Verizon Wireless Opt-Out Plan For Customer Records 216
An anonymous reader writes to let us know that Verizon Wireless is planning to share its customers' calling records (called CPNI) with "our affiliates, agents and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries." The article explains that CPNI "includes the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls and time spent on each call, among other data." Some subscribers, it's not known if it's all of them, received a letter in the mail giving them 30 days to opt out of this sharing by calling 1-800-333-9956. Skydeck, a mobile and wireless services company, seems to have been the first to call attention to the Verizon initiative on their blog; they also posted a scan of the letter (sideways PDF) from Verizon.
current versus past customers (Score:5, Insightful)
How you could have handled it... (Score:5, Informative)
YOUR ADDRESS HERE
DATE
A/C Number: aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to close my ISSUING COMPANY NAME Visa/Mastercard credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd. I enclose the one/two issued card(s), cut into pieces.
I have sent a check separately to pay the $$$$.cc balance outstanding on the current statement. I agree to pay for any transactions authorized by me that I have missed in my calculations as soon as you advise me of them.
Any further transactions to the credit card account aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd are not authorised by me, and I instruct you not to accept any further purchases or other debits to the account.
I also request that you remove me from your direct mail marketing lists and do not share my name, address, telephone, transaction, and other personal details with ISSUING COMPANY NAME's marketing affiliates or other organisations.
Yours faithfully,
YOUR FULL NAME
I got one of those (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When the alternative is AT&T (Score:2)
Pretty painless (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't called, but I'm gathering from you that they ask you to enter it once? They send a piece of mail (with their logo on it, so you know it's really them) to you asking you to call a number that could be anyone and ask you to enter your social security number? Thanks, Verizon, for making identity theft even easier.
Re:Pretty painless (Score:5, Informative)
Why does your cell phone company need your SSN?!? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it should just be illegal.
Re:Why does your cell phone company need your SSN? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What cell service do you use that didn't require your SSN so they could do a credit check when you signed up?
Unless you're using a prepaid service, you almost certainly gave your cell provider your SSN.
Re: (Score:2)
If I default on my bill, they can pursue me the same way any other business does if I default on their bill. Do you need a credit check for a landline phone now also?
Aside from utilities which apply to a particular location, what other bills do you have that don't require a credit check? Pretty much any situation where you use first and pay days or weeks later involves a credit check. Services that are tied to a location and for which the provider has a local monopoly are a bit different, but I think that's mostly because (a) you're probably not going to move to escape the bill and (b) you're probably not going to be willing to go without the service. Of course, th
Re:Why does your cell phone company need your SSN? (Score:2)
To answer your question in general, your cell company needs your SSN so they can check your credit. Unless you use pre-paid service, they're essentially lending you money which you pay back monthly.
In this case, they use the last four digits of your SSN as a password to authenticate you. Any time you call Verizon to change anything on your account, they ask you for those digits as authentication. It's a very weak authentication, sure, but it has the advantages that it's better than nothing, and it's a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pretty painless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Americans: EU is not a paradise (Score:3, Informative)
I am from Europe and I don't like the way the governments here have chosen to protect our data. In the US the government doesn't care much (in theory - in practice it actively collects your data) and so you are responsible for protecting your own data, but here in Europe the government acts as a nanny to the point that it is very difficult even to keep an address book, and there are not good definitions explaining what personal data are. At least, that's how I see the situation. I think the best thing wo
Re: (Score:2)
The US should do better than it does, but it has the strongest respect for the rule of law of any country I've been to. I have a lot of respect for that.
Then why you do you post as an AC? Aren't you confident that the respect for the rule of law will protect you from any repercussions?
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that is like this should always be opt in. No one would do it though, unless they gave you some kinda bonus for doing it. As long as they make more money for doing it then they lose from angering people about it, they'll do it.
Curious question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it. The information they are sharing (who you called, when, and for how long) is basically the same information the police can get from a pen register. The Supreme Court decided long ago that pen registers do not require a warrant.
The immunity the telcos are seeking relates to allowing the NSA to evesdrop on calls. On
They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually. Maybe that would be a good business idea. Buy a PAYG phone and swap SIMS with someone at random. Maybe make it so you mail them on every few months. For the truly paranoid...
