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.

Comments

Re:The new rules.

[Sarcasmooo!]

If I'm not mistaken, you can thank The Telecommunications Act of 1996 for most of the deregulation.

Important followup

[Brett Glass]

Here's a followup. Apparently, Qwest's bold move is due to a recent lawsuit in which Larry Tribe and other high-powered lawyers, working for the Bells, managed to derail the FCC's attempts to establish rules that protect consumers and promote competition. (See the decision at http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-9518 .htm). In this poorly drafted decision, two of a panel of three judges came to the absurd conclusion that requiring telephone companies to keep ANY customer information private -- including the details of whom you call and when -- violated the companies' First Amendment rights! (The same reasoning would cause any law requiring companies to keep information in confidence to be rejected on Constitutional grounds and would essentially negate all privacy legislation of any kind.)

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:

Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunication service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.

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

Re:We need an opt-out resource!

[tregoweth]

The CDT's opt-out resource might be what you're looking for.