Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qwest Plan Stirs Protest Over Privacy

Posted by michael on from the panopticon dept.

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.

13 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Big deal... by stripes · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The people who chose to not opt out are the people who obviously won't mind having spam sent to them

    That's not quite the same as not only having your address/number sold to spammers, but also having a list of who you call and for how long (and who calls you) being sold.

    Look, she orders pizza 3 times a week, never makes calls on Friday...

    He calls 976 numbers...

    They use the Internet a lot...

    Look, he calls Land's End...

    In other words a somewhat bigger deal, even to people who normally throw away their privacy... (of corse I would have thought that about the supermarket savings cards, but...)

  2. this is slashdot by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Rather than just rant about it on slashdot where a small percentage of people will see it, I'd recommend people send the link to their grandparents on AOL, non-tech friends, et al.
    Companies don't make such decisions without forcasting the outcome. Throw a wrench in Qwest's gears and spread the word to the masses. Maybe the beancounter that figured this would be a relatively painless sell-out will be on the unemployment line in 2 months... :)

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  3. So hands up who did not read the agreement... by dreamquick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quote : "Although the mailer only describes their privacy policy as it currently exists, apparently it's caught a few people by surprise."

    Just like puppies are not just for xmas, online agreements are not just for clicking through without giving the slightest glance!

    Seriously, if you sign a contract and then cried foul when you realise you what you just signed, but then claimed your excuse was "but i didnt read it, i just accepted it!", all but the most money grabbing of lawyers (i mean that in a nice way guys) would laugh at you.

    If you really dislike it that much use another provider - otherwise keep quiet and remember to have "I will always make sure to read the click-thru contract" tattooed onto the back on your eyelids for the next time something like this happens.

    Have a happy new year all!

    PS. the lack of sympathy could just be me or the booze, ask again in 24 hours...

    1. Re:So hands up who did not read the agreement... by dachshund · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Seriously, if you sign a contract and then cried foul when you realise you what you just signed, but then claimed your excuse was "but i didnt read it, i just accepted it!", all but the most money grabbing of lawyers (i mean that in a nice way guys) would laugh at you.

      What the heck are you talking about? None of these people signed any contract that included the information on this mailer. That's why the tiny, anonymous mailer was sent out-- to "clarify" your rights under the law-- which most people, including even some RBOCs, read as preventing the sale of personal information like call logs. It then names some arbitrary 30 day period (starting when?) after which your information can and will be given out.

      On top of that, as the response to the writeup demonstrates, even an attempt to "opt out" of the unilateral "agreement" that Qwest has made you party to is doomed to failure. Both the phone response and web response system seem to be broken.

      So again, I see no evidence that these people "accepted" anything-- given the difficulty Qwest will have in proving that their response system is functional, or that this move is even strictly legal (a contract cannot override the law.) And yes, people should ditch Qwest. Problem is that since Qwest bought US West, they're a regional monopoly-- I don't know if most local customers have anywhere else to go.

    2. Re:So hands up who did not read the agreement... by dachshund · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would like to see a study detailing the total percentage of your time that would be involved in reading the complete T&C attached to every modern service and convenience used by the average person.

      Remember, that includes those contracts whose full terms aren't listed above the signature line (credit card or delivery receipts), of which the difficulty of obtaining might be considerable.

      I would imagine that it would take at least 25% of our available time. Perhaps the best solution would be to require that all service providers insure that their customers have read and understood the terms before accepting a signature. That would certainly clear a lot of the problems up.

    3. Re:So hands up who did not read the agreement... by quintessent · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There is one flaw with your finger-pointing:

      One company creates a legal document that it sends out to millions of people and requires them to accept to use its service.

      The same company therefore has the resources to make the legal document really, really, long and complicated and incomprensible by the average reader. The amount of obfuscation is purely up to the company.

      Millions of people do not have the same time to devote to deciphering the said document. Even though each of us may care a lot about these issues, there is a limit to our individual intelligence and/or patience.

      --
      Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
    4. Re:So hands up who did not read the agreement... by VB · · Score: 2, Insightful


      It's not so much a question of whether Joe Public can understand (while he/she probably cannot), but of whether he should have to invest the time in giving legal recourse to a service provider. Qwest should require a signature on the document from each customer to secure legal absolution from sharing data. If every one of your service providers did this, you'd spend your whole life reading contracts....

      --
      www.dedserius.com
      VB != VisualBasic
    5. Re:So hands up who did not read the agreement... by aka-ed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I will bet you dollars to donuts that this "existing Privacy Policy" was not (until very recently) a published privacy policy, and was not part of any signed contract.

      An honorable man would return those mod points.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
  4. Re:Let's Face It by quintessent · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why does congress have to bow to corporations so readily? Think: Campaign finance. Corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to political parties as long as it is "soft money." In recent years, the parties have learned to skirt the rules and really use this money to win elections. The more this corporate money becomes essential to winning elections, the more politicians will be bowing to every whim of the big corporations.

    As long as there is no campaign finance reform, the RIAA, MPAA, copyright holders, and others will continue to buy your rights away.

    --
    Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
  5. Re:What about ISP privacy? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's common knowledge that some ISP's collect info about where you surf and sell it. My solution is to run my own DNS server even though I'm on dial up. It may not be foolproof, but it's a start. Ummmm...

    I hate to tell you this, but running your own DNS is not going to keep the ISP from knowing where you surf and when. Your only real option is an anonymizing proxy outside your ISP. But those guys will also know where you surf and when, at least until your IP changes.

    There is no such thing as absolute privacy on the internet, and you are foolish if you think there is a way to achieve it, even with encryption or VPN's, someone, somewhere will always be able to know your habits, and if interested and in the right part of the pipe, even more.

  6. what we really need by markj02 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What we really need is decent privacy legislation so that we don't have to opt out of these things. The default shold be privacy; if you see a benefit in some business sharing or retaining your information for marketing purposes, you can always opt in.

  7. Re:Let's Face It by sharper56 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Campaign finance Reform? The only fix for our problems is to return the process to the voters. All non-voting participants (corps, PACs, Unions) should have NO say in the process.

    Here's a first draft of the kind of simple rules we need:

    1. Only Registered Voters i.e. citizens of the US of A are allowed to donate to a politician.
    2. All money donated to a politician must be recorded and posted onto the election commission internet site with name, address and amount of donation. This site is viewable by any other registered voter.

    3. No person is allowed to donate money to both candidates in any election.


      1. Rule 1. Get rid of PACs, Corporations, all groups donations (inc Union), and foreign interest donations.
        Rule 2. Tells me who's buying the politicians.
        Rule 3. Gets rid of money as access, as it forces you to pick your political horse and ride them until election day.



    Resiving the current system completely is the only way to fix the problem and return the power back to you and me.
  8. Re:Big deal... by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Opting out only works if its not a monopoly.