Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • by dunedan ( 529179 )
    I really really want to sell private information about others

    Can't I PUH-LEASE Daddy :)
    • Re:but daddy... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:20PM (#4735894)
      You certainly may, under certain loopholes.

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

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

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

      The system doesn't work both ways. Anyone emailing TO you is giving out your email address to the companies handling those addresses, and they are NOT covered by opt-in, opt-out or opt-anything laws.
      • not just hotmail (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jerrytcow ( 66962 )
        I figured out that excite does the same thing.

        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.

  • by jon787 ( 512497 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:10PM (#4735797) Homepage Journal
    Yeah they have rights as a corporation, but what about my rights as a US citizen?
    • You have the right to choose a different phone company. Even if they win you will have the right to opt-out of the data sharing program.
      • by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:26PM (#4735959) Homepage Journal
        In Washington state, where you're probably buying cellular, there's lots of choice.

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

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

        • BTW if someone from Verizon is listening: I was just about to buy YOUR cellular phone service. This just guaranteed I won't. Have a nice day.
      • by Happy Monkey ( 183927 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @07:04PM (#4736208) Homepage
        You have the right to choose a different phone company.

        What makes you say that?
    • Better yet: Yes they have rights as a corporation. But they are a company that uses public resources -- our frequencies.

      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.

    • by EvilAlien ( 133134 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @07:05PM (#4736214) Journal
      This is interesting to Canadians too, believe it or not.

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

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

    • The Constitution protects rights reserved by the people, but it unfortunately does not list them explicitly. For a while, say from 1940 to 1985, it would have been likely taken for granted by most that these must surely include some right of privacy, such an obvious right that it went without mentioning in the Constitution, except as unreasonable searches were outlawed. Nowadays, with the strict constructionist Republican appointees having a stranglehold on the Constitution, this interpretation is pretty much dead.

      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.

      • "The Constitution protects rights reserved by the people, but it unfortunately does not list them explicitly."

        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)

    by nege ( 263655 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:10PM (#4735798) Journal
    Only if they will sell the data to telemarketers. And then sell me telemarketing blocking services. Then sell the telemarketers blocking work arounds. That would be cool. Oh wait, they already do that!
  • by Unknown Poltroon ( 31628 ) <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:10PM (#4735800)
    TO start following some of these yahoos around with a camera, and report their every move. See how they like it.
    1:00 had lunch
    2:15 in bathroom for 15 minutes.
    2:30 goofed off
    3:00 met girlfrined for lunch
    4:15 called wife to say he was going to be late.
    4:45 left office
    6:00 went to girlfreind, see attached picture with her street address and bra size.
    6:15- 8:35 freaky circus sex, see film from clandestine video hidden in tree.

  • Free Speech? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by EnglishTim ( 9662 )
    How is this free speech?

    Free license to make a buck, more like...

    I know this comes up after every goddamn /. article, but if the US had data protection laws like the EU...
    • Re:Free Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Frater 219 ( 1455 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:49PM (#4736116) Journal
      but if the US had data protection laws like the EU...

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

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

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

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

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

  • riddle me this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:10PM (#4735809) Homepage Journal
    "We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"

    Question for the NAL's here: Does a corporation have "rights" at all? Real question. I would like to know.
    • Re:riddle me this (Score:5, Informative)

      by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:18PM (#4735870)
      Question for the NAL's here: Does a corporation have "rights" at all? Real question. I would like to know.

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

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

      • IANAL, though it's also been ruled that while corps have the same rights, they do not have equal rights. A person can get away with saying things that corperations cannot for example.
      • Re:riddle me this (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bwt ( 68845 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:52PM (#4736135)
        Well, actually that case only applied the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to corporations.

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

        I also wonder if corporate personhood could be used to declare tax laws illegal. There is clearly a discrimination between people and corporations. Does this violate the equal protection clause?
      • by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @07:38PM (#4736387)
        You're asking the wrong question.

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

        Here are the correct questions to ask in this case:
        • Does commercial speech enjoy the same level of First Amendment protection that applies to other forms of speech, such as political speech?
        • Does Verizon's intended use of its consumers' private data constitute an example of commercial speech, or political speech?


