FCC Allows Bells to Sell Your Telephone Usage Data

Devistater writes "Spotted on hardocp. The FCC said in a ruling yesterday that telephone companies can sell your name, who you call, and for how long you talk to anyone who is an "affiliate." No longer is this required to be an opt in marketing approach, now its OPT OUT. Sounds like spam is coming to the telephone world, and what an egregious breach of privacy. Article on PCWorld has some of the details." There's also a short Reuters story and a good one on ecommercetimes.com.

Comments

What about porn calls

[alen]

I spend a huge amount of time calling live sex lines. Who would they sell this info to?

Re:What about porn calls

[Waffle Iron]

I spend a huge amount of time calling live sex lines. Who would they sell this info to?

Tissue paper companies.

Re:What about porn calls

[Anonymous Coward]

Competing sex lines. Did you know that if you call 1-900-ACOWARD, you will reach orgasm 15% sooner, for an estimated $245 per month savings? Try us today!

Re:What about porn calls

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll sell it to MomWatch.

Mothers, are you tired of waiting to become a grandmother? Has your son not tied-the-knot yet? It may be that your son is calling sex lines instead of meeting real girls. Subscribe to MomWatch, and you'll receive monthly reports detailing your son's calls to sex lines.

For real value, try MomWatch Plus! This advanced proprietary system categorizes your son's sexual desires by the type of sex line he calls, and the time and duration of his calls, and cross references with our credit card and grocery discount card database to find good candidates for your daughter-in-law. Your monthly report will include the girls most compatable with your son's sex drive, along with their spending patterns and grocery preferences, so that you'll be able to confirm that they can cook the kinds of foods that your son eats. Then a little nudge from you, and you're a grandmother!

Re:What about porn calls

[Corporate Troll]

I'd honestly be scared to call the competing 1-900-GOATSE
*Shudders in disgust*

Re:What about porn calls

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...Jergens?

Re:What about porn calls

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps stain-removalist companies?

"Business Affiliates"?

[AriesGeek]

Is this just the highest bidder, as long as they have something to do with telecommunications? Maybe like the fact that they have a telephone in their office?

Scary....

I think I'll be opting out SOON.

Re:"Business Affiliates"?

[SnapShot]

It seems like I get a lot of calls from Ponzi Schemes, credit card frauds, and other marketing scams.

It all makes sense now that I know who Verizon's Business Affiliates are.

Re:"Business Affiliates"?

[homer_ca]

One obvious "affiliate" would be long distance companies. People who call a lot of long distance will be aggressively targeted by telemarketers offering to switch their long distance. Maybe if you call China a lot, you'll get a Chinese-speaking telemarketer too.

The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[Gorm the DBA]

Hmm...so now the Christian Coalition or the Republican party can buy the phone company's records of who you called and when.

"Hello, this is Pat Robertson, I am calling to tell you that you're a sinner and condemned to burn in hell because you called 1-900-SPANK-ME and talked for 12 hours. Oh, we're also telling your boss, and reporting it to the credit agencies"

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[govtcheez]

But imagine how great it'll be to flip that around.

"Hello, Pat Robertson? I am calling to tell you that you're a sinner and a hypocrite condemned to burn in hell because you called 1-900-SPANK-ME and talked for 12 hours. Oh, we're also telling your cul^H^H^Hcongregation, and reporting it to the IRS"

Man, that would be sweet.

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[Anonymous Coward]

Christian Coalition AND Republican party - isnt that kind of redundant....

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[flacco]

because you called 1-900-SPANK-ME and talked for 12 hours.

With staying power like that, you'd be worshipped like a god, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[JPelorat]

Or you might get your life threatened by the militant liberals who've noticed you're not calling PBS or the Democratic Party with pledges often enough. After all, according to their own diatribes, if you don't give money and support to PBS and the Dems, you're killing children.

The Lifestyle Police might like it too... "I see here that you've been having pizza delivered just a little too often, and you actually called Phillip Morris to order tobacco-branded merchandise. We're going to have to pack some tofu up your ass to compensate. Stay right there."

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[Pxtl]

I'd be more concerned if right-to-lifers bought an abortion clinic's calling information. Forget loss of money or privacy - how about bombing or lynching?

There's also the issue of them knowing the names of people you call now. Think about it - they know your friends names now. Imagine the junkmail they could send. The sort of social engineering we normally only see in E-Mail viruses suddenly becomes much more powerful and much more personal. They can no longer just ape your on-line life to trick you - they can ape your actual real life - you can get a snail-mail from a friend you know saying how your other friend struck it rich doing X. It is, of course a scam - but it grossly increases the maximum IQ to fall for it.

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[Mr_Matt]

After all, according to their own diatribes, if you don't give money and support to PBS and the Dems, you're killing children.

Funny, I'm a 'militant' (what, like I shoot people?) liberal and haven't heard that one, yet. Care to post a reference? Just for laughs' sake, if nothing else. :)

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[JPelorat]

Listen to your fringe.. you'll hear the lunacy. Hell, listen to your congressbeings, cos there are just as many loopy loons on the left side of the aisle as there are on the right.

Hahaha, you don't like being labelled? Well goddamn, you folks should have thought about that before you went apeshit with them on everyone. Turnabout is fair play.

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[Mr_Matt]

Listen to your fringe.. you'll hear the lunacy. Hell, listen to your congressbeings, cos there are just as many loopy loons on the left side of the aisle as there are on the right.

So in other words, you can't post a reference. That's about what I thought. :) And nobody's saying there aren't wackos on both sides of the political spectrum - there may even be more on "my" side - but at least I can quote "your" wackos. :)

Hahaha, you don't like being labelled? Well goddamn, you folks should have thought about that before you went apeshit with them on everyone. Turnabout is fair play.

Where do you get that from? I just thought you used 'militant' in a strange manner. Label away, see if I care.

Sheesh. :)

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, the real right-to-lifers don't support that any more than the abortions in the first place. Both are still murder...

Re:The end of 1-900-HOT-SEXX

[Anonymous Coward]

So start a fund to buy some of these lists, harvest out the politico's numbers, stick it on the web....

They deserve a wee bit of there own medicine....

It's their service

[jmu1]

You can CHOOSE not to use it. If you want privacy... don't walk around with your pants down and expect not to be seen. You make the decision to use their product. Why you have an expectancy of any privacy at all is beyond me. Hell, I'd make you pay for it... the privacy that is. Hey, that's not a bad idea. Make everything non-private and charge for privacy expectations!

Re:It's their service

[AriesGeek]

Yes, you choose to use it. But you're not using it for free. You pay them to use it. They're already making their money off of you.

Re:It's their service

[domselvon]

Agreed, if you don't like it then don't use it.

It'd be interesting to learn how they are publicising this to customers. After all you can't expect all customers to be monitoring the online news reports complaining about online privacy.

A number of companies are doing a similar thing Yahoo! for example, and you generally have to check or uncheck a little box when you're registering for things to stop or allow affiliates receiving info about you these days anyway.

My opinion is it's going to happen, just make sure you're on the ball enough to opt-out when required.

Re:It's their service

[HowlinMad]

and you agreed to their terms, so once again DONT use it if you dont like the way they deal with privacy.

Re:It's their service

[sam_handelman]

Well, yes and no.

1) You have to decide if their violating your privacy constitutes harming you. I think it does. So, just like drug makers can't sell you poison (doing you harm,) the phone company can't sell your phone records to people who want information on you. The harm is, I will grant, less severe, but it is still harm.

2) The guv'mint provides a regulatory backdrop that makes the telephone system possible. The system was built by Bell, originally, but with government help. If there were really more than one system - if, say, Sprint and AT&T customers could not call each other - than you might expect less guarantees about their behavior. As it is, they are selling access to the single, public, telephone network. They should not be in a position to dictate the terms under which that network can be accessed.

3) In the past, your phone records have been more-or-less private. This is a PRECEDENT. Precedent is more powerful than logic; if you engage in an illogical business practice long enough that people expect you to do it, you can't stop. Unfortunately, this principle has no force of written law, but as a practical guideline it pops up all the time.

Re:It's their service

[Monkelectric]

God I hate anyone who says if you dont like something just don't buy it. That works for pizzas (man you'll never see me eat at a Papa Johns) but not GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MONOPOLIES like telephone services.

Re:It's their service

[arkanes]

Yeah, and if the darkies don't like the way we treat them they can just go back to Africa.

This isn't some random website or company we're talking about - it's the PHONE COMPANY. It's extremely difficult to do ANYTHING in modern society without a phone - you can, of course, but it locks you out from a huge portion of society. Lack of running water or electricity is less of an inconvenience. And it's not like you have a whole lot of options to take your money elsewhere - you have no choice of local carrier, and the LD carriers will all have the same policy.

Re:It's their service

[faaaz]

Just because it's their service doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. But then again I live in Europe, where common sence is a lot more common.

Re:It's their service

[jmu1]

Fool. Use an alternate service... Satalite phones, something... anything for crying out loud. You people may think I was trolling. But bupkiss to you. I mean it. If I don't want to support something, I stop supporting it. Geesh. Go out there... Start making waves with people who are like-minded... get some cash, and start a business to fight those you don't want to support! Get out there, lay lines. Hell, don't like the govm't handling the roads? Start a privitization coalition. Get out there and raise money and pay someone else to pave the roads. It can be done. You don't have to rely on the govm't to take care of you. You should take that responsibility on yourself.

Re:It's their service

[colmore]

Agreed. I'm reminded of that classic SNL sketch "We're the PHONE company, we don't have to care."

Free market zealots crack me up, because their philosophy is based on the mistaken idea that free markets even exist.

In the ideal free market, I want to do task X, company A produces widget A to do task X, company B produces widget B to do task X, company C etc. etc. etc. If one company bothers me, overcharges me, abuses my privacy etc. I just take my business elsewhere. This is a fine model for TVs, cars, etc. etc. but there are many sectors of the economy where this is an entirely false model.

As a most eggregious example, take the California energy crisis. People (or perhaps, if you're bitter politicians paid off by energy companies) were fed up with the innefficiency of the California public utilities. So they privatized the whole thing. Theoretically this was supposed to create a handful of competing companies all trying to undercut each other to provide service X (here, electricity) to as many people as possible. This didn't happen. They got together and fixed prices and engineered a shortage to create demand. Blackouts started, and people's power bills went up. Enron had a big hand in this. Someone tell me, at any point in that company's entire history did they do anything that helped anyone other than a small group of principle shareholders?

The record industry works in the same way. Label A and label B don't compete with each other for customers. They have carefully carved out territories and their prices are fixed by a trade organization (RIAA)

I used to really believe in total free-market capitalism, it's a beautiful theory. But like communism, it fails miserably in practice. You need a strong regulatory government to preserve free trade and competition, because the market naturally tends toward consolidation. Unfortunately, we don't have that. We have a strong government that is more often than not, working to HELP the price fixers and tycoons. There are times when I think our current system is actually worse than total deregulation.

Wow... that went on for too long.

Anyway, back to phone companies. These are companies operating in a government sanctioned monopoly (as the parent post mentioned) in such situations, I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability. Wheras in a monopoly, people have no option other than to do without a needed public service. We should have had nationalized railroads years ago, as well, but the democratic party was too addicted to the money that labor unions gave them to support trucks on interstates to bother with it.

Re:It's their service

[cduffy]

Bullshit -- there are still alternatives to landlines (which are all this applies to). VoIP services like Vonage, cell phone providers, simply not having a phone (the last of those being my present choice... someone wants to communicate, they can use email, damnit! urgent? needs to be voice? well, there's a phone in my office for that, when I'm there and not too busy to answer it).

Nobody's forcing you to buy landline service.

Re:It's their service

[rnturn]

``It'd be interesting to learn how they are publicising this to customers.''

Were you born yesterday? They won't publicize this at all. The average consumer will be lucky to find it in the six pages of crap that gets stuffed into their phone bill. And if they do find something that looks a little odd, they won't know what it means because of the obtuse language these announcements employ.

``you generally have to check or uncheck a little box when you're registering for things to stop or allow affiliates receiving info about you these days anyway''

You mean like the people who were signed up with that major ISP who opted out only to find that the ISP had changed the policy and automatically opted everyone back in again? And without informing their customers? How many affiliates received their email addresses (and God knows what else) before they found out that their opt-out had been changed without notification?

You must not have a job or a life if you have the time to visit the web site of every company that you do business with to check up on the privacy policies and ensure that you haven't been opted back in. How often should I check? Daily? And how many people will get your private info when the policy changes five minutes after you've opted out again.

If someone tells a company that they don't want their information sold or revealed, that should be it. Consumers should not have to play this little game of ``How about now? No? OK. ... pause ... OK, how about now? No? ... pause ... OK, then how about now?''

Re:It's their service

[arkanes]

Woo! It's a liberatarian! Get im!

And, on a side note, if you ever want to live in the REAL world, and not the one you made up in polisci classes, you're welcome to come and hang out.

Re:It's their service

[wheel]

No matter what satalite phone/ip phone/ CB->telephone transfer you use... you're still CONNECTING with someone whose telephone data is non private. This means that even _you_, mr off-the-grid, are having (at least part of) your telephone history sold to the highest bidder.

Re:It's their service

[scaryman]

I don't know about the prices in the USA but in the uk calls from mobile phones are approx 12 times the cost of land lines, so it makes it expensive to switch all calls from a land line to mobile phones.
if the costs were similar i'd agree with you 100%.

Re:It's their service

[Dalcius]

Boy meets world...

There are too many battles for the common person to fight every day. People like you love to tell us, "Well, don't buy it!"

The problem with that is, most corporations try and take advantage of the populus anyway -- that's a lot of battles to fight. Besides the fact that people with lives don't have that kind of time, most folks are ignorant and apathetic anyway.

This is why we invented "Government." These elected people spend their entire day fighting the battles we don't want to, at least in theory. It's an imperfect system, but it's better than depending on the people to solve every issue that comes up instead of doing something productive. You can study examples in history for such examples.

Re:It's their service

[GlassUser]

The problem is that they're a government-sponsored monopoly. You can't create an alternate service. It's like the USPS selling info on who you mail letters to, when, and how thick they feel. There's no alternate to the government mandated provider.

Re:It's their service

[SirNonya]

Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism! If you don't like their phone service, start your own!

Your argument could be used for anything! Lets say that slashdot started charging for posts. You could complain about how it locks you out from a wonderful society.

