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.
The United States Government is consitutionally unable to protect the privacy of individuals because of the countervailing property rights of other individuals --meaning corporations and the information they gather-- who have great influence over legislation (because of their sacred individual right to petition the government with their opinion$ and grievance$) and almost total control over public discourse.
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...)
According to spamcop, about 80% of the websites mentioned in my spam are hosted by Qwest.
I don't think this is a coincidence.
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,
Unfortunately, this is becoming more of the norm than the exception anymore.
There has been a lot of deregulation that came down about two years ago... can anyone remember what bill this was that allowed subsidiary sharing?
Some other things you will soon notice... same newscast on different competing channels. Television stations can own more than one in any particular area.
Cable-television station-power and lights-commecial gas all in one companies. Many of you have seen this already if you live in Southern Indiana, where Vectren, the power company, controls services package for telephone, cable TV, broadband, power, and natural gas for your homes.
I have a friend that pays one bill a month. One huge, overpriced, amazingly illegal-until recently-deregulated bill.
By the way, the company was accused for decades of price gouging.
If you're in Minnesota, you can dump Qwest for USLink. Anywhere Qwest offers service, so does USLink. I've been with them for about 4 months, and they are both cheaper, and they haven't "accidentally" messed up my bill like Qwest did every single month. And you get to keep your same phone number.
Seriously, if you have problems with Qwest, report them to your state Public Utilities Commission. I reported them about 5 different times. One of Qwest's customer service people actually suggested I cancel my service because they didn't want me as a customer anymore. After I left, they called me almost every day to get me back. I hate Qwest.
Also, for anti-qwest propaganda, check out http://www.tsewq.com.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
An article about privacy on a website that REQUIRES its users to register. C'mon, this is satire begging to happen.
-- Dan
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.
I found out about the mistake within a billing cycle, and called them up to have it changed. This operation was completely successful, but it did nothing to stem the tide of calls coming in from other parts of the country-- where apparently the local phone information was a long ways from its next five-year synchronization point.
Now imagine the wonderful mistakes that will occur when Qwest (the company known for its aggressive slamming practices and disastrous customer service) starts distributing that data.
Username : goatse
Password : goatse
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...
What we need is some kind of clearing house of opt-out info, a la SpamCop, that would allow us to look up all the companies that we do business with and see what their real policies are. A nice feature would be the ability to generate legally binding letters of notification that we could send to those companies, preemptively opting out of all possible dissemination of our data.
Is this already available, or is someone working on it? If not, I'll get busy. Comments and suggestions welcome!
I called the number listed in the article to opt-out, and found it to be disconnected. Was the number transcribed wrong or is this further complication by Qwest? ;)
I suppose you could get a petition drive going, but I'm not sure exactly how that works at a federal level.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Qwest hasn't sold anything to anybody. Federal law just says they can, and they reserve the right to. The FCC tried to pass a law requiring people to opt-in to data sharing which was struck down by the federal court, resuting in the current opt-out policy. According to the article, Qwest favored the opt-in version of the law. They're not the ones screwing you out of your privacy, so if you want to rant against someone, let it be the federal government.
-Ma'at
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.
It's common knowledge that some ISP's collect info about where you surf and sell it.
references, please?
Well, Earthlink's commericial on the issue has to have at least -some- merit.
Zodiac Survey
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.
I find rotating web proxies (not that hard to find), works pretty well.. ok if they scan the packets I send to the proxy sure they know, but other than that noone has my surfing *habits*, a page here and there but not the big picture.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
You have a right to share in the profits, afterall, it's thanks to you they have something to sell...
AC comments get piped to
This is rather ironic in light of a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision. I don't know the details - just a quick blurp on the evening news - but in the past few weeks the CSC ruled a case where a woman sued for "invasion of privacy" after a financial fraud newsletter discussed her 2-year-old conviction for financial crimes.
The court held that the story was still newsworthy, so she had no protection. However outside of legitimate news stories and the like, everyone else has the right to control ALL uses of their name and likeness in this state. This is far stricter than in every other state...
Given this ruling, all of this "information sharing" may now be considered an "invasion of privacy" in this state. If I pay hard cash for an unpublished (not just unlisted) number, I think I can reasonably consider all other optional services to be equally private.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
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.
You can NOT opt-out from them selling your personal information, including when and where you are calling.
This is incorrect. You can opt-out of subscribing to their service. So what's the problem?
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
There's fewer now than there used to be, but most of the "free" ISP's used tracking to target ads (i.e., visit auto sites, get car ads).
From Netzero's Privacy Statement:
Non-Personal and Aggregated Information. This refers to information that cannot be traced back to a specific individual. We automatically gather certain information about you based upon your activity on the Site or the way you use the Service. We also collect machine data such as processor type, processor speed, operating system type, browser type, audio devices, modem devices and video cards. This information may include the web site's Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") that you just came from, which URL you next go to, what browser you are using, and your Internet Protocol ("IP") address.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
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.
When you install ISP software, it will present a software license and in most cases the Terms & Conditions of the service for approval. But no ISP I know of presents its Privacy Statement in the course of installation or signup. They do sometimes tell you where to find it on the web, or even provide a link.
What they don't want to do -- and correct me if your ISP does this -- is put it in front of people's faces. Unlike software licenses and TOS, people will read a Privacy Statement. The reason is, most ToS and software license agreements don't affect your life outside the use of the specific service. Privacy affects your life.
