Slashdot Mirror
Qwest Plan Stirs Protest Over Privacy
gilroy writes: "The New York Times has an article (free registration required) about customer reaction to a recent mailing by Qwest. Although the mailer only describes their privacy policy as it currently exists, apparently it's caught a few people by surprise." This hit David Farber's IP list a few days ago: see the original message or the follow-up. As Brett Glass accurately notes, most people believe that information about who they call is protected by law.
I had an internet account with Qwest, back when ( was stupid enough, and Qwest thought it was above the market by offering only three internet access packages - none of which were unlimited use. Because of a project I was working on which required a lot of internet access one month, I got socked with a huge bill. I asked if they were more interested in keeping me as a customer, or more interested in collecting the amount on the bill (it's not that I expected free service, just something more reasonable).
Guess which option they chose.
I can only thank Qwest at this point, because I've been happy with Earthlink ever since.
I was VERY unhappy when I heard that Qwest acquired US West - US West certainly had its problems, but combining US West's telecom infrastructure with Qest's arrogance, it turns out, was a recipe for exactly what we're seeing now. The only thing I can suggest is to limit the use of, or completely cancel Qwest service. There are enough alternatives now that this isn't *that* big of an issue. There needs to be a sudden drop in revenue to get their attention - it's unfornately, the only thing they understand. Ethics and morals are completely outside the box in terms of the way Qest conducts itself as a corporate entity.
It is a big deal.
You can NOT opt-out from them selling your personal information, including when and where you are calling.
Thats a serious privacy issue. Why should some telemarketer know who my friends and business relationships are? What if a competetor to your company decides they want a list of who you call? I can see them selling real-time information to telemarketers so whenever you make a phone call, you get 10 telemarketer calls right after you hang up.
If I'm not mistaken, you can thank The Telecommunications Act of 1996 for most of the deregulation.
From the original document (assuming it's correctly quoted on that page):
So the information does include numbers their subscribers have called.
So they do imply marketing purposes quite clearly.
Ahem.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
I manage to get the savings without giving any personal information. How?
I signed up as a neighbor who died. According to the supermarket, I'm a 75 year old woman who buys a lot of diet soda and beef. And I get the discount, and they don't send me any junk mail.
Who did what now?
All Qwest is doing is telling you that they will be sharing meaningless information like wether or not you have Caller ID or (gasp) Touch-Tone Service installed WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF QWEST.
And in another fine Slashdot tradition, having one's facts straight is not required before flaming others for "not reading the article". Here are the facts straight from the Qwest notice:
Perhaps this is meaningless information in your book; it certainly isn't in mine. And, strike two, the notice explicitly states that they may share the information with third parties.
Take off your tinfoil hats, kids. The Qwest boogeyman isn't trying to send you evil messages through your television. And, in the future you might be better served to THINK, then react --- Not the other way around.
Good advice, you should try it. I don't know whether Qwest is sharing personal call information with others, but they are claiming the right to do so unless you tell them not to.
I ignored this notice when it came in my bill. Thank you, NYT and Slashdot, for calling it to my attention. I will be on the phone tomorrow. I will also warn my friends and family, maybe drop notes to local media. In my opinion, in spite of my tinfoil hat, this is outrageous. It's way over the line.
One other little Qwest anecdote re. their "quality" service. A couple of years ago, Qwest "upgraded" the service to our little suburb by installing a neighborhood C.O. replacement, a central distribution box of some sort. It immediately broke dial-up connectivity: 56K is now a fond memory. The best I can get is 26.4, many of my neighbors feel lucky to break 19.2. Later, I found that this wonderful upgrade also makes it impossible to provide DSL to our area (or at least that's what Qwest told me when I pushed them about availability).
Deregulation was great for long distance, but local service has gone nowhere but down. It is ironic that we may someday get better service if only our cable provider will offer dialtone. That should tell you how bad Qwest is.
While the third judge's ringing dissent demonstrated that there were some serious problems with the resoning and legal basis of the ruling, the Bush FCC, which is said to have a bias toward corporate interests, has thus far failed to appeal it.
Qwest and the other Baby Bells thus feel empowered to violate ALL of the plain language of 47 U.S.C. 222 (part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), which states:
The language here is quite clear and unambiguous. Regardless of whether or not the Bells can tie the FCC's rulemaking process up in the courts, the activities proposed by Qwest in its brochure are patently illegal.Yet, the Bells press on to sell users' private information. Apparently, they believe that the agency charged with enforcing the law has been rendered so toothless that they may break the law with impunity. But the fact is that if they implemented the policy stated in their little "notice," they would be breaking the law.