Re:It's their service

[Anonymous Coward]

YEs but if bell do it what prevent other compagny( alternatives) to do the same? Btw try to order a pizza by email!

Re:It's their service

[banking_intern]

Urm, actualy enron told california's legislature while proposing the bill that they way they were going to "deregulate" energy didn't make sense and was going to get them in trouble. The system that california set up from the begining was known by many people would create problems.

Re:It's their service

[Mr.Intel]

http://www.dominospizza.com Works just fine for me. I don't have to wait on hold forever and the pizza gets here in the same time. Real sweet huh?

Re:It's their service

[Anonymous Coward]

I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability.

You've never been audited, have you?

Re:It's their service

[Anonymous Coward]

If you check up on the legislation that was passed to privatize the energy public utilities, you will note that they didn't do a very good job. CA is a perfect example of how NOT to make that transition. CA put price caps in for what the users could be charged for the energy but not the suppliers. I'd love to supply a market with those terms. CA really messed up with their citizens and the citizens are paying for it. I'd fire all the legislature and start over again.

Re:It's their service

[theRiallatar]

It's cool. All my phone record is going to show is that I call Earthlink every day and "talk" to them for about twelve hours. Best way yet to keep the telemarketers away. Now if I could just get VoIP to be not crappy on dialup, I'll be all set.

Re:It's their service

[pamzella]

Exactly. Those of you who rely on your cell phones entirely, great, but I live in a stucco condo. No cell phone service in my house. I am not going outside in the rain or cold or blazing heat just to talk on the telephone.

Re:It's their service

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit!
This isn't like choosing between Publix, Kroger and Albertson's or between Ford, BMW, GM.

They're a monopoly. Don't give me any crap about cell phones, sat phones etc.
Don't think it's a monopoly?
Rent a trencher and start installing phone lines - you can't. You can't start you're own water service either. In some places you can choose an electrical or gas provider but you can not start your own local distribution company. The incumbent distribution ("last mile") companies have legal monopolies with the state and or municipality.

Re:It's their service

[cduffy]

Pizza? That's what kitchens are for!

Honestly, you can make a much better pizza by hand than almost anyone will deliver... and if you reeealy want to be able to phone out for pizza every so often, prepaid cellular is probably your best option.

As for what prevents the alternatives from also selling customer info...

1. Consumer preference. If your VoIPPOTS service can get customers quickly (and/or charge a premium) for keeping customer info private, they'll do so.

2. Law. Just because this decision by the FCC to be lax on traditional telcos applies to the Bells doesn't mean it applies to VoIP providers -- and it certainly doesn't apply to cellular (because telemarketing is illegal on cell phones, as the callee pays for their time on the phone).

Re:It's their service

[colmore]

I'm not saying that big government is Pure and Good. the most horrible crimes in the history of humanity have been committed by governments and organized religions acting as such.

but in a democracy, a nationalized industry has more accountability than a "natural" monopoly.

if the government runs the phones, you have more options than just "put up with our crap or don't use the phone." you can vote for someone who will install a new head of the federal phone comission or whatever.

Re:It's their service

[cduffy]

Mobile phones are considerably more expensive than land lines here (though not as much so as you mention) -- but the service offered by VoIP providers such as Vonage is considerably cheaper.

Re:It's their service

[HiThere]

It's worse than you indicate. In many areas where the market does not naturally tend toward centralized control, the government artificially so regulates it that it will tend that way.

One example of this is the health care industry. It naturally tends towards a few large hospitals, and a large number of small clinics, and a larger number of doctors in private practice. Enter government regularions. The paperwork requirements cause the doctors to need to aggregate so that staff can handle the paperwork. (Lots of other regulation changes and additions.) and we eventually end up with today where doctors are so disgusted with their profession that they are quitting as soon as they can afford to, where their offices have several people per doctor working full time on paperwork, where hospitals are amalgamating into super organizations for reasons that I don't fully understand. And where health care is degenerating yearly, and not slowly.

And the legal insurance requirement on doctors are such that private practice is essentially impossible. (This is partially by the choice of the insurance companies. I don't know just how much is the decision of the insurance companies, and how much is decided by government regulation, but the two combined are pretty poisonous.)

There are less than 1/3 the number of dermatologists working in the city in which I live this year than there were a decade ago. And the city population has increased considerably. And of the dermatologists that I know, most are contemplating early retirement.

Re:It's their service

[cornflux]

As a most eggregious example, take the California energy crisis. People...were fed up with the innefficiency of the California public utilities. So they privatized the whole thing.

*bzzzzttt* wrong. try again.

When you said "eggregious" (sic) I think you meant "misleading" or "imaginary." They've made attempts at privatizing only parts, capped prices and haven't increased production. Capping prices has got to be the single worst thing you can do. Read this and this if you're interested in the truth behind CA's pseudo-deregulation.

You need a strong regulatory government to preserve free trade and competition, because the market naturally tends toward consolidation.

What the hell medication are you on? Trade is not free if you're regulating it strongly. It's like saying having a strong police-state results in the preservation of freedom. Beyond that odd statement, it seems like you're advocating the subsidy of failing/failed companies.

I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability.

We don't need an Amtrak-like phone system. Two reasons: quality of service and innovation. Can you fathom a government beurocracy voluntarily giving up it's livelihood because the market demands have changed? Amrak is still going, even though it's losing money hand-over-fist and ridership is shit. Everyone's flying or driving or using Greyound... it's pointless.

Re:It's their service

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken on the cause of California's energy crisis. The issue there was primarily that the gov't deregulated the supply side, but still had price controls on the consumer side.

So PG+E which was disincentifzed(SP!) from building plants in Californina, had to go buy power elsewhere, and got charged more for the power, they couldn't pass the buck on to the consumer, and instead had to go into debt. Eventually, the suppliers of electricity told them, you can't pay.. we're not gonna give you anymore power.

The lesson is.. either deregulate.. or don't.... doing something half-assed ain't the solution.

Re:It's their service

[Saeger]

There's a "great" side effect of redtape raising the bar so that only large organizations can afford to compete: individual cogs (people) get to transfer their personal responsibility to the secure system. Hurray! Maybe people feel that bureaucracies are worth the inflated price for the added insulation of unaccountability? And that small business (for example) is too "risky", so they don't mind if the barrier to entry is tough.

--

Re:It's their service

[colmore]

The problem with Amtrak is pseudo Nationalization.

Europes trains are run by the government and are the envy of the world.

Amtrak is a private corporation with a government granted monopoly, fed by taxpayer dollars. It combines the greed of the private sector with the laziness of the public sector. Something should be changed.

Re:It's their service

[cornflux]

The real problem with Amtrak is that it is unecessary. Period.

People in the US are not avoiding trains because Amtrak is pseudo-nationalized but rather because they don't want to use them.

I think you'll agree that the reason Europe's trains are popular is not because they are government-run but rather that they fit a certain market demand. There is no similar market demand in the US... and you can not artificially create one by nationalization.

So much for court warrants ...

[jc42]

This means that now all any government agency needs to do is set up a dummy corporation that's an "affiliate", and my phone company will give them unlimited access to all the data about me.

Ya gotta admit, it's a neat end run around the laws that restrict government surveillance.

Oh, well, I suppose as a known computer programmer, I'm already on all the lists of suspected terrorists.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[zaren]

"The FCC said in a ruling yesterday that telephone companies can sell your name, who you call, and for how long you talk to anyone who is an "affiliate."

The question at this juncture is: goes the gov't have to pay? Or will they be able to get this information under the guise of "national security"?

Time to dust off that anti-telemarketers script...

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have a very high self-worth to think that the government cares enough about you to monitor everything you say on the phone.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[domselvon]

There was a story about this on bbc.co.uk about allowing governments snooping power.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[jc42]

> You obviously have a very high self-worth to think ...

Nah. What this sounds like is that they'll set up affiliates of all the phone companies and atuomatically get "pen registers" of all call made by everyone. These files will be analyzed by software that looks for interesting patterns. The customers that the software flags as "interesting" will then be examined in more detail.

All of it legal; all without any pesky court orders.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[taloobie]

This is a reply to this comment as a bunch of the other ones.

I imagine many of the slashdotters (and many techie non-slashdotters) out there work at these Bells and all these other companies engaging in these violations of civil liberties. Wouldn't the first place to initiate change be within the corporate walls? For all of you who work at companies selling information and using technology to facilitate the exchange, why not stand up and refuse to comply with corporate wishes until the issues of civil liberties are brought up and resolved? Of course, that may mean your job, but there are lots of jobs out there and lots of ways to make money without infringing on others privacy.

These "selling of information" activities cannot happen if there aren't people willing to build the technology to let the sales, marketing and boardrooms do whatever they want to make money. With all the news lately about corporate crooks, I'd think eventually the people that work at these companies would realize they do have power to change things. It's a matter of courage.

There's no way we can expect most lawmakers and CEOs to change what's happening (even though they should change it!). They are already protected from civil liberty violations. They have goons working to protect what they do and how they do it. Writing them/counting on them may help but in the end most of them have no idea what's involved with all the new technology and new culture surrounding that technology -- and certainly they won't be able to adjust the laws based on a few angry customers.

I guess the crux of my point is that there are a lot of techies out there enabling these activities. The RIAA must have techies working for them, so do the Bells, and so did Enron, on and on. Why did these techies build this stuff that let this happen? If you are one of the techies at these companies, speak up and tell us your reasoning why you build and maintain solutions that let people so easily violate our civil rights?

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[monkeydo]

This means that now all any government agency needs to do is set up a dummy corporation that's an "affiliate", and my phone company will give them unlimited access to all the data about me.

Yeah, what's your point? The government can tap your phone now without a warrant. They can follow you to high-school and pay the girl who sits behind you to spy on you. They can even knock down your door in the middle of the night and drag you naked through your front yard without so much as probable cause.

Ya gotta admit, it's a neat end run around the laws that restrict government surveillance.

Why would you think that? They don't do these things because it would be completely pointless for them to do so. If they obtain evidence in any of these ways (including buying it) the evidence is useless in court. Since law enforcement agencies purpose is to put away criminals they would simply be wasting energy collecting evidence they could never hope to use. Judges don't apprechiate "end runs" and have thrown out improperly obtained evidence when the agents collecting it "should have known better." Here's a hint: they have to act in good faith.

It isn't "hard" for LEO to get the info they want given the legal authority to do so (and getting warrants has become somewhat easier) but if you believe that the FBI is really interested in doing serious surveilance on you without a warrant you are seriously deluded.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[OxOx]

I think this is a bad idea as much as anyone, but let's not go overboard. "Affiliate" has a very specific meaning in the legal world. Two entities are affiliates only if, directly or indirectly, (a) either one has the power to control the other, or (b) a third party controls or has the power to control both.

In practical terms, this generally means companies within the same corporate family. So, Verizon could sell my records to Verizon Wireless. Unless the CIA becomes a subsidiary of Verizon (or a large shareholder with voting shares, I suppose), it's not an affiliate. It's a far narrower term for lawyers than for the unwashed masses.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[NDPTAL85]

Are you really this stupid? The reason why they don't stand up and speak out is because they'll be fired and replaced with more complacent techies. Its not like these "employees" have any bargaining power anymore. The dot.com rush is over. A techie is just another worker these days. And in this economy they're also a dime a dozen.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the CIA becomes a subsidiary of Verizon (or a large shareholder with voting shares, I suppose)

Man, now there's a scary thought -- watch the street price of crack jump as Tenet and his Krew start investing in the baby bells.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[taloobie]

Hmmm... I do appreciate your frankness. My viewpoint is not a matter of ignorance or stupidity but one of frustration.

Your right in some respects, the individual bargaining power era is over, if it ever existed in the first place. However, that wasn't exactly my argument. Instead, I suggested as a TECHNICAL COMMUNITY why do WE continue to PERPETUATE practices we don't agree with? Furthermore, we all understand that paying the bills is sometimes more important than righting the wrongs of corporations, yet our dialogues on Slashdot, in the breakroom, at the bars, and in our living rooms suggest that we care deeply about protecting our civil liberties. If we care so deeply, why do we enable the corporations we work for, build technology for, and buy services from to abuse this technology and our supposedly "down" economy by selling our information?

The "dot com rush is over"/"we're all commidities" is not a good reason to avoid ACTION, it's merely an excuse. And, you're right, techies are a dime a dozen -- well, at least, the ones that hole up and pretend that they are victims and not volunteers.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[dillon_rinker]

the evidence is useless in court

What a relief! Next time a J Edgar Hoover type is running the FBI and harassing Americans who are guilty of thinking differently, and I'm all upset, I'll just remember:

HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.

The next time I'm pulled over on suspicion of being black in a white neighborhood, I'll comfort myself with this thought:

HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.

The next time some guy gets sodomized with a broomstick by people who are abusing their authority, I'll remind people that there's no harm done because HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.

I'm don't hate or distrust the government; overall it does a pretty good job. I do have concerns about handing excess power to individuals, whether they are presidents or rookie beat cops, because humans are flawed and make stupid decisions sometimes. Oh well, at least HARASSMENT IS USELESS IN COURT.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[RichN]

How about the techies go along in implementing this (to keep their jobs), but rebel in an other way: make sure the board of directors' names/numbres/info are always included in the list and don't allow them to opt-out?

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[taloobie]

Is not that approach contradictory to the point behind one's rebellion in the first place?

Distributing someone's information shouldn't be used as a way to stop others from distributing others' information.

This is probably that same reason the world struggles for peace by fighting wars...

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, well, I suppose as a known computer programmer, I'm already on all the lists of suspected terrorists.

Yoda: Your ego talking, that is.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[King_TJ]

I don't think I'm "deluded" in the slightest when I see all of the efforts made by the FBI over the years to obtain more flexibility in performing surveilance.

Technically, no, maybe they'll always want a warrant first - but they're also constantly trying to make sure getting that warrant is a "no-brainer". Ideally, they'd like a search warrant to be handed out like a piece of candy. It's simply a piece of paper that makes their activity look more legitimate on the surface.

It's not that the FBI loves collecting "evidence they could never hope to use". The problem is, technology makes it feasible to process much more raw information than ever before. If they can side-step traditional limitations on what they can and can't collect as evidence, they can start mass collection efforts, fed into computer systems, and have the machines do the work for them. Flag all the "interesting" stuff that pops up, get your warrant, and go check it out.