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

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

      • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @09:00PM (#4736745) Journal
        First of all, corporations are a creation of the state, so they only have the rights the state gives them when it charters them -- if people don't like the set of rights and privileges that corporate structure gives them, they don't have to incorporate, but operate under different structures, such as partnerships. (You'll notice that most law firms and many accounting firms aren't corporations - they're partnerships of various sorts.)

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

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

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

      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.
    • IANAL, but according to the supreme court, coprorations do indeed have rights.

      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.
  • by Soulfader ( 527299 ) <sigspace&gmail,com> on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:11PM (#4735814) Journal
    ... that makes me stay in my apartment and read. You can't go anywhere, buy anything, talk to anyone, read anything (oh crap, nevermind), or watch anything without someone using it to fuel marketing.

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

  • People who live in Washington (like I used to) should let their friends and loved ones know what verizon is trying to do. News like this hardly even gets reported, and if those of us who realize what a threat this is to privacy actually took five minutes to let our friends know, then maybe we could actually show companies what happens when they decide to treat their customers like commodities that can be used up and thrown aside.

    Just one man's rant.
  • by outsider007 ( 115534 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:12PM (#4735824)
    They'd still be breaking the law, but they're asking to not get in trouble for it. What balls!
  • by Yo Grark ( 465041 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:12PM (#4735828)
    They have the right to view, modify, collect, own, trade, sell, transfer, move, and classify every piece of data they can collect.

    By using their service you negate your privacy rights.

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

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

    Yo Grark
    - Canadian Bred with American Buttering
    • Most such waivers have "except as prohibited by state and federal laws" clauses thrown in there somewhere. It sounds like this is what Verizon is trying to get the feds to protect them from.
    • All they need is a recording that plays everytime you pick up your phone...

      "Press the * key to acknowledge acceptance of the EULA in operating this phone..."

    • ... about Bell Canada. Nothing like being "the guy" in the local markets. OTOH, Deregulation of Hydro on Ontario has done such a good job....

      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.
    • by dboyles ( 65512 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:32PM (#4736006) Homepage
      They have the right to view, modify, collect, own, trade, sell, transfer, move, and classify every piece of data they can collect.

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

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

    Yep, they do have rights. For example, they have the right to remain silent.
  • by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:13PM (#4735838) Homepage Journal
    I can't take sides on this. I know I'll be marked as a troll. But the second we start saying you can't give such and such information out as a law rather than a contract clause, we're impeding the freedom of information. However, I value my privacy as much as most people here (hell, I use PGP with huge keys for my real emails). But Freedom of Information, or privacy. they don't have to be mutually exclusive, but we've got to be careful when we try to restrict others, otherwise it may come back and bite us in the ass.
  • "We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information,"


    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.
    • Except of course that if you live in certain areas where they're the local telco, in which case they have an effective monopoly on your phone.

      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.
  • by repsychler ( 571158 ) <repsychlerNO@SPAMtackdriver.com> on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:14PM (#4735849) Homepage
    Can you hear me now? Good! Now GO TO HELL!
  • by jki ( 624756 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:18PM (#4735879) Homepage
    "We believe we have certain rights as a corporation to use this information

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

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

  • Bell... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by c0dedude ( 587568 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:20PM (#4735895)
    Verizon is an offspring of Bell telephone, broken up under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Bell was broken up for being a monopoly and unfairly influencing the market to drive up prices without improving service. If Verizon is trying to sell personal data, and people still don't have any real choices in phone companies, then the breakup of Bell was unsuccessful, and the hazardous monopoly still exists between Verizon, SBC, Qwest, and Bell South, all of which are virtual regional monopolies and compaines formed from the breakup of Bell Telephone.
    More Information can be found at Voices For Choices [voicesforchoices.com]
  • by iamwoodyjones ( 562550 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:21PM (#4735902) Journal
    At the best, they'll do like most companies and say that you have to "opt-out" every year to keep your information from being sold.

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

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

    We live in an IT dominated world now.

