companies will do NOTHING. deal with it.
Re:vote with your dollars (Score:2)
Vive l'Quebec libre....
And since I also live part of the time in Switzerland, which also has strict privacy laws the result is that I get very little spam.
As a sidenote in Switzerland to tempt you to use their products companies give away full products. IE at Christmas time I always get a full Lindt Christmas flavour chocolate bar. Yum....
Re:What are the affiliates allowed to do with it? (Score:2)
Telco's are only allowed to 'share' (sell) that info with affiliates.
This really is no big deal, telcos have been selling your personal information and anything else they could make to anyone and everyone willing to pay for years.
You don't really believe their "privacy policy" do you? :)
Re:What about porn calls (Score:5, Funny)
Tissue paper companies.
Re:Do you... (Score:2, Funny)
"Anteeksi, mutta emme puhu englantia ta:ma:ssa talossa."
That's Finnish, or my best approximation of it, for "I'm sorry, but we don't speak English in this house" - I think it's correct if you replace "a:" with an "a" with a dieresis over it, pronounce those vowels like the "a" in "hat", and pronounce the other letters as you would in, say, Spanish. And even if it's slightly wrong, how many USian telemarketers are going to speak _that_ language, anyway (especially compared to Spanish, for example)? Wait for an awkward silence, let them hang up when they realize they probably won't be getting anything out of you, and then see if they call back.
Re:Can somebody explain... (Score:2)
And as long as we're talking about telcos and ways to express our opinions of them, I'd say you have a gift for understatement.
It's not about spam calls, it's about your future (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's say you call the local AIDS hotline to ask 'em a few questions. You become interested in the topic and call back several times.
Fast-forward a few months or years...
Your health insurance company buys a phonecall database. Lo and behold, there's your calls to the local AIDS hotline. Your health insurance company cancels your coverage (and blacklists you so you can't get health insurance anywhere) because it's obvious to them that you must have AIDS (why else would you call an AIDS hotline?) therefore you are a bad insurance risk.
Or...
Let's say you're an MD. You occasionally call a friend who works as a receptionist at the local abortion clinic, just to chat.
Months later...
A radical anti-abortion group buys a 3rdhand phonecall database. Egads, here's a doctor who dares to be in contact with an abortion clinic! Shortly thereafter, you are shot and killed as you leave your home to drive to work.