How hard is it for them to claim they "acted in good faith" when their expensive software "data mining" package said someone needed to be checked out? Nevermind they kicked in some gun dealer's door at 2AM and gave his wife a heart-attack, all because the software couldn't tell those large gun purchases were just inventory for his store - as opposed to "suspected terrorist activity".

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[DustMagnet]

This information was never private. The government has been getting it for free without a court order for years. It's considered to be like the outside of an envelope. It's not private information (I don't agree).

What might change is that now the government can buy it in bulk instead of requesting it on a case-by-case basis. Add that to the fact the FBI can now buy data bases to monitor for potential terrorists and you have a very serious surveillance system.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess the next step up is to provide all the IP address that you have send packets on your DSL line since these are jsut phone lines.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[MousePotato]

Interesting. I think this may make for a comparison in application.

The government is currently trying to get a grip on corporate America because of the corprate accounting scandal and the many laws that these corporations skirted around, treating the FTC and related accounting laws as objects to avoid on their journey to fleece investors and subvert thier competitors in the stock game.

Many in the media have taken to the 'speed limit' analogy where the actual comparison is very accurate in reality. Many people look at the speed limit as a taxation threshold that only applies if they are caught and could care less about the lives of the other people that they endanger by breaking those laws by 15-30mph over the established limits.

Yet here we go with a method where the gov can skirt around all of our civil liberties by doing exactly what you surmised. Creating a dummy corporation and just purchasing the information. Information that they would have had to obtain via the writs required. I wonder if data collected in this method would be applicable in a court room. IANAL but my guess would be that this info would be legit to admit in a court case.

Good or bad there are some interesting implications/complications that arise. What is to prevent the news media from purchasing said telecom records and airing them in thier investigations? If I were someone like Gary Condit(just an axample) then all of those phone logs would now be available to the media. It would be plastered all over the news as to who was called, when, what kind of frequency, etc. I think this would go a long way to hampering investigations instead of helping them(from a law enforcement perspective though IANACop).

I dunno. I don't like the idea of folks getting a hold of data that I consider private and someone else turning a profit on it. I would feel better (though not much) if I at least got paid for the info as well. Afterall, its my data.

Just some thoughts.
Peace,
Sandor

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo. Never forget it...

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Mr. Jaggers]

So, if microsoft owns everything, than everyone is an affiliate, right? ;)

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[MartianKillerBarbies]

Nevermind they kicked in some gun dealer's door at 2AM and gave his wife a heart-attack, all because the software couldn't tell those large gun purchases were just inventory for his store - as opposed to "suspected terrorist activity".

Or an excessive amount of overseas calls? Like many members of the geek community I've made friends all over the world and often make or receive calls from Oz, the UK, or NZ, although not from the Middle East. But to have my front door kicked open at 2 a.m. just because someone called me to ask how to get into Coojibooboo's tomb outside of Klatch again would be mildly annoying, to say the least.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[BrookHarty]

You mean like the new TIPS system, bush is pushing? Where they estimate 5% of the public will spy and report "suspicious, and potentially terrorist-related activity."

So basically, anyone walking into your house can be a spy for the government, the Cable guy, Phone Repair, or Water/food services. My god, I hope Bush gets voted out of office before more damage is done to our Country. Welcome to homeland security my fellow USians.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Build it or you're out of here." Yes, it's that simple.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[ElectricRook]

Perhaps we need to form the "International Technical Siblinghood" ITS.
Then when this kind of thing happens. The ITS members could support the walkout of the ITS local #666 over customer civil rights issues.

Suddenly nobodys DNS sees the offending company. Hmmmm wonder how that happened.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[NDPTAL85]

Just what exactly do you suggest we do? Run to other lines of work just to stand up for something most people don't even give a rats ass about?

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[taloobie]

Fair question.

If most people don't even give a rats ass about it, then, no, it's not worth it. However, I've found that most people DO CARE - at least once they find out what's happening. Therein lies the problem. People who read slashdot and other like sources know what's happening because we are active participants in finding unbiased information. The general population does not have this information because the mainstream sources of information do not report on this. Why? Because the media is controlled by powerful people who rely on these businesses that infringe on our rights. The wider spread of this information will go along way. Education is almost always the key.

I do not have the answers. This discussion is helpful in figuring them out though.

As a community that cares about this, I think we can make definitive commitments to not support the building up of technologies that help people destroy our civil liberties. A Union of Techies committed to technologists might not be a bad idea. Although instead of it being a union of people devoted to destroying companies and creating chaos, it should be more of a think tank. A union of people who come up with alternative technologies and business models that will help companies make money without completely disregarding the rights of citizens.

This would force some serious discussion. Imagine a group that doesn't COMPETE with big business but instead wants to help big business accomplish big things ethically and profitably.

This is a bit hopeful, but it's got a chance if people cared enough.

As for a more imediate solution, I don't have one. Small steps add up, that much I do know.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[NDPTAL85]

Money = Power. Businesses will always have more money than any organization you could possibly create therefore they will always have more power. With that power, they make the rules. End of story.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[spiffy_guy]

...WE continue to PERPETUATE practices we don't agree with? Furthermore, we all understand that paying the bills is sometimes more important than righting the wrongs of corporations, yet our dialogues on Slashdot, in the breakroom, at the bars, and in our living rooms suggest that we care deeply about protecting our civil liberties.

As a whole we care a great deal. I'd say 99% of us would not sign up for this job. However that other 1% adds up to a lot of people who really don't have convictions other than money.

This is like saying if we were against murder than murder wouldn't happen anymore. Well, most of us are against murder. We have laws for those of us who are not, and those people go to jail for the rest of their lives.

That is why we need laws to protect us, because there is always somebody who will do the wrong thing.

Re:So much for court warrants ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they obtain evidence in any of these ways (including buying it) the evidence is useless in court.

1) They can go on fishing expeditions, find the people they want, then go about collecting admissable evidence on those people;

2) They can get you thrown in jail and possibly raped by fellow prisoners, before the evidence is thrown out;

3) According to them, they can call you an "unlawful combatant" and throw you down a deep hole, with no judicial oversight whatsoever.

*shrug*

[caveat]

well, at least they're making the rules consistent. not particularly nice, but at least they're becoming one and the same - should make it that much easier to push for any reform we need (especially if the adopt the phone system to internet regs and not vice-versa).

Worldcom & others

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing this is the solution for all the battered telecoms who need money desperately...

tit for tat

[xcable_hhh]

We, the call-ies, should also be able to get the phone numbers and history of the specific person and all their managers (up to the CEO) who spam call us. This would make it fair.

wow

[zoomshorts]

wow

Win-Win for the Bells

[Greyfox]

The Bells would love for you to be on tons of those obnoxious calling lists. Not only do they make money from selling your name and phone number, I'm sure it also increases their rate of sales for those extra options to block telemarketers. Sounds like a win-win for the bells.

Re:Win-Win for the Bells

[wheel]

A small consolation for us lucky Wisconsin residents: starting this fall, a state-wide 'no call' list will be available. This means that I can sign up (for free) and be on a list sent to any telemarketers operating in this state. If they call anyone on that list (and get reported) they get a very large fine. And you can bet that the people who take the trouble to sign up for no-call will raise a hue and cry if any telemarketers break that rule.

Re:Win-Win for the Bells

[Hoi Polloi]

It's sort of like the old mob racket of paying protection, "Give us $100/wk or something bad will happen to your store". They create a problem and then make you pay to cure it.

Re:Win-Win for the Bells

[drakewolf]

Just got off the phone with the local Bell (Austin TX) and was informed of this toll free number to call for voluntary opt-out. 1-866-TXNOCALL. This number is for Texas only.

(Amazing: only 19 minutes of my time)

Re:Win-Win for the Bells

[jafac]

It's sort of like the old mob racket of paying protection, "Give us $100/wk or something bad will happen to your store". They create a problem and then make you pay to cure it.

Frankly, this is the oldest form of government there is. Probably the *true* oldest profession. People were probably threatening other people in return for resources long before people were trading sex for resources. Probably long before we were people.

Opting Out

[Robert Hayden]

So, how the hell do we opt out in such a way that I never secretly get opted back in again?

Re:Opting Out

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how the hell do we opt out in such a way that I never secretly get opted back in again?

Easy, cancel your phone service.

opt out

[TamMan2000]

how do I opt out?

I assume this could work better than spam opt out, telcos are much more traceable than email...

So where do you opt out?

[micromoog]

Better opt out right away . . . anybody know how?

Re:So where do you opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

No sure where you live, but Colorado passed a "no-call list" last year that just went into affect.

"In 2001, the Colorado General Assembly passed legislation that allows consumers to protect themselves from many unwanted telemarketing calls. If you do not want to receive telemarketing calls or faxes, you may add your number to the form..."

www.coloradonocall.com

Re:So where do you opt out?

[gilroy]

EPIC's page ( http://www.epic.org/privacy/cpni/) has some info. For Verizon, call (866) 483-9600 and wade through a tedious phone tree (about four minutes, but have your bill handy).

Re:So where do you opt out?

[Anonymous Coward]

To opt out of Soutwestern Bells CPNI giveaway call 1-800-464-7928.

Re:So where do you opt out?

[micromoog]

Perfect, thanks.

By the way, if you're at work and don't have your bill handy, you can get your Verizon account number by calling 800-621-9900 and wading through some other folks :) This step took about 3 minutes.

What I'd like to know is

[Jin Wicked]

how much are they expecting to charge me now to "opt out" of this? I already pay a couple of bucks a month for the "privilege" of having an unlisted number.

Re:What I'd like to know is

[cdrudge]

Although it wouldn't be unlisted, what you usually can do is put it under a different name for free. Then when anyone calls for Al Coholic, Richard Smoker, or Michael Hunt, you can honestly say they have the wrong number since no one lives here by that name.

Re:What I'd like to know is

[rnturn]

But you'd still get pestered with all the damned phone calls.

Hello Mr Smith

[sdjunky]

Hello Mr Smith, I'm calling today to tell you that we noticed that you are making quite a few calls to 555-555-5555. We further wish to tell you that we believe that these calls are related to you having an extramarital affair.

We are bringing you this service to offer you a chance to keep us quiet with a one time payment of $500. Not only will you get piece of mind ( for now ) that we won't tell your wife but you'll also get a handy cookbook from Martha Stewart.

If you don't wish to have your marriage ruined please stay on the line while I transfer this call to an independent verifier

Have a good day!

Re:Hello Mr Smith

[jmu1]

OR, don't have an affair! be honest! if you are so conserned about being caught doing something wrong... either don't do it... or take extra good care and not getting caught. Don't ask the govm't to cover your tracks for you.

Re:Hello Mr Smith

[EvilBudMan]

I agree score:5 but not funny, it is scarry. How do we OPT - OUT of this BS?

Re:Hello Mr Smith

[WCMI92]

"OR, don't have an affair! be honest! if you are so conserned about being caught doing something wrong... either don't do it... or take extra good care and not getting caught. Don't ask the govm't to cover your tracks for you."

NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE wants to live in a society with perfect law enforcement.

It's not the government in this case COVERING your tracks for you, it's the government allowing corporations rights that IT DOES NOT HAVE TO GRANT under the Constitution...

The FCC is a GOVERNMENT body. It has no right to "make law" to do this.

But this is what you get when you have a government used to living outside the law (Constitution). The 10th Amendment would seemingly preclude the EXISTANCE of the FCC...

Re:Hello Mr Smith

[Hoi Polloi]

...and you've been calling your urologist so we'll be sending you info from our partners, Get-A-Bigger-Penis-Now! Inc.

Re:Hello Mr Smith

[valmont]

adultery is not a government matter. it is not illegal per se. it simply gives your wife the right to divorce your sorry ass and milk you for all your net-worth.

Re:Hello Mr Smith

[binarybum]

how is this insightful??

this post is offtopic (we're talking about a flagrant violation of privacy, not personal morals), and flamebait to boot.

Additionally, it makes no sense.

Re:Hello Mr Smith

[jafac]

Insightful? At what? Trolling? Being sarcastic?

The logic that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" was shot down in the Third Reich.

(*sigh* - and previous to that, during the Spanish Inquisition, and after that, in the Red Scare, etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Whether or not you're doing something illegal all depends on what law was bought by some company last session - whether or not what you're doing is immoral depends on whether some crackpot religious leader took his Xanax. And it doesn't even have to have anything to do with whether you've done anything wrong - if it can be made to LOOK wrong, and if you can't PROVE it wasn't you're still screwed.

It's all about power and control. If you give it away, they'll be happy to take it, and you deserve what you get.

this bites

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost 90% of the calls I get now are telemarket crap

My thinking is if they will be getting so much advertisement them my phone bill should be free
or at least cut in half.

But knowing them they will just give a larger bill
if you want to be off the list
and even then you will get some calls that theyll say are unovoidable....

vote with your dollars

[Jucius Maximus]

If you use Bell and you don't like this, then phone them up and ask to cancel the service and explain clearly why you are doing it.

If you make it unprofitable for them to act in this manner, then they will not act in this manner. They are in the buisness of making money and they will not lose money when they could easily gain it.

Similarly, when signing up for long distance with some other provider, make sure you ask them about this and see what their policy is. Make sure they know what you think

Re:vote with your dollars

[Are We Afraid]

The problem with this ruling, though, is that it applies to the whole industry. Which means that (likely) every company will be abiding by the new rules, since it makes them money. You won't have a choice.

The free market is supposed to provide us with choices. We choose with our dollars, and then industries normalize around the desires of the customers. This is a clear case of that NOT happening.

:-(

Re:vote with your dollars

[Jucius Maximus]

"The free market is supposed to provide us with choices. We choose with our dollars, and then industries normalize around the desires of the customers. This is a clear case of that NOT happening."

The ruling does not make it clear whether or not it applies to mobile phone providers ... I wonder if it could spark a mass exodus to mobile phones. Or even better, you could get cellular phone service from a Canadian company that supports USA-coverage networks. (Hint: Mike Services from Telus Mobility, these people have a real privacy policy) and you will be escaping very much US telephone legislation.

Re:vote with your dollars

[SerpentMage]

And this is why I like Quebec. Quebec has privacy rules identical to Europe. While it is painful for somethings, it is in moments like this I say.

Vive l'Quebec libre.... ;)

And since I also live part of the time in Switzerland, which also has strict privacy laws the result is that I get very little spam.

As a sidenote in Switzerland to tempt you to use their products companies give away full products. IE at Christmas time I always get a full Lindt Christmas flavour chocolate bar. Yum....