    Information is $$$$$
    • Why else would they have us opt-out instead of in?Seriously, you can answer that question.

      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
  • Fuck off and die.

    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...
  • by Archfeld ( 6757 ) <treboreel@live.com> on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:26PM (#4735955) Journal
    Just as I did with MCI today, leave them and vote with you $$'s. MCI raised rates to attempt to recover some of the billions lost due to the WorldCom fiasco. Well and good for MCI it is their right to do so, but it is also my right as a consumer to choose not to be a victim. Tell Verizon how you feel in the ONLY manner which has ANY effect, with your $$'s. When you transfer make sure to tell them it is in direct response to their decision to attempt to market personal information without regard to my desires. I am kind of curious how a large corporation would view this item, anyone in the telecom area of a fortune 500 company out there ????
    • by tshak ( 173364 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @08:12PM (#4736532) Homepage
      No problem, I will:

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

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

      This, my friend, is why we have regulation. Because really, in many cases, we don't have much of a choice.
    • When you transfer make sure to tell them it is in direct response to their decision to attempt to market personal information without regard to my desires.

      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)

    by Russellkhan ( 570824 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:27PM (#4735960)
    Under new Washington rules, telephone companies:
    • may not use "call-detail," such as when, where, to whom, or how often calls are made, to sell services unless customers give express permission
    • may not share call-detail information with other companies without permission
    • must allow customers to "opt out" -- take their names and numbers off lists the company shares with other companies
    • must make it easy for customers to opt out, using e-mail, a toll-free number or postage-paid return card


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

    OK, OK, I'm ranting. This kind of shit pisses me off. Sorry about that.
  • Sick of this crap (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ralphus ( 577885 )
    I live in Washington State. I was happy to see the law passed that restricted this kind of activity, but was afraid that suits like this were coming.

    "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)

      by Russellkhan ( 570824 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:50PM (#4736120)
      "Organize, resist, refuse! I paid $14 the other day for an item at Safeway that would have cost me $5 if they could have tracked it. Hopefully, I'll be able to continue to afford the fight."

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

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

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

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

      Thanks,

      Russ
  • Rights vs. Right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Hamstaus ( 586402 )
    I will fully support the argument that Verizon has a right to use information to sustain their corporation. However, the rights of the individual must outweigh their right to profit.

    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)

    by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:28PM (#4735973)
    I recently got a letter from Verizon telling me to call them to opt out if you didn't want them to make sales pitches to you. I called, and at the end of the call, he tried to sell me additional services (to help me avoid unwanted sales pitches).

    Somehow, I only swear on the phone when I call Verizon...
  • by cr@ckwhore ( 165454 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:31PM (#4735994) Homepage
    About a month ago, I switched from DSL to Cable, got a cell phone (cheaper than landline, long distance included), ...

    AND DROPPED VERIZON FROM MY LIFE!

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

  • by Cervantes ( 612861 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:31PM (#4736000) Journal
    Why is it the phone company never sends out a mass-mailing saying "Hey, everyone! We've got a great new way to give you targetted service that you'll really love! Just tell us it's OK for us to give your number to some select companies, and you'll receive lots of interesting offers!"

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

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

    -----
    This brought to you by the government that remembered to give them a payraise that triples the average national income, but forgot to ensure that 1 MILLION people didn't starve over christmas because their unemployment benefits ran out. Thanks, Uncle George!
  • by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:33PM (#4736007) Homepage Journal
    Is this the same Verizon that's fighting for the privacy rights of its DSL users? [slashdot.org]

    I swear, modern corporations have some kind of severe split-personality disorder.
  • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:39PM (#4736042) Journal
    Okay, here's what I don't get. The new Homeland Security Bill just passed, which authorizes the government to construct a huge database that contains not just info about your calling patterns, but also about what websites you view, what books you read, everything you buy with your credit card, etc etc etc. Now, Verizon wants to use info about your calling patterns so they can offer you long distance savings, and you guys are reaching for your pitchforks. The government wants to use this info to decide whether or not to kick your door down, haul you off to an undiscolsed location, declare you an "enemy combatant" and thereby deny you any due process rights, like Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomber." Hey, no big deal, don't get excited about that, now. We got bigger fish to fry, right? Damn telemarketers.
  • kinda OT - Is it just me - or are many of you as angry and disgusted with corporate reality these days?