Re:They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe. (Score:3)
Don't normally agree with AC trolls, but this is truly the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Perhaps you're not aware that the only thing that makes a SIM interesting to phone companies is the number its attached to? Swapping SIMs == swapping phone numbers. If you're paranoid enough to randomly get a new phone number ever
Re:They'd be crucified if they did this in Europe. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course the smart-ass response is, do you trust Google more than Verizon?
just another example... (Score:3, Insightful)
This scenario is much like a criminal going to commit a crime no matter what, but he won't if you get his letter in the mail and then take steps and waste your time to tell him not too. Just so many things wrong with this story, but unfortunately not shocking and of course NO ONE will do anything to stop this trend in the country other than bitch and moan.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
the Google model (Score:2)
I guess they want to follow the gmail model for advertising, etc.
Unfortunately, while many people have several e-mail accounts, you cannot
switch so easily between different phones. Moreover, gmail is nearly anonymous, while you
cell phone is anything but.
Really? (Score:2)
Re:Really? (P2K - ENSEMBLE) (Score:2)
But Sprint is right now in the process of converting ALL customers over to Nextel's billing software (ENSEMBLE) and that software *will* provide you with incoming number info.
In the process of this conversion, it is also likely that many perks and discounts that you may have received from Sprint will be stripped off...
Target for total conversion is early 2008, about 30-40% of the conversion is
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We have until November 11 to opt out. Only Verizon's parent company would get the data.
The following details would be uploaded:
Re: (Score:2)
My bill (UK mobile phone) tells me every number I called (duration, cost, charging rate, whether it came in my included minutes. It's long, but it's a PDF so that's OK). It doesn't give incoming ones, but in the UK you are only charged for making calls, not receiving them. I expect the phone company keeps the record though.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine Vodafone UK trying to do a Verizon stunt in Germany....
Am sure the EU commissioner will wait for 30 days and then fine EUR300 million coolly.
Opt-out should be illegal (Score:3, Interesting)
Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to do (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to d (Score:4, Insightful)
The people who consume the goods and services provided by the likes of Verizon have become less important than the companies willing to pay to mine customer databases. There's a lot of money in that, which means quality-of-service levels (and corresponding expenses) can be reduced while maintaining profitability. If that kind of information-sharing were simply illegal, perhaps our communications providers would have to get back to worrying themselves about what their customers want.
Re:Because an OPT IN would be the right thing to d (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why I find it important to distinguish from consumer and customer. The customer is always right. The consumer is just a resource. Problem is, we are the consumer. The corporation on the other end of the data-mining business is the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my favorite part: (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is common practice, but I'd still like to believe that this would be a non-binding contract. Especially since there's no mutual consideration. Here's an excerpt from the Michigan Law Review regarding Silence as Acceptance of an Offer:
The Virginia Law Review continues to talk about when silence is binding:
The difference here, though is that Verizon isn't acting to its detriment, they're going to be getting a big fat cheque out of this from a 3rd party. So, once again, it goes back to mutual consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't breaking that law because they already -have- your agreement. It's your disagreement they are asking for, and you
Re:Here's my favorite part: (Score:5, Informative)
It was just a few years ago that everyone was up in arms about companies sharing our personal information. Congress was pressured to create some regulations to stop it. Instead of going for an "Opt-in Rule" where companies would only be allowed to share or sell your information if you affirmatively acted in telling them it was ok, they passed an "Opt-out Rule."
Under the current scheme, all a company has to do is tell you about it's information sharing policies and give you an opportunity to Opt-out. They don't need a contract. They don't need a meeting of the minds, consideration, offer and acceptance or anything but your silence. If you don't want your information shared, you'll need to get busy and start notifying every company you've ever done business with. You can thank Congress for this.
Re: (Score:2)
So, by this logic I can send Verizon a letter/notice of a $100 per letter-opening fee unless they specifically call me to Opt-Out? And if they don't pay, send them to collections and/or small claims?
No.
You are talking about something that would require formation of a contract.
Verizon is simply providing notice to their customers that they will be sharing personal information.
Look at it this way: FriendA wants FriendB's phone number. Do you need to get a contract (or even permission) from FriendB to give FriendA his phone number? No! It would be the right thing to do, but you don't have to. Verizon is a big company with a lot of personal information, so they have to follow Federal regulations on th
New Verizon Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Verizon trying to bypass FCC mandate? (Score:5, Informative)
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into effect in December.