Re:vote with your dollars

[2g3-598hX]

As a sidenote in Switzerland to tempt you to use their products companies give away full products. IE at Christmas time I always get a full Lindt Christmas flavour chocolate bar. Yum...

So basically you're saying that when countries have strong privacy laws, instead of spending money spamming people, companies give out free product to attract new customers?

Yet another good reason for privacy advocacy...

Re:vote with your dollars

[Jucius Maximus]

"As a sidenote in Switzerland to tempt you to use their products companies give away full products. IE at Christmas time I always get a full Lindt Christmas flavour chocolate bar. Yum...."

Maybe I missed something here ... but what exactly does "Christmas Flavour" taste like? I did buy Lindt chocolate the one time I went to Austria and it was REALLY good, but it tasted like, err, chocolate.

What an idiot

[rhadamanthus]

'But FCC Chairman Michael Powell defended the decision, saying that "consumers have a reduced expectation of privacy" regarding that data when their carriers use it "to market services customarily offered by telephone companies, such as voicemail and Internet access."'

What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.

I can't believe he thinks anyone will buy this aas anything but a cop out to corporate "donations". Too bad no one gives a damn.

argh. Time to call the phone company and sit on hold for a million years...

----rhad

Re:What an idiot

[will_die]

And you think that thoses in-store discount cards don't already do this?

Re:What an idiot

[octalgirl]

What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.

Well, if you use a store card for groceries, or a credit card, they already know what kind of products you use and how often. Remember Stop and Shops 'Smartmouth' service? You could go there and see not only all of the foods you bought, but it was broken down for you to let you know how much fatty, high cholest foods you were buying. Gotta start writing my opt-out letters now.

Re:What an idiot

[hoop33]

I was a little startled yesterday, after buying my groceries, to look at the receipt. It listed how much I'd saved that day with my saver card--I expected that. Then it listed how much I'd saved year-to-date. A clear case of someone (me) not really thinking about how much we're all being tracked, and how little privacy we really have. No I have to decide--am I willing to pay more, give up my saver card, and get more privacy? Or do I sell my privacy for saving on groceries? There's something a little prostitutish about this . . . .

Re:What an idiot

[redtape]

Yes, but what makes you think the information I gave to get the supermarket discount card was accurate? It's difficult to give a lot of false information and still get a phone. It is easy to give a phony name/address etc. and get a card at your local grocery store, they never check it.

Re:What an idiot

[JHMirage]

Could somebody dig up this guy's home address and phone number and post it here, please?

I'm sure he won't mind... after all, he should have a pretty dramatically reduced expectation of privacy after pushing this policy through.

Re:What an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the amount of money you've saved on groceries provate information? First of all, stores keep those kind of figures all the time so they can measure performance of sales ad buyer tendencies. Second, who cares if they know how much money you've saved on groceries for the year? Could the fact that it's (semi)public harm you in any way?

Re:What an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

The next "war" will be the war on "unhealthy foods."

Berkeley, CA is now considering a bill to put people in jail for buying/selling the "wrong" brand of coffee.

Re:What an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

He's Colin Powell's son, as evidenced in this Forbes report.

Re:What an idiot

[crawling_chaos]

Face it, Powell is a half-wit who only got his job because of who his daddy is. Kind of like the President himself. Hoping for rational thought from him is like expecting to see RMS in a Windows XP endorsement deal.

Of course what I can I complain about. It looks like my next Congressman's going to be a fscking Kennedy.

Re:What an idiot

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

Berkeley, CA is now considering a bill to put people in jail for buying/selling the "wrong" brand of coffee.

Berkeley is a sell-out, too: they opened up a Starbucks in Berkeley while I was there. The coffee's half as good as most of the other cafes in the area, and costs at least twice as much. But it's always crowded...

-If

Re:What an idiot

[rnturn]

At least you aren't forced to have one of those cards in order to buy your groceries. Sure, I may pay a little bit extra but at least my information isn't for sale. All they know is that someone bought some coffee and toilet paper and not what household.

Re:What an idiot

[homer_ca]

Most cities have at least one supermarket chain that doesn't have those club cards. Around here there's Albertsons and Trader Joes. They also never check ID, so it's easy to sign up as Homer Simpson, 123 Fake St, Springfield. Now try using an alias for your residential phone service; not gonna happen. For years the privacy nuts have used shell corporations for these things. Now it looks like they were right all along.

Re:What an idiot

[anthony_dipierro]

What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.

You do if you sign a contract agreeing to reduce your privacy.

I guess we should ban this television show, as well, since it violates the contestants' rights to privacy.

Re:What an idiot

[MrResistor]

I bet he'd reconsider his position if he got thousands of phone calls from polite, telemarketer types asking to discuss their expectation of reduced privacy.

To bad that isn't what would happen.

"I'VE GOT REDUCED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY RIGHT HERE, YOU ASSHOLE! I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCK!" is really only a convincing arguement if it's being proposed by someone who has a gun in your mouth, and even then, it's not convincing in a way that is useful to our purpose.

Re:What an idiot

[Danse]

"I'VE GOT REDUCED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY RIGHT HERE, YOU ASSHOLE! I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCK!"

Hey, that's pretty good! Can I use that when I call the guy? Might be easier to find his email address though. Have to use a remailer probably.

Re:What an idiot

[Danse]

It's not just the amount of money. Of course stores keep sales figures, but those figures aren't tied to individual shoppers, except those that use these discount cards. The real issue is when you look at your receipt that tells you how much you've spent this year, and then realize that they also know every single item you've bought. That's when it will probably begin to bother you. Unless you were smart and gave them a lot of fake info when you got the card, and then exchanged the card with friends every month or so.

Re:What an idiot

[Holi]

Yeah well now we have "a reduced expectation of privacy" since he said that

Actually I have a very high expectation of privacy.

Re:What an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

argh. Time to call the phone company and sit on hold for a million years...

They just do that to keep circuits busy, so they can whine about needing profits to expand capacity.

Otherwise, the 1-800-voice menus would always offer you an automated scheduled call-back option instead of "...thank you for your patience. Your call is important to us. All our operators are currently busy. You will be served in the order your call was received by us. Please stay on hold. ..."

BTW, automated callback is an OBVIOUS thing, US Patent Office take notice.
Sheesh. Where do you want to barf today?

Simple solution...

[Lumpy]

Do what I do... pick up the phone, wait for the telemarketer and simply interrupt them right away by saying NO! and hang up.

Yes it's an interruption but get over it. and if more people would actually say NO then telemarketing would not happen (it would cease to work as a selling medium)

Yes it sucks to get marketing calls, but screw it. it isnt worth getting your panties all in a buch over.. Or simply have the phone company block all calls that have caller id blocked.. works great. and stops ony a very few of my relatives.

Re:Simple solution...

[passion]

I've found a method that's a bit more effective. Tell them, "please remove me from your list" before they can stammer out their opening stanza. They're legally obligated to cut you from the list, and they can't make more money off your number by selling it. (at least I hope that's the way it works).

Either way, I've noticed significantly less telemarketing calls since I started doing this.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad had a better move.

He got a call from his car company asking for personal details. He answered patiently for sometime, before snapping, "Since you've asked me a few personal questions, let me ask you one. How many wives do you have and where do they all live?"

Dad says that the dude simply hung up. :-)

Re:Simple solution...

[mikeee]

What, you mean that you don't talk to them about whether they've accepted Jesus Christ into their lives as their personal Lord and Savior? :)

Re:Simple solution...

[Lumpy]

I agree, that this is supposed to work that way, but it's a law that is not enforced, and almost NO telemarketing companies abide by it. Remember over 70% of all telemarketing firms are scumbags or ran by scumbags. and of that 70% nearly 50% are scam artists!

Face it, if you have to use telemarketing to sell your product, that means that your product is that crappy that people will not seek it out on their own and you have to try and force it down their throats to get them to buy it..

The most effective is blocking all blocked calls. if it doesnt diaplay a phone number, my phone doesnt ring.. and that's how my relatives/friends/co-workers are told.. (if your number doesnt show it ain't gonna go.)

Re:Simple solution...

[MarkRebuck]

Even more simple, and with the added bonus of wasting their time is: Pick up the phone. The instant you know it is a telemarketer, SET THE PHONE DOWN BUT DON'T HANG UP. Just walk away. It usually takes them at least 30 seconds to recognize that you aren't there.

Final score: Your time wasted... a few seconds (can't be helped). Their time wasted... a few more seconds.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even waste my energy saying NO. I just hang up.

Re:Simple solution...

[bludstone]

actually the phrase is "please put me on your 'Do Not Call' list."

I do that. Sometimes i tell them im interested and ask them to hold, put down the phone, and go back to whatever i was doing. Check back when i get bored, see if they are still on the line :)

Re:Simple solution...

[Manitcor]

I love to enter a dialogue with the telemarkter asking them how they feel about having such a horrible job as cold calling people. Asking them how they sleep at night knowing that 90+% of the population thinks thay what they do is crap and by extension thier entire existance is crap.

They normally get really angry and hang up on me, getting a telemarketer to hang up on you is quite a feat, believe me, they are supposed to stay on the phone at all costs.

Re:Simple solution...

[MagPulse]

Yep, you need those exact words, otherwise they can go "list? what list? I just want to tell you about this amazing offer..."

Re:Simple solution...

[Chris Colohan]

See www.junkbusters.org for details.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

And remember, 100% of your statistics are pulled out of your ass!

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no. You want them to get out their opening stanza. You want to know which company is doing the calling. THEN, you tell them to put you on their "do-not-call list" (as opposed to "taking you off their list", which is not the same thing). The "do-not-call list" is an FCC mandated list that all telemarketers are required to maintain. If you ask to be put on their do-not-call list, and you get another call from them, then they're liable for damages from $500 to $10,000 per incident.

Re:Simple solution...

[mosch]

If you have a few minutes to spare, what's even better is to say 'I'm making an official request for your no-call policy, as I am entitled to by law. I'd like to provide you with all the information neccessary for you to mail me a copy of your no-call policy.'

At this point they may hang up, or get confused and put you on with a supervisor who will know about this and take the information.

Now that they have the information, request to be added to their No-Call, and No-Sell lists. By this point you've cost them a lot of phone time, often with a supervisor, plus they usually actually do mail you the no-call policy, and you get blacklisted for being a pain in the ass who knows the law, thus helping make sure you don't get any more calls.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

When telemarketing was (briefly) legal over here I invested in one of those oh so delightful aerosol airhorns.
The trick is to keep the subhuman telemarketting scum talking as long as possibly while speaking more and more quietly so they are inclined to keep turning up the volume on those oh so sci-fi phone headsets until you get bored and *HUFFFFFOOOOONNNNNNNK!!!!!*

Re:Simple solution...

[Thoughts In Chaos]

If you choose to block all calls that don't display a number, how would people outside the U.S. be able to call you?

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have telephones do they?

I'm pretty sure they don't have indoor plumbing.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL!

Actually it's even less of a problem for me. I simply refuse to answer the phone. I screen ALL calls with my handy dandy answering machine. I'm sorry that some people never get a hold of me but then again, if it's not important enough to leave a message then it's not worth my time.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

simple.... they dont.

I know no one outside the US, nor do I want any calls from anyone outside the US.

Re:Simple solution...

[Phroggy]

I've found a method that's a bit more effective. Tell them, "please remove me from your list" before they can stammer out their opening stanza. They're legally obligated to cut you from the list, and they can't make more money off your number by selling it. (at least I hope that's the way it works).

No, the correct thing to say is, "Please ADD me to your Do Not Call list." Removing you from one list doesn't mean you won't appear on another list, but if you're on the Do Not Call list, you should not get another call from the SAME COMPANY. Note that the person calling probably doesn't actually work for the company they're representing; telemarketing is outsourced, and the DNC list probably applies to the telemarketing company rather than the company who wants you to buy stuff, so you may continue to get calls from other telemarketing companies on behalf of the same company, but not from the same telemarketing company again. That may vary somewhat.

Your state may also have a state-wide Do Not Call list; mine does.

Re:Simple solution...

[Patik]

Your state may also have a state-wide Do Not Call list; mine does.

I found my state's page by placing the two-letter abbreviation in that link (ie, nynocall.com for NY).

Re:Simple solution...

[Reziac]

A simpler solution: inform the telemarketer in a borderline-irritated voice, "I'm *supposed* to be on your do-not-call list!" They'll about pee themselves apologizing and will hang up posthaste, and once you hit a marketer who is using a master list, you'll suddenly find you get NO more calls.

I did this some 12-13 years ago, and since then I get maybe one or two junk calls a year (including the recorded type).

The majority of telemarketers work from a nationally-circulated master list, so if you get removed from one call center's list, you'll fall off all of their lists. Daily News or any affiliated paper is a good one to have initially remove you, as they do use a master list.

Re:Simple solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always preferred just saying "I charge a fifty-dollar solicitation fee, and staying on the line will be taken as acceptance of this charge." Very few telemarketers will hang up, so then you get to have the fun of watching them dither around.

And hey, sometimes it works. I'll get paid fifty to listen to a pitch for aluminum siding.

Re:Simple solution...

[Doctor Faustus]

if it doesnt diaplay a phone number, my phone doesnt ring.. and that's how my relatives/friends/co-workers are told.. (if your number doesnt show it ain't gonna go.)

I don't know about other people's offices, but even personal calls that I make from work show up without a phone number. We do have telemarketers at our office (phone company), but I'm not one of them.

Re:Simple solution...

[nytes]

Tell them, "please remove me from your list"

I did this once with the LA Times. We already get the Sunday edition, which we barely read any part of, and they are always calling and offering to send us the weekday editions.

When I asked to be placed on their no-call list, they simply said "but you're already a subscriber". Apparently, once they have a business relationship with you, they can call you all they want.

And, yes, we are considering unsubscribing to the paper just to get rid of the phone calls.

Re:Simple solution...

[Elwood P Dowd]

Several times I've received telemarketting calls, and after I said, "Please add me to your do-not-call list," the telemarketer told me, "Sure. Would you please tell me your name and phone number so that I may add you to that list."

I'm *incredibly* skittish about doing that. Often, I've cut them off before they've even told me what sort of a service they offer. I worry that they somehow use the recording to indicate that I requested service from them. Think I should give them my name and number in that situation? (Although from now on I'll be giving them my mailing addy for the no-call policy).

Anyway. Thanks for that suggestion. Very handy.

Re:Simple solution...