    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?
    • by ameoba ( 173803 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @07:16PM (#4736274)
      Something inside of me wants to start killing the people responsible for the way things are getting, but I don't know who to blame and I don't know what would help. All I know is that something needs to be done before it gets much worse and I...

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

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

      At least the French knew who to execute when they had their revolution.
      • I have to agree with this, to paraphrase Naomi Klein... 'how can the mailroom boy get to be the Chairman of the board when the mailroom has been outsourced to Pitney Bowes and he is a temporary worker from an outside agency?" Things in the UK are a little different due to a tradition of secrecy among the big players but as they get more powerful they follow their american cousins and become very bold. Most 'impartial' government advisory agencys in the UK have their boards stuffed with chairmen of corporations who aims are diametricaly opposed to regulation and legislation. Where corporations used to seem like the engine of economic growth and power, with the 1980s removal of the monopoly limiting powers and the vast expansion and 'synergetic' growth of the Global Mega Corps, they now seem set upon total exploitation of their captive markets. And with the aid of the non-elected non-representational WTO which can fine countries for passing environmental , food safety, workers rights etc laws. We have the corporations setting themselves up as the common enemy of all mankind.
  • by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:46PM (#4736094) Homepage Journal
    I find it odd that when we have cameras in the streets in England all the US peeps here start ranting on about privacy yet with this case they are all saying "so what?". I cannot see what the issue is with privacy in a public place. It seems contradictory to me to see a public place as a privacy issue. Yet when someone wants to release private details everyone is saying "so what?".

    I would be seriously pissed if they sold my details and would take any company that sold my details without my "given" permission to court. I have private privacy and would fight to keep it yet I cannot see that such a thing as public privacy exists.
    • First of all, "everyone" is not saying "so what". In fact looking over the posts it appears to be a select few.

      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)

    by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:47PM (#4736098) Homepage
    Hopefully this will not give USPS any ideas! They could get an almost perfect profile on you if they wanted. What about FedEx? They would know who bought what kind of stuff on the Internet and would be able to put together a superbly targeted direct mailing list for almost any business. The problem with FedEx is that the "stuff" is readily available in machine readable form.
  • Balance of Rights (Score:3, Insightful)

    by A non moose cow ( 610391 ) <slashdot@rilo.org> on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:47PM (#4736101) Journal
    Ok, so let's say that Verizon does arguably have some sort of "right" to use personal information of their customers.

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

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

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

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

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

    Two questions:
    Who would have more weight?
    Who should have more weight?
    • Now, put one group on each side of a balance scale.

      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)

    by 0WaitState ( 231806 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:48PM (#4736110)
    Just a thought, but why can't this thing be legally stopped on the basis of Verizon (or my bank, mortage company, credit card issuer, etc) using my likeness without my permission? They're effectively selling my life story (cheaply, to be sure), and selling a statistical picture of me. I'm certainly not a public figure, so if someone took a picture of me in a non-public place (eg. my home), they couldn't sell it without my permission. So how feasible would it be to apply the same restrictions to my life's story and statistical profile? Any lawyers lurking?
    • by geek ( 5680 )
      Because you are signing away the right when you register the service. Look at the EULA or license agreements these days, they ALL say they can use that data for what ever means they choose.

      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)

    by KillerBob ( 217953 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @06:55PM (#4736155)
    how most of you would react if it was anonymous tracking with no way to connect you specifically to the account. Say, for example, they tracked that a particular client made 3 calls in a day: one from a pizza parlour, one from a gas station, and one from a dry cleaners, but did not keep any information about that client except the age and gender. I don't think I would mind that at all, to be honest, and I would probably allow them to associate my age and gender with the information. I can't be tracked by it. I mean, do you have any idea how many 21 year old males there are in my city alone? And I'm not even in that big a city, only having 760,000 inhabitants.