Is the NSA an affiliate? (Score:2)
I'm guessing that the NSA/FBI/CIA/[insert TLA here] will be considered an affiliate?
Re:Is the NSA an affiliate? (Also DIVORCES-R-US) (Score:2)
In other words... (Score:3)
Meaning: In order to increase our revenue and profit margins ...
I guess it could be worse, they could be sharing your data with the NSA. Oh wait...damn.
Why is the default always to 'opt out'? (Score:2)
How I protested this action (Score:3, Interesting)
+1 mod for screwing the big guy.
Am I missing something here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon is not alone though (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great use for the second address line:
Firstname Lastname
127 Loopback Ave Apt C
Company name SPAM DEPT.
City, ST 65335
You still get all the junk mail, but now you know who sold your info thanks to that SPAM DEPT line.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Give them their own address and phone number. At least at Radio Shack they always have a business card at the counter. So many clueless clerks never even noticed. The few that do notice, "Hey, that's our number/address!" you can just chuckle and reply, "Yeah, you can field my junk mail."
How about calls I made to Verizon customers? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't even get that info (Score:2)
Truth (Score:2)
I've got a plan though.
If enough of us forward calls from suspeted telemarketer numbers to suspected terrorists, we may be able to get rid of two turds, err I mean birds, with one stone.
Not working (Score:2)
Copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to switch (Score:5, Interesting)
I was actually on with AT&T Wireless before they were Cingular, and they actually were *very* nice to us. Even once they were Cingular, their customer service was great even though they did sort of alienate their former AT&T customers. A few of the price plans that the old AT&T had right before being absorbed into Cingular were far better then anything Cingular or Verizon have ever offered. If you wanted to modify your plan, however, you had to switch to a Cingular plan which would inevitably cost you more money. There were a few tricks for getting new phones out of the deal as well, although it got a lot harder over time. Still.... you have to give them major props for honoring the plan -- I held onto it for a few years after the merger. You also didn't have to pay for incoming text messages on any plan, something that no other US carrier does to my knowledge (most European countries have legislation which forces the caller to pay for both sides of the conversation, making incoming calls and SMS free)
However, as time went on, Verizon improved its coverage in my area, while there were no improvements in GSM service. Frustrated by not being able to get a signal at home, I switched to Verizon. A year and a half down the road, and I'm fed up to the point where I'm switching back the day my contract runs out. I've been overbilled, had my service disconnected, had my plan changed without my consent, and Verizon gave my old number to somebody else after they "lost" it while porting. And of course, in order to resolve any of this, you either have to call them and wait on hold for hours on end, or visit one of their stores -- which are more and more resembling the DMV these days (I've seen actual fights break out on more than one occasion).
Re: (Score:2)
You pay for incoming messages ... Incoming ... did i read that right? As in, your wife just texted you to get some bread on the way home and not only did she pay for the text, but you paid for the "privilege" of being able to recieve it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should add an epilogue to the story. I moved to the UK, and gave my phone to a family member who's using it until the contract runs out.
I'm quite amused by the fact that my new provider's primary business is selling groceries (Tesco), and that they're better than AT&T and Verizon by a long shot. Prepay is absolutely the way to go, especially when their rates rival the big US carriers' monthly rates. (My per-minute rates are a bit higher than what I was p
You can keep Euro cellphone billing. (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't strike me as illogical. If it cost people more to call cellphones than landlines, the uptake of cellphones would have been a lot slower. I certainly wouldn't be able to use a cellphone as my primary business line, since it would be obnoxious to charge people more (and, hence, discourage them from calling me) because I want the ability to take calls on the road.
The U.S. pricing structure means that text messages are a bad deal (which is why they're little used here compared to in Europe), but it also sped the adoption of cell phones to many people who wouldn't have bought them otherwise, particularly business users, and it prevented people from consciously avoiding making calls to cell phones because of the expense. It puts the expense of owning a cellphone on the person who wants the convenience of being mobile, rather than on the caller.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to switch - all telcos suck (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know why people don't like them, but I must be the exception. That, or I care about not dropping calls when I am downtown.