[Guru2Newbie]

I'm paying my local phone company $1.95/month for "Anonymous Caller Rejection" so if a caller has their Caller ID masked (which I do), they aren't put through.

Unfortunately, the majority of telemarketers know this and don't even use Caller ID, so these calls show up identified as "--unavailable--". I can tell my phone to reject those calls, but it takes at least one ring before the Caller ID info propagates to the phone, then only that phone stops ringing.

What this hasn't solved is the large number of nuisance hang-ups. I'm talking 5-10 per day. Sometimes there's no sound on the other end, sometimes you hear chattering of other people (like a so-called "boiler room" on telemarketers), sometimes just breathing. I'm considering getting one of those $50 TeleZapper boxes, but I'm wondering---how long before telemarketers come up with a countermeasure for it??

And for some humor (yeah, I wish it were true!), check out the last question on the TeleZapper page:
Does the TeleZapper create a computer virus for the caller?

I get it

[dnoyeb]

So the more calls I get from Spammers, the more spammers will think that I want to be spammed?

I don't do business on my phone anymore, its all on the internet. Well there is the occasional plumber, etc. I only call family. So who's going to be calling me?

Honestly, I NEVER GOT PHONE SPAM till I got a mortgate. Before I bought a house this sh!t never happened. Maybe I should list apt. 666 on my address for the hell of it :D

heh

[Mr_Silver]

It's game time kids! And today lets play .... spot the one person in that article with his head screwed on ...

--------> Michael Copps

I win!

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

From his web page:

Copps came to Washington in 1970, joining the staff of Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) and serving for over a dozen years as Chief of Staff.

Will Wonders never cease?

I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[idfrsr]

I would hate to think of the that anytime you purchase a good or service, that your personal information will be sold to spam houses.

The whole concept of advertising right now is getting absolutely ridiculous. It seems now that the onus is on us as consumers to pay attention to all advertisments, rather than the advertising to attract us by being clever, funny what have you. Simply by being a possible consumer, the advertiser somehow got the right to harrass me.

What's the point of having a telephone, if I am going to be getting the ringing equivalent of pop-up windows? It's bad enough with telemarketers.
Screw it, if any one needs to reach me, send me a damn letter (email's worse!), if its important enough for me to know it can wait a week sheesh...

Warrant?

[n-baxley]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the kind of information that you needed a warrant to get? How can something that was considered private enough to require a judge's approval now be sold to the highest bidder. I seriously hope that this is not as bad as it sounds. I'm holding off writing my representatives until I see if this is real and if it really says what we're hearing. If the news is as bad as this sounds, WRITE YOUR REPRESNTATIVE!!! Don't let this action go unchallenged.

Re:Warrant?

[jdcook]

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the kind of information that you needed a warrant to get?"

OK. You're wrong. Law enforcement (broadly speaking) needs a warrant. The phone company doesn't. Don't you feel better now?

Re:Warrant?

[will_die]

Because the government is not involved in this. Now if the government would want to purchase this information, instead of a warrent, thier is past cases that said they would still need a warrent. This information is the same as if I as a private citizen recorded your backyard, and got on tape you commiting a murder. I could give that tape to the police and they would have no problem using that tape in court. Now if the police went up to me and said "here is a camera record that person backyard" based on some other court cases I would then be an agent of the police and a court warent would be needed.
However you still need to write your representaive and tell them to slap down the FCC, and restrict the sale of this information.

Re:Warrant?

[Palarran]

I'm afraid you are. The contents of messages/conversations are what's protected. The government can watch who you call/mail at will. To tap a call or open an envelope requires a warrant. (At least mostly, and pre-PATRIOT.)

Re:Warrant?

[dachshund]

Because the government is not involved in this.

Of course the government is involved in this. The Bell companies are a government-regulated monopoly. If they weren't, I might be able to pick from three or four local phone companies and find one that doesn't sell my info.

By allowing the Bells to operate as a monopoly, the Bells became a quasi-government operation.

If you can't visualize why this might matter, imagine that phone companies were actually government agencies and private companies were legally banned from competing with them.

Re:Warrant?

[n-baxley]

That's good to know, I guess. At least my rights aren't being trampled by this new FCC ruling. They've been getting trampled all along and I just didn't know it. What a relief.

Re:Warrant?

[jc42]

> How can something that was considered private enough to require a judge's approval now be sold to the highest bidder.

It probably has something to do with the fact that the US is now run by a fellow who has in all seriousness described himself as "America's CEO". He really, truly believes that the government should be run as a business.

This is how businesses do things. If you have a product, you sell it. If we don't like this, we'll just have to find ourselves a CEO who thinks the government should be run like a government.

Of course, we'll first have to make the presidency an elected office ...

Re:Warrant?

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably has something to do with the fact that the US is now run by a fellow who has in all serousness described himself as "America's CEO".

Better "America's CEO" than "America's pimp". As dispite your political views, 99.99% of CEOs are decent, honest people that work very hard for their companies.

He really, truly believes that the government should be run as a business.

This is a bad thing? Government will benefit greatly from adding some simple rules from the corproate world. Government is a lumbering beast that exists only to grow and further erode rights. Why? One word, accountability.

A business must make a profit. Therefore, it is accountable to the shareholders, among others. This means that ideas in the business are subjected to a reality test -- if the market doesn't like the idea, it dies. Government (and academia) have no reality tests; bad ideas continue to get funding.

You liberals crack me up. You bitch and moan about government intrustion, and yet your leaders at every chance expand the size and scope of government. The axioms of the American Democratic party are great, it's just that the leaders don't follow a single one of them. And you suckers are so blinded by irrational hatred of conservatives that you don't see this. Sad, really.

Of course, we'll first have to make the presidency an elected office ...

GOOD ONE! TEE HEE! KNEE SLAPPER! Bush was elected. It's called the electoral college system. Get over it.

Re:Warrant?

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

AFAIK, you only really need a warrant to get something where the person in control of that something doesn't want to give it to you. The government does not need a warrant to buy this information. They need a warrant to take the information forcefully, assuming that the company won't just throw the information at them anyway to avoid any hassle. As long as the source is willing to sell the information to the government, why would they need a warrant?

If the police come and knock on your door, and want to search your house, and you say, "OK," then they don't need a warrant. If you say, "No, where's your warrant?" then they have to show one. You can let anyone search your house, it's your perogative. It might be unethical (depending on the situation) to ask you for permission to search your house without a warrant, but I don't think it's illegal. You could say, "Well, I'll let you search my house for 50 bucks." If they didn't have a warrant, they might take you up on that offer!

-If

PS: All this I gathered mainly from watching cop movies, so what do I know, really?

Re:Warrant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll. You didn't complement Bush's business history and intelligence enough though.

Re:Warrant?

[refactored]

From The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc. referenced by Bruce Schneider's Cryptogram

According to former and current DEA, military, and State Department officials, the cartel had assembled a database that contained both the office and residential telephone numbers of U.S. diplomats and agents based in Colombia, along with the entire call log for the phone company in Cali, which was leaked by employees of the utility. The mainframe was loaded with custom-written data-mining software. It cross-referenced the Cali phone exchange's traffic with the phone numbers of American personnel and Colombian intelligence and law enforcement officials. The computer was essentially conducting a perpetual internal mole-hunt of the cartel's organizational chart. "They could correlate phone numbers, personalities, locations -- any way you want to cut it," says the former director of a law enforcement agency. "Santacruz could see if any of his lieutenants were spilling the beans."

They were. A top Colombian narcotics security adviser says the system fingered at least a dozen informants -- and that they were swiftly assassinated by the cartel. A high-level DEA official would go only this far: "It is very reasonable to assume that people were killed as a result of this capability. Potential sources of information were compromised by the system."

Sounds like in the war between the cartel's and the gov.us, the cartel's have won. It seem's like they ownz you US folk already...

4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[Sean Clifford]

WTF? Corporate free speech? Okay, first I take issue with treating corporations as legal persons. That's bull. However, on to my point:

It is NOT a free speech issue to tell other divisions, "partners", or anyone at all for that matter who I call. I don't think this you can find a better example of violating a person's right to privacy (4th Amendment) than to sell or otherwise disseminate details about a person's personal phone calls (date, time, number, duration).

This is a clear example of corporate takeover of government. Citizens - you're doing it to yourselves. Take political action; you don't have to quit your job. Just take a few minutes one day a week to contact your representatives to gripe and organize locally, whether you're an independent, a Green, a Republicrat or a Demopublican.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[JCMay]

Mr. Clifford has it a bit wrong, to wit:

I don't think this you can find a better example of violating a person's right to privacy (4th Amendment)

This linkis the complete Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please note that the word "privacy" is never used in the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, are records of calling behavior one of your "persons, houses, papers and effects?" Furthermore, the calling records themselves are not your own, but are property of the phone company.

A more correct argument may be made as follows: since time is a valuable and limited resource, one may say that time is property of the experiencer. That is, our time is our own property. Below is the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So, phone companies want to facilitate spammers by selling use habits? Fine. But they better be ready to give their phone service products away or even pay us to use them.

Now, all this is just pie in the sky; the Constitution of the United States was meant to only regulate the behavior of the Federal Government. Technically, not even the States are bound by it, although state constitutions echo the ideas the US Constitution contains.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[alcmena]

What really gets me is how selling my private data can fall under the heading "free speech", but reporting on and linking to DeCSS cannot.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[elmegil]

Given that the communications medium of the time was letters, aka "papers", I'd say your argument is ridiculous. To be secure in your papers in 1776 is to be secure in your communications.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[Sean Clifford]

Actually, the states are bound to the federal Constitution. States can't take away rights granted in the federal Constitution, but can grant *more* rights.

As to the question of the 4th Amendment, I anticipated the argument that the 4th doesn't apply:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What we commonly call "right to privacy" is enshrined in this amendment. In the 18th century, communication was conducted primarily through the post. This is one reason why the amendment specifically addresses "papers and effects". I would argue (as courts have commonly ruled) that records about phone calls I place are *personal effects*. This is why law enforcement MUST obtain a search warrant, just as they must get a warrant to find out what movies and books I check out or buy.

There are numerous state and federal laws that govern privacy in communications. You cannot, for example, record a call on *your phone* if you are not a party to the call. However, you *can* do so if you are a party to the call (or other conversation). The phone company is not a party to the call, but merely the carrier.

That's my take, anyway. IANAL, batteries not included, your mileage may vary, etc. I fully expect this will be litigated.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[EllisDees]

Please note that the word "privacy" is never used in the Fourth Amendment.

Doesn't matter. The government is what is restricted by the constitution, not individuals. The ninth amendment even spells out the fact that just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean that you don't have it.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

the Constitution of the United States was meant to only regulate the behavior of the Federal Government. Technically, not even the States are bound by it

Amendment 14

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Every state has to follow the laws as laid out in the Constitution of the US.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[4of12]

What really gets me is how selling my private data can fall under the heading "free speech", but reporting on and linking to DeCSS cannot.

Silly fool.

That's because the information about DeCSS is their private data, where they contribute a lot more money to elected officials, while your private data belongs to you, who does not contribute a lot of money to elected officials.

Hope that clears up the confusion.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[donutello]

Corporations have the same "individual rights" as any organization of people do - like the ACLU or the DNP or GOP. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Basically the law says that it doesn't matter whether it is an individual who is doing it by himself or a group of people acting together - they still have the same rights.

That doesn't make this decision any less ridiculous though. The telephone companies are state granted monopolies. As such, there is an expectation of limited rights conferred to them. Maintaining privacy should be a fundamental part of the FCC's mandate to these companies in return for their state granted monopolies.

Privacy is a fundamental right and given that telephone service is a basic necessity and that the local telco has a monopoly granted by the state as far as providing that service is concerned, the telco should also be charged with maintaining that fundamental right. None of this would matter, of course if telephone service was not a basic necessity or if there was a choice of telephone providers. But given that that is not the case, the right to privacy should triumph.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[DavyByrne]

This has nothing to do with the first and fourth amendments to the constitution. Those amendments prohibit the government from restricting your speech and unreasonably searching you, respectively. The phone company is not the government. You're using services that the telephone company provides. If they want to sell data about your usage of their services to their partners, they have the right to do that. You have the right to stop using their service.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[ptbarnett]

Every state has to follow the laws as laid out in the Constitution of the US.

Not quite. Despite the clear intent of the 14th Amendment (check out the Congressional Record for details), the Supreme Court has refused to apply all of the Bill of Rights to the states.

A constitutional law professor or attorney can explain it better, but under the "Privileges and Immunities" clause, the Court must actually consider the provision of the Bill of Rights and decide whether to apply it to the states (known as "incorporation"). They have only done so for selected parts.

Among the ones not incorporated are the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th Amendments.

More info here .

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[HiThere]

You are saying how they act in practice, not justifying it as legal. I suspect that it's not possible to justify it as legal.

Re:4th Amendment v. 1st Amendment?

[ptbarnett]

I suspect that it's not possible to justify it as legal.

It's the Supreme Court. They ultimately decide whether it is legal.

Historians believe that the Court is in error, but historians aren't on the Court. One justice did promote the viewpoint that the 14th Amendment means that the first 8 Amendments applied to the states in the same uniform manner as it restricted the powers of the federal government. But, it was a dissenting viewpoint that never found favor with the other justices.

The only recourse is to ratify another Amendment that states it more explicitly.

Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to call

[torinth]

New York 'No Call' Registry.

I believe there are similar registries for other states. Every quarter, the registry is published and all non-exempt telemarketers must *not* call you if you appear in the registry under penalty of law. Getting in the registry is free and can be done from the above website, if you are a NY resident. Other posters can probably give URL's or addresses for other state registries.

-Andrew

No-Call Lists?

[AriesGeek]

I live in Missouri, and we have a no-call list. I guess this law overrides those lists? It sounds like another backdoor for the telemarketers.

Easy to get around (for now)

[ZaneMcAuley]

Im glad I dont use land lines no more :D

I use VoIP from many free web services (if they charge, I move to the next :D).

I no longer have my landline, prepay mobile only(unlisted and not registered to my name etc) Totally anonymous.

I'm sorry but....

[Just Another Perl Ha]

I'm sorry but, with things like this happening over and over again... it's no wonder there's soon to be a revolution at hand.

I can only hope that soon the people will wake up and realize what's happening to them. Unfortunately, this frog is being boiled way too slowly for most of the unwashed masses to notice.

Re:I'm sorry but....