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

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


    I'd still insist on anonymity, but I don't think I would object to my phone company tracking my calling habits if it meant that I could save 5 bucks a month on my phone bill.
    • Re:I Wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by _ph1ux_ ( 216706 )
      The only thing is that you assume that they are only associating your age and gender. Which they probably are - for that particular statistical gathering session.

      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.
  • by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @07:38PM (#4736388)
    Before Verizon acquired them, about four years ago NY Bell announced in their bill that they would be sharing customer phone listings with direct marketers. Imagine that, the entire phone book listing handed over to the telemarketers in digital readout form. There was an immediate outcry and this plan was withdrawn. Now there are new owners and they're about to repeat the same error.

    If you want to get results:

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

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

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

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

    Enough!

  • My Verizon Story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @07:53PM (#4736452) Journal
    I was with Verizon for a few months. Midway through my service contract they suddenly, without warning, changed my plan on me. Mysteriously my "Nationwide Roaming" suddenly changed to "Roaming in California Only." Mysteriously my roaming charges, and charges for going over the monthly limit of minutes went from .15 and .10 respectively to something like .88 and .55 cents respectively. Mysteriously my 1000 mobile to mobile minutes with other Verizon customers seemed to go away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3) Appealing to the proper government authorities rarely does anything. I don't know why. Perhaps they view people who complain as being "slackers who don't want to pay their bills." Perhaps they are just too bogged down that they don't even read complaints. Perhaps they don't do anything since public officials recieve brib^H^H^H^H contributions from companies like Verizon.
  • Be Proactive (Score:4, Informative)

    by stevejsmith ( 614145 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @07:57PM (#4736469) Homepage

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

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

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

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

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

  • Corporate Rights? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lucas Membrane ( 524640 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @08:15PM (#4736548)
    There is some small movement in the US to take away Constitutional rights from corporations. This is a bad idea in many ways, but it looks better and better every day with this kind of news. As recent discussions of the right of the government to monitor clickstream data without a warrant show, there is not always such a clear separation of content from addressing information for our modern data streams.

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

  • by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @08:43PM (#4736690) Journal
    Everyone talks about the companies, but not the people who RUN the company.

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

    Look who runs Verizon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Robert D. Storey, Partner, law firm of Thompson, Hine & Flory LLP. Director of The Procter & Gamble Company. Director since June 2000 (Director of GTE Corporation 1985-2000); member of Audit and Finance Committee and Public Policy Committee. Age 65.
  • by Whammy666 ( 589169 ) on Friday November 22, 2002 @09:36PM (#4736870) Homepage
    Verizon arguement about selling people's personal info as free speech is bullshit. Consider the case of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house. The courts have ruled that free speech is not protected under these circumstances because there is a direct threat to public safety. In this case, the public's right to a safe environment to precedence over the individual's right to free speech. This is no surprise considering that the speech in question was aimed at causing a riot. Now consider Verizon's idea of selling your personal information. Does selling a 3rd parties' private information without consent constitute free speech or does it violate the person's right to privacy? Well, first we need to decide if call records are really speech or is it just data. Is raw data eligable for free speech? Secondly, if it is speech, then we're faced with a case of two rights in conflict with other -- the right of free speech vs. the right to privacy.

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

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

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

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

  • by sc2_ct ( 626188 ) on Saturday November 23, 2002 @12:33AM (#4737345)
    I think that I will start harvesting every last bit of information that I can about any employee or business partner of any company that behaves in this manner, and then proceed to make THEIR information available free. I'm saying post entire lists with every available name, phone number, email address and even their personal information if I come across it, all over the internet in thousands of locations, and actually call telemarketing firms and provide the lists to every telemarketer firm that I can get my hands on. That way they can't get any business done, since they will be recieving literally thousands of unsolicited contacts per day. See how they like it for a change, and also send a polite (anonymous) email to everyone on your list, explaining exactly why they are recieving all of these contacts all of a sudden, and urge them to stop selling customer's information before more *drastic* measures have to be taken. If they can sell my information, is there any reason that I should give their's away free?

1 Dog Pound = 16 oz. of Alpo

Working...