GSM is a great idea, but in the USA CDMA has better coverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Time to switch (Score:5, Insightful)
something else?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, let's clear a few things out of this — you would not approve of anyone helping anyone doing anything illegal, would you? Spying, growing weed, downloading music without permission, having an abortion (illegal in many countries)?..
Because if, in your opinion, some things just "ought to be legal" (and thus it is Ok to do them, even if they aren't), then, certainly, it can be argued, that NSA's spying on strongly s
Re:Time to switch (Score:4, Insightful)
The government breaking the law and private citizens breaking the law are radically different things. The government is an artificial structure defined by the law - if it breaks that law, then it can no longer be trusted to serve it's intended purpose rather than some unwanted purpose. And when a government is serving unwanted and unintended purposes that's a very bad thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically every single person in the country trusts their private conversations to telecom companies. If a telecom company breaks that trust and shares those conversations with a government agency (without a court-issued warrant), they damn well deserve to lose business over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you also find the revolutionary war to be a horrible thing, after all the British were the government and it's utterly evil to not bow down to the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From there it is easy to decide w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you'd actually read any history, you would know, that not only illegal wiretaps were authorized by the "war president" Roosevelt, but also a few apparent rub-outs of American citizens by foreign (British) secret agencies.
That was also wrong, just because it has been done in the past doesn't mean it is a good thing.
But do tell me, how NSA (or its clients) could've abused the gathered information.
You mean how they can use unlimited information on all phone calls made by US citizens, because that is what they have. If you believe that somehow "terrorism": has to be involved then you're a fool, after all the whole point of there being no safety measure sis that no one is there to verify why the information is used.
Some of the more interesting uses are against perfectly legal opponents of the current govern
Re: (Score:2)
... an all phone calls made by US citizens to suspected terrorists abroad ...
There, fixed that for you... Surely, a malignant government can declare anyone to be a terrorist, but to also place them abroad and cause them to call into US and talk of anything "interesting" is far more difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't you get it? OP is dropping one telco thats sells your personal data for another that just outright spies on you...
sheesh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.
You're naive if you think AT&T is the only carrier assisting various TLAs.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T admits they're spying. Does that make them more desirable than the others? The enemy you know is better than the enemy you don't know, sort of thing?
I have to admit, the more I think about it, I'd rather go with a carrier that I *know* is spying on me because they've admitted it than with one I also more or less *know* is spying but won't admit it. It's all too much. Back to tin cans and strings. At least then you can see
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't switch to AT&T just for the iPhone - there will be plenty of non-AT&T iPhone competition in 1Q2008. I'm especially interested in what Google may be doing. My Verizon contract was up last month, so it's just a waiting game for me for now...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also waiting to see how the Google phone thing goes. Apparently they acquired GrandCentral.com, so I'd say they're looking into doing some interesting t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is our desperately needed "-1, Godwin" moderation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A clue ?
Re: (Score:2)
The government is not my enemy (in this blessed country), but I can see, how it can overstep.
None of my (other) enemies can harm me, though. It is not obvious, that the dangers outweight the benefits here — yet the poster calling me clueless is currently basking in "5 Insightful" — Verizon's decision's evilness must be obvious to all, except me, but nobody can outline, what it is, exactly...
Re: (Score:2)
They are selling your confidential information without your permission. Easy enough?
Re: (Score:2)
No. First, it is not really confidential — cellular calls aren't encrypted. I doubt, it would be illegal to build and use a device, which would collect information about the calls from all phones within range — and to sell the information. Therefore, I don't think, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy anyway.
Eavesdropping on the contents of the calls would be illegal, but the fact of the call is not a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both — the diminishing of privacy and the abundance of misdirected advertising [catalogchoice.org] — are bad, and it is not at all obvious (to me), which is worse.
And the expectation of privacy of cellular calls (it is Verizon Wireless we are talking about) is unfounded. The calls aren't encrypted and, AFAIK, it would not be illegal to build and install devices collecti
Verizon trying to bypass FCC mandate? (Score:4, Informative)
One thing that is clear from the FCC ruling is that "The FCC changed this requirement to mandate that customers obtain "opt-in" approval from their customers prior to sharing CPNI with their joint venture partners and independent contractors for marketing purposes only." Verizon shouldn't be able to have a global "opt-in" through silence, unless they're trying to get that recorded before the more stringent policy goes into affect in December.