[linzeal]

The 2nd american revolution, hmm.

Spam is coming to the Telephone World?

[blenderking]

I averaged 15 telemarketing calls a week before I gave into the extortion of paying my phone company, Verison $5 a month to filter out calls for "unknown (i.e blocked) numbers."

I hated paying even more money, on top of caller id, voicemail, etc. but it was worth it. I'm down to maybe 1 telemarketing call every other week.

Re:Spam is coming to the Telephone World?

[karmawarrior]

And it's a con. Those filters have dubious consequences for the reception of international calls, operator/calling card calls from certain payphones and/or calling cards, and calls from people who have, for legit reasons, put a permanent block on their number (victims of harassment, that kind of thing, who do not want a babysitter or guest unwittingly giving up the number.

The only sure-fire way I know of of preventing unwanted calls is to get an answerphone with a call screening capability. 99% of them have that feature. Record a short message telling people you'll pick up if they say who they are, and go from there. It works, it really is "Caller ID" (since when is a telephone number the id of a caller?), it is the least invasive to other people's privacy and the most effective in preventing the invasion of yours.

Oh, and you don't have to pay the phone company a penny for using one.

Re:Spam is coming to the Telephone World?

[Vegeta99]

You can have Caller ID show the name. On most cellular phones, you dont get the name with the number (but ti'll show the name if the number is in your phonebook) - We had it for a while, generally reliable.

Re:Spam is coming to the Telephone World?

[squiggleslash]

No, you can't.

You can get "caller ID" to show the name associated with the telephone account. However, it will display that name regardless of who is using that phone at the time.

Basically, "Caller ID" is a privacy invading con. It doesn't tell you who, it just provides information which may or may not be private.

I can't believe people haven't learned this rather obvious fact yet, and how many people are willing to pay their phone companies $5-15 a month for an inadequate invasive unreliable "feature" when a $15 answerphone will do exactly the thing they need and work every time, no matter who the caller, without invading the privacy of anyone.

What rights?

[Srass]

The text of the FCC ruling claims that this opt-out thing was done to balance the "first amendment rights" of the carriers. What about my rights not to be marketed at constantly?

Oh, wait, sorry, my mistake. That right's not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, I must not deserve it.

I'm not a person, I'm but a lowly consumer. I exist to fuel other people's economy. I should just shut up and consume.

We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass no matter how self-seeking.
-- F. G. Withington

Re:What rights?

[Uttles]

True, but what ever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the fundamentals upon which the constitution was written? Sure, the first amendment says anyone has the right to say whatever they want, but I don't see how that overriedes the basic priciples of the constitution's purpose, letting a big company legally twist and turn the law to fit their interests...

Wait a minute, I just described our economy over the last 50+ years... oh well

Re:What rights?

[HowlinMad]

Oh, wait, sorry, my mistake. That right's not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, I must not deserve it. Well, if you understood the principles of the constitution, you wouldn't said this. You have the right to privacy, but by signing up for a phone service under their terms, you waived you right. It's pretty funny that that you think it's always your right to do this and do that, but the majority of people never really realize all the numerous times they wave their rights. If you don't like this ruling, don't use the service, or write up your own contract and approach the telco about it and see if they agree to it.

Re:What rights?

[Just Another Perl Ha]

but by signing up for a phone service under their terms, you waived you right.

Yeah... sure... But, unfortunately, only the big MegaCorp are allowed to change the rules in the middle of the game. What's described here is not what I signed up for.

Welcome to the United Corporations of America; a government of the company, by the company and for the company.

Re:What rights?

[Srass]

I agree wholeheartedly (my comment was sarcastic, of course).

I'm betting most people don't pay any more attention to those terms of service than they do their software licenses. I did, which is why I dropped AT&T for another LD phone company. AT&T's service agreement not only forbade me to use them (binding arbitration was required), but forbade me from telling anyone that I even went to arbitration with them. By golly, if I have an issue with AT&T that makes me want to sue 'em, I'm not going to keep it to myself!

My current LD company tells me that they have no formal service agreement, and I've seen nothing on their web site or inserted into their bills to contradict this. Maybe that's disorganized of them, but hey, I can work with that. :)

Re:What rights?

[anthony_dipierro]

What's described here is not what I signed up for.

Yeah but the ability to change the rules in the middle of the game was there when you signed up.

Re:What rights?

[anthony_dipierro]

What about my rights not to be marketed at constantly?

This ruling only says that they can give your information away. It says nothing about whether that information can be used to market at you.

Re:What rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think the info will be used for? Late night reading?

Re:What rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I have so many options to choose from, especially when they all use the same terms.

I'll save you the trouble of a comeback:
"You don't have to use a phone you know!"

Yah, I'll get by really well in modern life without a basic utility.

Re:What rights?

[Jonsey]

I hate to be technical.... no, no I don't.

The First Amendment isn't actually explicitly mentioned in the constitution, it has however been added on. Really, the Constitution grants very few express rights.

I only mention it because your sig refrences it.

Sorry : (
- Jones

Re:What rights?

[avoisin]

But here's the gotcha. You don't have to use a phone provider. Or, pick one that doesn't sell your info (admittedly, that would be tough to find out). People did live before phones, after all.

The real point is, the Constitution only gives you basic rights and protections from the government. Once you start entering into contracts with private companies, so long as they aren't blatently stealing money, etc., you're pretty much on your own.

Re:What rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

> under their terms

Who's terms? Let me see. Their freaking phone line lays across my back yard, put their by force under the guise of government.

Um, government... I ask again... Who's terms?

Re:What rights?

[Lord_Sy]

"I'm not a person, I'm but a lowly consumer. I exist to fuel other people's economy. I should just shut up and consume."

Because you live in a capitalist republic.
Vote them again, and again, and again!!!

Opt out... Completely

[WCMI92]

Here's how I opt out... I don't HAVE a landline. I have a cell phone, and a broadband connections (cable). That's it.

Until cell phones become 24/7 unlimited flat rate, I don't see the FCC being able to get away with allowing this there.

Technology

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

It is time to upgrade our technology again.

I've heard good things about the "Two cans and a piece of String" company based in Florida. Perhaps the solution is right there?

Re:Technology

[Ozymandias_KoK]

You use string? Loser. I have a cellular can.

Re:Technology

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

Cellular cans give you brain tumors!
Cellular cans give you impotence!
Cellular cans can accidentally summon demons from the planes of HATE!
Cellular cans are traceable to within .2 mm of your position allowing the government to aim their mind controling devices!

I warned yah! Didn't I warn yah! Those cellular cans were made by Lucifer himself!

Plus, as long as I have a string on my can I won't be able to lose it. Now where did I put that string...

I had the same thought

[MemeRot]

At first I thought I was just being paranoid. But if it occurred to you to within a matter of minutes, you can bet it will occur to someone in the new 'Homeland Security' department also. Collect everything (at huge expense) then throw it all in a database and get search warrants on anyone who calls the middle east on general principle.

Re:I had the same thought

[SnapShot]

Don't forget the search warrants on those who call people who call people who call the middle east. You need to flush out those terrorist cells somehow.

Re:I had the same thought

[Genom]

And, of course, taking this out 7 levels deep will make sure you catch all those darned terrorists...as well as Kevin Bacon...;P

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

OJNK! AT&T YOU WILL!

Can somebody explain...

[CaptainZapp]

"We do this, as the court insisted, while still respecting companies' valid speech interests pursuant to the First Amendment."

What the fsck selling my private data to some scum of the earth marketing firms has to do with free speech?

To extend that logic it is then OK to walk into MCIs head quarter and shit on their carpet in order to express my dissatisfaction with their customer service.

Re:Can somebody explain...

[Tackhead]

> To extend that logic it is then OK to walk into MCIs head quarter and shit on their carpet in order to express my dissatisfaction with their customer service.

And as long as we're talking about telcos and ways to express our opinions of them, I'd say you have a gift for understatement.

Re:Can somebody explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not free speech, that's ART. Maybe you should apply for an NEA grant.

Let them trace these calls

[bluveinr]

Here is the FCC Chairman's listed phone number from the FCC website. Keep this line busy for a few weeks and we'll see how his office reacts to "a reduced expectation of privacy".

Powell Michael K CM-CH (202) 418-1000

Re:Let them trace these calls

[Anonymous Coward]

I called and was transferred four times before hitting voice mail. It'll be interesting to see if I get a call back.

Re:Let them trace these calls

[Xenographic]

It's not his fault--blame the 10th Circuit Court.

They do go up for judicial review (you can vote 'against' them on the ballot--if enough people vote against them, they're removed). OTOH, they're supposed to be 'insulated' from politics, so there's almost no chance to stop them. Instead, try to get your state attrouney general to look into placing limits on what they can do with your CPNI.

Do you...

[MemeRot]

Ask to be put on their do not call list immediately? Do it first thing, before they even have a chance to start their pitch. They're not allowed to do anything but be polite, say yes, and end the call, and never call back. Cuts down on the number of calls a lot.

Re:Do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I do this

but it doesn't seem to help

And I be damned if I pay more to filter

I try to make the best of it....
Sometimes I pretend that I'm a sexline, or an old man that gets confused easily (I try to take as much of there time as I can then I abruptly yell DON'T CALL ME)
either way they still call so I may as well have fun..

Re:Do you...

[Cowculator]

But sometimes it's better to have a little fun with them if you've got time to waste. If someone calls and asks to speak to the head of the household, there are a number of ways to dispose of the obvious telemarketer. My favorite: wait for them to stop speaking, then say the following in a clear, confident voice:

"Anteeksi, mutta emme puhu englantia ta:ma:ssa talossa."

That's Finnish, or my best approximation of it, for "I'm sorry, but we don't speak English in this house" - I think it's correct if you replace "a:" with an "a" with a dieresis over it, pronounce those vowels like the "a" in "hat", and pronounce the other letters as you would in, say, Spanish. And even if it's slightly wrong, how many USian telemarketers are going to speak _that_ language, anyway (especially compared to Spanish, for example)? Wait for an awkward silence, let them hang up when they realize they probably won't be getting anything out of you, and then see if they call back.

Re:Do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there should be a dieresis over all three of the a's in "tamassa", not just the first two. And remember to stress the first syllable of each word.

What are the affiliates allowed to do with it?

[Choco-man]

It's a frightening prospect. Telco's are only allowed to 'share' (sell) that info with affiliates. I don't know that those affiliates have any restrictions on how they treat that info..

Re:What are the affiliates allowed to do with it?

[Kamel Jockey]

Telco's are only allowed to 'share' (sell) that info with affiliates.

This really is no big deal, telcos have been selling your personal information and anything else they could make to anyone and everyone willing to pay for years.

You don't really believe their "privacy policy" do you? :)

In this day and age...

[teamhasnoi]

Everyone is an affiliate!

This sucks for one main reason. As soon as that info is sold, there is no getting it 'back'. It will be resold, repackaged, sorted, sold, crosslinked, sold, and sold again. This info does not belong in the hands of companies who "do buisiness" with a telecom company.

With that, here are the other post headers.

First Post
FROst PisT In other news
Imagine the privacy concerns
No way in hell!
BOYCOTT TELEPHONES NOW
I don't Care, I use VOIP
They can have my Pizza numbers if they want
Workarounds?
OT: your sig
What we really need
Solution is Simple: use the TeleGRAPH!
Idiots should not be allowed computers
What are they going to do with this? Eschelon and you
Use a repeater node and bannana peel
Wireless Networks?
My uncle works for AT&T
TIme to Move to Canada
What do you Expect?
Micro$oft and Telecoms
I did this...

and finally...

In this day and age.
Thanks, I'll be here all week.

Opt out...?

[jhughes]

So...whom does one have to contac tto opt out of these? The phone companies? navigating their phone service is like hell:)

It is time for Michael Powell to go

[rnturn]

'nuff said.

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone has this for SC PLEASE post

thanks

Qwest

[jhunsake]

For those who have Qwest, look here.

Re:Qwest

[realdpk]

I wonder if Qwest will change their mind now that they're in such huge trouble with the SEC and will be the next WorldCom?

Re:Qwest

[swb]

You can look at it two ways:

1) Qwest doesn't want any more bad press or anymore state regulators breathing down their neck about their business practices and hence doesn't pursue further sales of marketing data. This is desired outcome, I think.

2) Qwest is so desperate for cash they will sell anything, and they decide to start selling customer info to anyone. This is a likely outcome, money and corporations being what they are.

What's next?

[$criptah]

Telecom companies own phone numbers, hence they can be the legal owners of the info, therefore they can sell information about it. Now, can sewer companies sell my information about my shit (literaly) that they traffic through their pipes? If so, I better get a diarrhea. On the other hand, I think that the sewer companies won't be able to get sell the information. Too much traffic, too much corporate bullshit to analyze. There you have it.

Use an answering machine for call screening.

[crovira]

Hello.

You have reached (555)555-1212.

I use this machine to screen my calls and
I may or may not be at home and
there may or may not be a recording device attached
so at the tone clearly say your name, your phone number and very, very brief message.

Then, if I'm home, I'll have a decision to make.

Re:Use an answering machine for call screening.

[laserjet]

I don't follow your logic. If you screened all your calls, you would still need to call people back. They have a record of every person you call as well as who calls you.

Cell Phones?

[ScannerBoy]

Does anyone know if this includes cell phone providers?

I mean seriously, I'm paying about the same price for a completly mobile phone, that includes long distance calls, works damn near anywhere in the US (Sprint PCS) and NO sales calls! Use your dollars to tell the phone companies to screw off!

Re:Cell Phones?

[anthony_dipierro]

Does anyone know if this includes cell phone providers?

I don't see why not. This ruling is about whether or not the phone companies can sell the data about where and when you call, not about whether or not those who receive that data can call you.

Re:Cell Phones?

[rnturn]

I supposed this'll increase the amount of junk mail that I receive over and above the incredible amount that I get now. Wonder if anyone'll gripe if I just leave the garbage can sitting next to the mailbox. That way I can do a quick bit of filtering before the junk even gets into the house.

But if this means that we'll all start receiving more telemarketing calls... well, for now perhaps having that unpublished number will provide some protection (though I suspect that won't work for long). Eventually, I can see the day when we either break down and get a cellphone which we turn off (or we keep our regular phone and turn off the bell) when we don't want to be disturbed.