Perhaps it is time for private and/or class action lawsuits, or suits by state Attorneys General, to enforce the provisions of the law? At the very least, states should make the company's proposed conduct illegal and fight attempts to destroy consumer privacy.
--Brett Glass
Privacyrights.org has some very useful information on this very subject: Privacy Rights.org There's a form letter available to let companies know that you wish to opt-out of their information sharing: Opt-Out
I use qwest for a DSL line and had received ISP service through them prior to this impending MSN disaster (where they are assimilation the Qwest ISP customers).
I switched to a local ISP rather than using MSN, although I was billed by Qwest ISP for a few extra months. Afraid the lackeys would disconnect my DSL line rather than the ISP services, I waited awhile before mustering the courage. I actually finally spoke with someone (after being transferred to numerous people) who was able to cancel the ISP charges AND credit me for several months of unnecessary charges.
I was content with the fact that nothing was screwed up after dealing with a company that insisted a needed a new email/user name when I simply moved a few blocks away a few years ago, and left me without DSL for over a month (I eventually "got my good name back"- with considerable hassle and grief).
However, Qwest charged me $30 for simply making a change to my service. I called them yesterday out of principle. They stated any change to DSL service results in the charge. This makes no sense to me whatsoever since the actual DSL change occurred months ago (with no charge) and at this point I was cancelling ISP service (which SHOULD have occurred months ago, but I digress).
Of course if you *migrate* to MSN, there is no charge... now I could care less about the $30, and frankly I'd gladly pay it to NOT be a MSN customer, but it is the principle of the matter that bothers me the most. As it relates to the article here, it is yet another "unfair" business practice that favors vendors and subsidiaries with a special relationship to Qwest.
I tried to explain to the phone rep. that it made no sense to charge me $30 to change ISPs when they would have changed me for free anyway... or that my ORIGINAL service with Qwest's ISP will no longer exist- that if I had wanted to be an MSN customer I would have done so years ago, that their material disclosed that migration to MSN would occur automatically if I took no action to switch ISPs, that I NEVER agreed to be an MSN customer in the first place, blah, blah, blah...
I still cannot find any info regarding a fee for a change in service, and I am under no contract. The amount of ignorance EVERYONE I've spoken to at Qwest about switching ISPs is remarkable (barring the one exception).
Qwest basically is a monopoly, and they use their position somewhat exploitively. I guess if a business practice does not relate DIRECTLY to phone service, the public utility commission has no jurisdiction?
Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
The CDT's opt-out resource might be what you're looking for.
I've reported them to the PUC several times also. If they are giving you a hard time, just tell them that you are going to report them. Also, they are required under federal law to give you the phone number to your PUC if you ask for it. If they don't, they will get fined for it. Just let the PUC know if they wouldn't give you the number.
Also, if you call the PUC, you'll notice that the people who work there take perverse pleasure in complaints against Qwest.
"CNN" - FCC to appeal court ruling vacating privacy regulations - August 25, 1999.
A court ruling overturning federal protection of telephone customer records puts the interests of phone companies over the rights of consumers, a top federal regulator says.
The Federal Communications Commission("FCC") plans to appeal the decision by the three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which could enable phone companies to use information about customers for marketing purposes without obtaining their consent.
"FCC" Chairman Bill Kennard said the court's decision to reject the commission's rules remove important protections to consumer privacy.
Political News from "Wired News" - Phone Records Up for Grabs?.
A court ruling ( 98-9518 -- U.S. West Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm. -- 08/18/1999 ) with implications for the use and sale of private telephone records sets a disturbing precedent for how the courts regard privacy, watchdog groups say.
But the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") will appeal last week's 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which pleased those privacy groups.
The ruling effectively canceled a vague "FCC" regulation that had forced phone companies to obtain customer permission before using or selling call records for marketing purposes.
ACLU Press Release: 10-25-99 - Consumer and Privacy Organizations, Legal Scholars Urge Appeals Court to Protect Consumers' Telephone Privacy.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, 15 consumer and privacy organizations and 22 legal scholars urged a federal appeals court to reconsider a decision that would allow telephone companies to use private telephone records for marketing purposes.
The groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the case is of great importance to consumers across the United States.
The brief, filed in support of a petition from the Federal Communications Commission, asks the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a privacy provision that was enacted by Congress in 1996 and implemented by the FCC.
Political News from "Wired News" - Court Sides With Telcos on Info.
The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling that overturned a federal regulation requiring telephone companies to obtain customer approval before using or disclosing information about their account for marketing purposes.
The justices declined to review a ruling by a Denver-based U.S. appeals court that the FCC violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment when it adopted the regulation in 1998.
This list may be centered around the Denver, CO area, since that's where I am, and that's where their headquarters are... But all are welcome to participate.