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
As much as I hate Microsoft, THIS IS A GOOD THING. Qwest.net (Qwest's ISP, formerly uswest.net) sold out to MSN. That means Qwest (a phone company) is no longer running a residential ISP! That means, hopefully, eventually, no more anticompetitive bundling crap!
Phone companies are natural monopolies, and should not be allowed to compete in other markets such as ISPs. All other dialup and DSL ISPs have to rely on the phone company for the lines; it doesn't make sense that the company they all rely on should also be a competitor.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
But packet scanning usually requires a search warrant.. oh was that a request to a proxy or containing some confidential information (which should be encrypted anyway, but beside the point).. unlike logging target ip of every packet, which never contains anything of sorts.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Opting out only works if its not a monopoly.
Yeah, it sounds like a joke. But how sure are you? It might be illegal, but selling the info would be legal, and "commercially advantageous". So that would require that the individual blackmailer be traced down. Which can be much more difficult, particularly if there were a lot of them.
And shutting down one blackmailer wouldn't protect one from all of the others, who have access to the same info. (I wonder what the subscription cost would be?)
If this is legal, then perhaps we need to demand that the corporate records also me made available? But what kind of society does that lead to? And do we want to go there?
Also, the court decision seems to have much broader implications. Consider, e.g., medical records. Appearantly the government can't require that they be kept private either. Etc.
The basic fallacy was the court decision that declared that corporations were people. That was obviously can clearly blantantly false when it was decided. If is obviously fals now. And it's at the root of many of the current problems.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Everyone knows that BIOSes have an option to require the password at startup... However, the wording of those messages differ greatly. On one system that I uncovered at work, (an IBM if I remember correctly) booted immediately to a prompt that said:
"They Keyboard Is Locked.
Type Your Password To Continue"
[sic]
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
So the talk tonight is about your phone call history being for sale. Perhaps it's already happening, or perhaps the water is merely being tested... the groundwork laid. But let's speak generally, and think about the future. If privacy is outlawed, look at the bright side. There should be a lot of interesting things for sale!
If the telephone company will sell the dirt on who calls who and when, then they should sell it to anyone... even you, right?
Of course, they may refuse to sell YOU such information (for whatever reason). Then you have an interesting double-standard to explore... Why do they deal with Mr. Make Money Fast and not with you? It might be a question for the courts. And you can probably fool them into dealing with you anyway - start a "fake" shell company, pretend to be someone they will deal with, etc...
I would be surprised if it's so hard, though. If they've really gone to the trouble of gearing up to sell this data, shouldn't they be selling it to every customer they can find? No, the worst possibility is likely that they will make it a little bit expensive. But this won't be a bother to a public interest group which can pool resources.
Now picture yourself holding the binder of DVDs (or the u/p to the database) - phone records for whole regions for whole years. You now have access to all kinds of nifty information about all kinds of interesting people. Celebrities, government bureaucrats, policemen, your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend, your boss, your employees... The more detailed and revealing the data, the better!
An apocryphal mountain of dirt will be at your fingertips. Start mining it, and start abusing it! Anyone you embarass or blackmail is an instant convert to the cause! The more marks you horrify, and the more wealthy and powerful they are, the better. Get creative! Take out a full page in a local paper and fill it with names of everyone in the neighborhood who calls 900 numbers for pr0n. "Stalk" your mayor/congressman/sherrif/principal. Try to catch people cheating on their spouses. Try to catch businessmen calling politicians - and vice versa! Have fun watching how much police talk to organized criminals - and when!
Of course, the really interesting targets (members of congress, secret service, military, movie stars) might somehow manage to get themselves hidden - although many won't, since the opt-out trap works on powerful and meek alike. Regardless, you either get everyone, or you get another exploitable double-standard, from which comes either the ability to make trouble for the marketers, or the ability to get yourself off the lists too.
Hey, that's one of my favorites - the myth that you can "opt-out" at all - meanwhile, everyone who's already bought your data has resold it to 100 people, and each of those resold it to another 100... You could print a regular column of detailed information on those people who have "opted out" by buying the data regularly and comparing versions. I just kill myself sometimes.
The worse damage they do, the more egregious the privacy violations become, the better the opportunities for successful protest. If some people (dare we say, even the majority of people) lack the imagination to understand what the erosion of privacy rights is doing to them, then they need some preventative medicine, and (according to the gov't!) you have every right to give it to them. It will be your social duty, not to mention smashingly funny, to unleash some tough marketing love, if you will, on the unenlightened. You know what they say: we only realize what we love by how much it hurts when it's lost.
We're on the road to Tycho.
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.
... after all, we lock up individuals who do this sort of thing, usually applying the label "voyeur" or "peeping tom" so why should we be any less stringent with organized, by some definitions conspiratorial, violations of our privacy?)
[...]
Perhaps it is time for private and/or class action lawsuits, or suits by state Attorneys General, to enforce the provisions of the law?
Perhaps it is time we started imprisoning CEOs and board members of companies that willfully break the law like this, counting on endless court battles and legal thuggary to allow them to gain the profits of their illegal actions before they can be compelled to adhere to the laws the rest of us are expected to abide by. As long as it is simply a numbers (financial) game one of the most important, and potent, deterrents against breaking the law will be rendered impotent, namely the consiquence of doing time for violating other people's rights. (Including the right to privacy
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"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.
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."
Read the horrors of people misusing your personal information!!! (must provide your personal information to access)
m00.
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.