A suggestion

[Salsaman]

Put them on hold for ten minutes, and then pick up the phone again and tell them to go away. That way you have cost them 10 minutes of phone time as well.

i'll vote with my fist up your ass

[MemeRot]

i'm so sick of all you sanctimonious fucks saying 'well boycott it then'. HOW THE HELL are you going to boycott phones? oh, wait a minute..... let me guess, nobody calls you anyway, right? you cannot boycott phones.

let me make this clear. your boycott of the RIAA did NOTHING. your boycott of the MPAA did NOTHING. your boycott of the phone companies will do NOTHING. deal with it.

Re:i'll vote with my fist up your ass

[Jucius Maximus]

"i'm so sick of all you sanctimonious fucks saying 'well boycott it then'. HOW THE HELL are you going to boycott phones? oh, wait a minute..... let me guess, nobody calls you anyway, right? you cannot boycott phones."

Easy. Get a mobile phone from a canadian or global service that supports USA mobile networks. Will this bring down the USA telephone industry? No, because most people don't care if their information is sold. But you will still be protecting yourself by not getting phone service from a company in the USA.

Re:i'll vote with my fist up your ass

[Grax]

The RIAA boycott did do something. It resulted in lower sales which RIAA claims is caused by people downloading their music for free on the internet rather than buying it.

The reality is I don't buy their music or download their crap for free either.

Re:i'll vote with my fist up your ass

[Dalcius]

Why pay more for something that should be free? Privacy over a telephone line should be guaranteed, IMO.

Why? Because, *in theory*, people run the country, and the people want privacy. Thus, we tell the gov't we want privacy, and they do so (*sigh* in theory).

Corporate greed is a given -- our market is *BASED* on that guarantee.

What we need is a semi-reliable government. We can't count on regular people to handle this, they're ignorant and apathetic, a fact which the government was *BASED* on.

Do I see this happening? No. Which is why I'm idly considering where I want to move in 5-10 years...

*sob*

Re:i'll vote with my fist up your ass

[Jucius Maximus]

I hear you.

The USA gov't is more like a 'parent of the people' ("We know what's best for you, so shut up and do what our corproate donor tell us to tell you to do.") as opposed to the representative of the people. I don't like it any more than you.

Re:i'll vote with my fist up your ass

[Dalcius]

I wonder if anyone is reading this -- I'm posting it a bit late, but a thought struck me.

We reboot (some) computer systems to restore a stable environment. This can be compared to a revolution in a country.

Now-a-days, we have open source developers making systems that need very little rebooting.

I wonder what this would be like when applied to government. E-Voting on any particularly interesting issue. Get up in the morning, head to issues.gov, vote on the 5 that interest you, read the paper, and go to work.

Just a thought.

Disclaimer: I'm lazy.... ....but does anyone have any links to any studies that talk about this?

Re:i'll vote with my fist up your ass

[Jucius Maximus]

As long as Cowboyneal does not run the polls...

Re:Hello Mr Smith (ot)

[two-bookoo!]

If you are cheating on your wife, you deserve to get cought! e-nuf said.

If you live in New York....

[Big_Breaker]

You can put your name on a do not call list. Its illegal to get solicitations if you put your name down.

Ways to defeat automated calling systems

[rbabb]

I found out that a good way to defeat the computers that do automatic dialing is to place the tone for a wrong/disconnected number at the beginning of your answering machine message, followed by a second or 2 of silence, and then your real message. Then set the number of rings to like 1 or 2. This way the machine hears the tones for a wrong number and immediately hangs up, whereas everyone else is slow compared to a computer and will hear your message just as they are thinking they might have a wrong number. It might be a little confusing for some people at first, but after you explain it to a few people everyone should understand what you're trying to do.

Just always remember that it's better to use their own system against them, then to just sit there and take it up the a$$.

Rob

Re:Ways to defeat automated calling systems

[Devistater]

Its better to start logging calls from telemarketers and asking them to put you on do not call lists. Why? Because you can get money out of them if you do that :) Federal law, $500 per violation paid to you (they are allowed one or two "mistake" calls after you tell them do not call) But this selling your info thing... I mean do you really want anyone to be able to buy information on what phone numbers you call each month?

Re:Ways to defeat automated calling systems

[XorNand]

FYI...
These is an example of a SIT (special information tone). The frequencies for the disconnected tone are:
985.2Hz, 1370.6Hz and 1776.7Hz.
Each tone's duration is 380 mS.

Re:Ways to defeat automated calling systems

[deadl0ck]

I put "The number you have reached is not in service at this time" message on my machine a few years back.

I went two months with no messages on my machine, my friends thought my number was disconnected and stopped calling me. :)

Voice your complaints!

[sup4hleet]

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov

Customer Service Standards:
Send your comments to:OMDCSSTF@fcc.gov

General e-mail should be sent to: FCCINFO@FCC.GOV

Remember: a complaint should be a well thoughtout, polite, disagreement NOT a psychotic rant.

Re:Voice your complaints!

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up - way up!

Re:Voice your complaints!

[jafac]

I think that if there's one person who might be sympathetic to this cause, it would be the good Senator from Arizona, John "I got butt-fucked by the Christian Coalition when I ran against Bush" McCain.

Last week, he publicly accused half the senate of being bought and paid for by corporate sponsors. He's my hero.

MOD parent up

[MemeRot]

The restrictions we put on gov't agencies don't apply to private companies.

Privacy is still allowed - just not compulsory

[Anonymous Coward]

The alarming thing is that now, apparently, any law that prevents a company from sharing information with anyone is unconstitutional. Privacy now has to be a matter of purely bilateral agreement between you and the companies you do business with.

Make sure it's written into every contract you sign from now on, and that the company can't unilaterally change these terms later. Then you retain the right to sue the company for breach of contract, even if they haven't done anything 'illegal'.

Re:Privacy is still allowed - just not compulsory

[Nintendork]

Why was this modded down?

Call data targets ads

[efedora]

When I was doing a lot of business (and making a lot of calls/faxes) with South Korea I started getting targeted ads written in Korean. Same thing happened when I was doing jobs in Mexico - lots of Spanish language phone ads. The phone companies have been doing this internally for several years.

bankruptcy?

[sckeener]

I hate the ending of the article:

As a related matter, the FCC is currently seeking industry comment on the use of information about customers whose telecommunications carriers have gone out of business or have filed for bankruptcy protection.

If it follows rulings similar to dot.coms, then those records are assets and will be sold to the highest bidder to pay debts. Ouch!

Re:bankruptcy?

[MrResistor]

It could be worse...

They could be sold to ALL bidders!

Re:bankruptcy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if they want comment, we can give it to them.
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp _email. html
That is the web address to send e-mail to Chairman Moa...I mean Chairman Powell. They are looking for industry comment, well, we are customers, so we are part of the industry. It may not be about this point, but who says we cannot chew on his ear anyway?

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[linzeal]

South Carolina has phones?

Better solution...

[JohnDenver]

Personally, I love waisting thier time by letting them talk for 15 seconds and asking them to hold on. I put the phone down, watch 2 minutes of TV and pick it back up again. I tell them I am interested, let them talk for another 15 seconds, ask a dumb question and then ask them to hold again, where I watch another 2 minutes of TV.

You'd be surprised how long they stay on hold...

If there were more assholes like me who wasted thier time, Telemarketing would never be profitable. You're making it easier to skip people who aren't interested...

The other thing you can do is act like you're really interested, but NEVER actually ACCEPT what they are offering. You can haggle, ask stupid questions, conjure stupid reasons, or interrupt your purchase with the sudden decapitation of your family pet. OMG!!!

Talking with Telemarketers is a great opportunity to hone in on a number of communication skills.

Re:Better solution...

[k0hlrabi]

While I respect your crusade to squelch all profitability from telemarketing, you have to weigh the good with the bad.

Being antagonistic towards telemarketers:
GOOD: wastes telemarketing company's money, provides an incentive to do less telemarketing.
BAD: wastes time of the individual telemarketer, unfairly targets a real person just trying to do their job and make some money.

Your positive impact on the ultimate amount of telemarketing that occurs is small or negligible, but your negative impact on individual telemarketers is much higher.

BTW, ever notice that few people would treat telemarketers with the same disrespect if they were face-to-face with them? Something about talking over the phone makes it easier to ignore that they are human too.

Re:Better solution...

[mosch]

BAD: wastes time of the individual telemarketer, unfairly targets a real person just trying to do their job and make some money.

Real people who knowingly, and willingly engage in a profession which consists entirely of annoying and scamming people. They became fair targets when they accepted the job.

BTW, ever notice that few people would treat telemarketers with the same disrespect if they were face-to-face with them?

Ever notice that few people would actually engage in the tactics that telemarketers use in a face-to-face situation? Ever notice that if somebody used those tactics, you'd probably end up telling them to sod off and you certainly wouldn't make a purchase from them? Something about talking over the phone makes it easier for them to ignore the fact that they're disrupting peoples lives, and they could at the very least just hang up when the person politely expresses that they have no interest in the product/service.

Re:Better solution...

[JohnDenver]

Your positive impact on the ultimate amount of telemarketing that occurs is small or negligible, but your negative impact on individual telemarketers is much higher.

Point 1: You can't have it both ways
You can't have it both ways... My negative impact on individual telemarketers is small and negligible too. Relatively, it's higher, but it's still very negligible.

Point 2: Every vote counts
The impact I make when I vote is small and negligible, should I stop voting? Should we all stop dissenting if our dissent is small and neglible?

Point 3: You can't start big to get big
Most dissent starts small and neglible, dissent doesn't occur in rapid consent, so it's up to assholes like me to start small and negligible dissent in hopes the dissent will spread.

The Point: My small and negligible dissent is nessecary to inspire others to waste telemarketers time.

Oh Goody!!

[thales]

After years of using Telespammers as fodder for mind games I got crossed off the call lists and ran out of victims. I Was worried I'd have to quit paying some bills to get calls from collectors, but the telecos are saving the day by providing me with freash meat.

Corporate personhood

[MemeRot]

There really is no problem with treating corporations like people. Let them have full legal rights like people. BUT also give them a limited lifespan, like people. A couple hundred years ago, corporations were typically chartered for a limited time only, to prevent exactly the kinds of problems we have now. The Dutch East India company was chartered to further a specific social goal, and then dissolved. Corporate personhood only becomes dangerous when combined with IMMORTALITY. Think about it, a person making umpteen billion dollars a year (cough, cough, Bill Gates) has a lot of power - but now imagine an IMMORTAL Bill Gates - well that's what we have with corporations. We'll never be able to re-institute limited lifespans being built into corporate charters. But we might be able to get corporate charters dissolved when the corporations are shown to have violated the law. I think the climate now is right for such a move, though there's nobody in government to sponsor such an idea.

Re:Corporate personhood

[NDPTAL85]

Sure thats a great idea. Lets dissolve a company and put several hundred to several thousand employees/voters out of work just so that we can re-instate corporate charters to make you feel better. Everyone will love THAT plan! YAY!

Re:Corporate personhood

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see: several thousand people losing their jobs or continued corruption of the government passing wonderful laws like the DMCA and life sentences for hackers and the creation of "Homeland Security".

Here's a dollar. Get on the bus and go find the unemployment office.

Re:Corporate personhood

[MrResistor]

Brilliant!

Seriously, that is absolutely the best solution to the problem that I've heard yet.

You're right; the climate is right but no one in government will sponsor it. Obviously, someone outside of government is needed to get the ball roling. Somebody like Nader or Jerry Brown, but with less of a "fruitcake" image problem to overcome. Lessig with a good PR team would be effective.

Be so kind as to provide details?

[cduffy]

What do you do for incoming calls? (The prepaid mobile phone? What does that cost you?)

Re:Be so kind as to provide details?

[ZaneMcAuley]

Incomming calls to my pre-pay mobile.

It costs me nothing for incomming calls.
I use the mobile if I cannot use Voice over IP.

All long distance calls nowdays from landlines use Voice over IP so they can give cheaper rates.

Re:Be so kind as to provide details?

[ZaneMcAuley]

I also use Voice/Video over IM (MSN, Yahell, etc) mostly. If I can, I use netmeeting for video for a direct machine to machine link.

The days of the landline are slowly being replaced by the internet (Instant Messaging).

Why would you guess that?

[MemeRot]

There was nothing in the article saying that at all.

Re:Why would you guess that?

[AriesGeek]

Because it's a federal law.

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically all companies just ignore this--it would take about an hour to compile and send the information necessary for a compaint and nobody by the most bored person in the world possibly has time to do this.

TERRORIST!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you're a drug dealer.

One or the other.

Nobody else wants privacy or anonymity.

Re:TERRORIST!!!

[ZaneMcAuley]

Actually I use it because it offers more features and also is easier, why should I have to leave my desktop to make a call? The phone is sooo old fashioned :D

So, by your analogy, people driving yellow BMWs with custom plates wearing gold necklaces are also drug dealers :D

Proud to be Canadian

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again, the Americans make me even more proud of the fact that I am not American, I am Canadian.

Dilution of the meaning of Spam

[Spankophile]

My subject pretty much sums it up.

It used to be that spam (in the internet sense) was about email-based advertising that got sent you numerous times by someone you'd never heard of. They got your address by dictionary attacking with phone book names, or spidering the web for people who left addresses lying around.

Generally, it was porno, which upset people even more.

Currently, if you were to believe the /. community, _any_ kind of advertisement is Spam. Banners over the jumbo-tron? Spam. Pop-up ads on websites you're viewing for free? Spam. Ads for travel insurance in your credit card bill? Spam.

The fact that we are bombarded with ads in a supply-side economy DOES NOT mean that every advertisement is SPAM.

In fact, with data-mining and the vast info-trail people leave behind them, i hope that in a world of advertising, newer campaigns will at least be directed at me when there's a good chance I'll be interested.

targetting Linux users/developers?

[tps12]

This means that now all any government agency needs to do is set up a dummy corporation that's an "affiliate", and my phone company will give them unlimited access to all the data about me.

I wasn't too concerned over this until I read your response. One huge segment of phone calls is due to modem uses. And who are the primary users of modems these days? Why, the same people who won't shell out for a commercial OS, won't shell out for broadband, either: Linux users. Not to mention that a lot of Linux users and developers come from second- or third world countries like Finland, China, and France, where broadband isn't even available.

I wonder if this is just the next step in the government's War on Linux. First label us all hackers (now subject to life imprisonment), then monitor our Internet usage, finally force everyone to use DRM hardware and take away our rights.

I'm scared.

Wireless?

[sllort]

I can't figure out from the ruling whether the Bells are allowed to do this to their wireless customers (like Verizon wireless). If so, will they be able to sell their customer's location histories?

That would make for some truly interesting rules of evidence in court.

Type of data is important

[Smilodon]

I am less concerned with this information causing more telemarketers to call me (I have a security code ring-through box for that), than I am about them selling details about who I all and when. Since when is this not private information (since NOW I guess)? The phone companies are still a utility (of sorts), and has some responsibility in this area.

I assume this ruling now means that the bank can share all my PINs and such with whoever they want. I mean after all, I'm choosing to use their service. Or the doctor can sell my medical history to the highest bidder since I'm choosing to use their service.

What a load of BS that attitude is. Having very little choice than to use these services, some responsibility is required on the part of the service provider. Even the court system treats criminals better than this, privacy-wise!

Incidently, the police do not need a court order to get your calling record. They need a court order to listen to your calls. Of course, I guess it's only a matter of time until the telemarketers will be able to do that as well...

Bad news

[wiredog]

The FCC is allowing telemarketers to call cell phones.

Re:Bad news

[anthony_dipierro]

Prove it.

Re:Bad news

[wiredog]

Sales calls to wireless (i.e. cell) phones are legal.

Re:Bad news

[anthony_dipierro]

Sales calls to wireless phones are legal -- except for calls that are recorded messages or are placed with automatic dialers.

Yeah, it's always been that way. In my experience very few companies call and those that do will let you go as soon as you tell them you're on a cell phone. I've only gotten three phone soliticitations in two years on my cell phone. Two from credit card companies (exempt for the first call due to preexisting business relationship) and one from some place that I put my number on an information card.

Re:Bad news

[rnturn]

``...except for calls that are recorded messages or are placed with automatic dialers.''

Yah, that part neatly shut out the telemarketers though I would have added an additional requirement: that manually-dialed sales calls must be placed from rotary dial phones.

SPAM is popping up all over the place...

[Uttles]

The other day I received new checks in the mail. Well I wrote a few checks, paid a few bills, and as I was flipping to the next check I was surprised to see an ad from a pen retail company! The company was not the same as the check printers (I checked) but apparently has struck an ad deal that places check sized slips with their pens and company info in my checkbook. Aren't there some places where ads just don't belong?

Re:SPAM is popping up all over the place...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your ass, someone marketing droid probably stuck an ad up there too for Preperation-H or such.

Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello phone company? I've got some prepaid phone cards with elephants on them, can I get a list of the phone calls to/from the Republican party HQ, so I can market to them and their supporters?

signed, The Democratic Phone Company

You don't have that right

[MemeRot]

What you do have is the right to say 'Put me on your do not call list' or 'Go to hell you blood sucking leeches'. You don't have a constitutional right to have a nice day. You have to exercise your rights when other initiate unwanted contact, you have to tell the Jehova's Witnesses to go away when they come to your door, you can't stop them from coming to your door.

This is scarier than spam

[defile]

There are companies out that purchase every mailing list possible. No, they're not spammers, they're collating all of these mailing lists into a huge psych database, keyed against your name. In addition to every magazine subscription you've ever had, they can tie it against voter records, DMV records, credit reports, ad naseum. Some of them even key to usenet postings.

This is mostly used by investigators/perverts to determine gobs of information about someone just by typing in their name and paying $5. The fact that phone companies will now start sharing detailed information about their customers means that these profiles are just going to become THAT much more detailed.

Hooray for information!

Re:This is scarier than spam

[Hoi Polloi]

Pretty sad that even with all that info and data massaging they still can't get me to buy their crap!

Just think of all that effort just to hawk cookie cutter cars, Britney Spears cds and detergent.

Re:This is scarier than spam

[rnturn]

Right. Imagine what university medical researchers looking for cures to some of the big killer diseases could do with an annual budget equivalent to that used for advertising in the U.S? Heck, imagine if they could just get funding comparable to what Hollywood spends hyping bad movies?

Re:Opt out... Completely

[spoonyfork]

What on earth makes you think the mobile phone companies are not going do the same thing?

Affiliates vs. third party marketers

[JJ22]

In my limited understanding of "affiliates", legally they are understood to be companies (basically) where one owns the other, or who are owned by the same parent company or grandparent comapany (there is some tie in to joint ownership). So the comment about having a government agency open an "affiliate" to gain access to phone records doesn't make much sense. Obviously, this is not a good thing, and opens the door for more widespread information sharing, but this does not signal a free for all on customer information.

Stage 1, Complete

[Quixadhal]

The more spam I get, the more likely I am to cancel my land-line phone system entirely. It's another $20/month (and then some) that I really don't need to spend, since *I* don't use it much.

The phone company is in the same boat as the post office... they're both antiquated services that are in the process of being replaced by both the internet and cell-phones. They should be doing things to ENTICE more users, not anger them and drive them away.

Hey, wake up Ma Bell, you *DO* have to care nowadays!

just like amazon?

[evilempireinc]

From pc world "Uncapher calls the decision a positive step. He likens it to customers being willing for Amazon.com to know which books they have purchased, and recommending others." So does this mean I'll be getting calls like "Hello. Based on your previous phone calls, you might enjoy calling the following people..."?

Re:Simple solution... [USA]

[hburch]

Be very careful how you phrase this. "Put me on your 'do not call' list" (given by bludstone) will often be followed by a query sounding like a clarification "You wish to removed from our list?" A response of "yes" can be construed to mean that you want to be removed from their 'do not call' list. Extremely sleazy, clearly twisting what was wanted, but a possible interpretation of the English anyway.

I repeat "Put me on your 'do not call' list" as a mantra to anything they ask, just so there is no confusion on what I want done.

Eventually, the calls reduce as they learn not to waste their time (until you move). I still get the non-profit calls, but they are much more rare (for me) and do not upset as much (generally).

If only SPAM had the same cost involved (yes, I know there is all sorts of proposal to attempt to do this).

Wow, maybe eminem was on to something

[gatekeep]

... so the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me, so let me see. They want to sell phone records monthly, and use it to get themselves wealthy. Hey, here's a concept that works, trash the little guys rights and profits emerge, but no matter how many rights are taken from me, it'd be so empty without being free.

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[iamwoodyjones]

Hey to tell you the truth, I LOVE call spammers!
You might be saying right now WTF?
But seriously. They provide my nightly entertainment.
Nothing's better than having a mark call you! Why, it's phone pranking without having to call anyone. They call you. I love to sit there and say, "Sure, I'll buy the whole thing. What else do you have." Then end the conversation with, "Oh wait a minute. What do you mean credit card? I only deal in cash here buddy." Or better yet, "What, this stuff isn't free? I don't want it." And my all time favorite is the, "Hey, if you start talking dirty to me, I just might buy your product."

I love the joy of making them mad. I know it's just a job and they're trying to support there family, but hey if you make it to where they don't want to have the job, then there won't ever be anyone to call anyone else.

Just take it one person at a time...hehe

Re:Opt out... Completely

[germinatoras]

I do the exact same thing. I consider it "voting against Verizon" with my dollars.

I may come back some day - if they get rid of those nonsensical taxes, telemarkets, and make every call a local call nationwide, and repeal this silly FCC decision.

Re:WinWin-Win for the Bells

[canadian geek]

The Telemarketers also pay the Bells lots of money for the privlage of interupting my diner. I hope this does not pan out. If the US does it, Canada is not far behind.

Hey, no worries!

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont own a phone, dont have cellphone or a landline either one. ADSL for net connect and order pizza online from pizzahut.com! Who needs a phone anyhow?

Get Moose and Squirrel!

You have a cell phone.... for privacy???

[MemeRot]

You realize it transmits over radio, and unencrypted? While it's illegal for someone to listen in, there's no way to detect someone listening in, so that's an unenforceable law.

Re:You have a cell phone.... for privacy???

[Anonymous Coward]

Your life has got to be more interesting than mine if you're worried about your cell phone calls being monitored. Heavens no, someone might know I'm going to the bar or need to pick up a extra serving of pork chops!!

Re:You have a cell phone.... for privacy???

[Anonymous Coward]

This was true 10 years ago. Get with the program, you idiot.

AND????

[MemeRot]

They can sell your info to telemarketers. Yes.

Is that clear?

NOTHING in that fact says that telemarketers are then clear to ignore the state's do not call list. You're pulling that out of thin air.

Re:Hello Mr Smith (ot)

[mosch]

obviously you've never met my wife.

just one step farther

[CarrionBird]

*bell have already been selling phone lists, then selling you the "telemarkter blocking" feature to block out the very people they sold the list to. To the people with the real power, privacy just gets in thier way. Coming soon: 1984, new corporate flavor!

Why is this surprising? The FCC Sold Out Long Ago

[Vortran]

The FCC is long overdue for some serious reform, and I doubt that it will get it. The FCC, in my opinion, is a microcosm of many of the things that are wrong about our present government: namely, that it can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

The FCC is supposed to administer the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (which is no more someone's property than gravity) for the common good of our nation. Instead, it sells wholesale the use of this precious resource to the people with the most money, leaving less and less available for the common person, much less the HAM radio operator or casual experimenter.

It is therefore no surprise that they are taking money from anyone that has an agenda. In this latest case, phone companies and others that want to invade your privacy for the purpose of saturating your every nook and cranny with commercial advertizing.

My proposed solution is that the FCC executive board be made up of at least 50% volunteer personnel (read $0 pay) and that they are not allowed to receive money from ANY source other than the national budget as approved by Congress and the White House. Will that solve the problem? No, but it might put a damper on it.

Now, leave me alone. I have to go patent my coin-operated gravity dispenser.

Vortran out

Main Site for the FCC Chairman I mean Asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/

cell phones?

[tx_mgm]

does this include cell phones?
i would think not, but if anyone knows for sure, please let me (us) know.
if anything, this is the reason i needed to finally drop my landlines and get one of those spiffy new deals with voicestream or cingular or others (ahhh, theres actually COMPETITION in the wireless market!)
oh and for you dsl users, if you get (tv) cable, theyll usually give you a great deal on internet access too =)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Do Not Call List

[sdjunky]

I see several people saying
"Just ask to be put on a DO NOT CALL LIST!!"

How is this going to fix anything?

Example. I call wal-mart 25 times in a week.
They sell that info to target.

Target "MAILS" me a brochure ( they have my address mind you ). If I call the electronics dpt @ walmart Target could even mail me electronics brochures. A do not call list isn't going to fix anything but telemarketers. Telemarketers would LOVE to have a list of who you call so they can profile and sell items that match your supposed interests but there are more ways of contacting you than by phone

Just give up land lines..

[gatekeep]

It's cheap enough to have a cell phone as your primary phone, and I believe there's laws prohibiting sales calls to cell phones, since the recipient is charged for the call in many cases.

At any rate, I get very few calls on my cell phone, and once I tell them it's a cell phone they actually VOLUNTEER to put me on their do not call list.

Re:Just give up land lines..

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I don't give a fuck about the sales calls (OK, I do, but they're irrelevant for now).

I care about the fact that somebody knows WHO I CALL FROM WITHIN MY OWN HOME.

Guess it's time to go use pay phones.

Re:Just give up land lines..

[Anonymous Coward]

I care about the fact that somebody knows WHO I CALL FROM WITHIN MY OWN HOME.

And you just figued this out NOW?

You didn't notice on your phone bill an itemized list of the calls you made and to whom?

Re:Just give up land lines..

[Ozymandias_KoK]

You don't typically get an itemized listing on local landline calls.

it did not

[MemeRot]

Have you noticed that the economy is worse than it was two years ago? What gets crossed off of consumer's lists first in a slow economy? Luxuries like new music. That is enough in itself to explain the lower sales.

Alternatively, the RIAA explanation may have some basis in fact. Or the low quality of the commercial crap boy bands may have something to do with it. There are no hard numbers on the number of people 'boycotting', because this isn't a real boycott, it's just a lot of talk.

Re:it did not

[scaryman]

I think it's that no-one wants to pay good money for crap music. If the record companies would go out and find some bands that have been playing small gigs, university bars etc, and know how to produce good music, instead of just manufacturing a band out of good looking boys and girls, they might see sales going up again.

We need to rein in our "public servants"

[CascaLonginus101]

And I know a good way to start--hang 'em, hang 'em high. When we make an example of a few by hanging them in the street, and throw rotten fruit at their dangling corpses, the rest of them will straighten up real soon.

I am serious. But let's do it legally; we can start with a constitutional amendment allowing petition based public-initiated referendums in all states. That would allow us to generate and hopefully pass laws and vote on them at the polls. Then, we pass a law that allows us to take confidence votes on elected and appointed officials. There could several options for a poor vote of confidence: for example, if the official (e.g., the President) receives a confidence vote of less than 40%--fire him; if less than 30%, imprison him 1 year; These people are our servants; let's start acting like it. This sort of control by the people has a long and distinguished history. You ever hear of the phrase, "Let them eat cake"?

We can also start by taking control of our airwaves, and setting aside a significant portion of time to free political speech, some of which may be randomly donated by lottery.

That is all....

------------

Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?

http://www.cryonet.org

Re:We need to rein in our "public servants"

[CascaLonginus101]

Oops Forgot to add more options to the vote of confidence: if the politician gets less than 20% vote of confidence, give him 20 years, less than 10%, hang him.

Make a note

[paiute]

Telemarketers have written scripts - so should you. Make this list and tape it beside the phone:
1. I'm sorry, I give exclusively through the United Way.
2. I'm sorry. I give all my used clothing to a local homeless shelter.
3. That's interesting. Send me a brochure. No, I do not buy things over the phone.
4. No thank you. My windows, siding, and driveway are fine.
5. Does that mean you would send me that and more unless I remember to call you? In that case please do not send it.
6. A free trip? How much will it cost me to claim this "prize"? Thanks for calling. Goodbye.
7. I pay 4.7 cents per minute all day every day from a small company that does not advertise. Can you match that?

I would call my rep but then...

[tiedyejeremy]

I would call my representative but then that info would be sold to all the political groups and I'd get a flood of calls asking for donations! When I call my representative's office (or my attorney)I expect it to be between me and them. Next time I call the doctor, will I start getting calls from malpactice lawyers?!?!?!

Pass the buck along to the government.......

[Ride-My-Rocket]

When signing up for spam-friendly service (Hotmail is the only one that comes to mind right away), submit your real name -- but enter the rest of the information (address, phone #, etc) of your local congressman. Let them pay for the crimes you'd otherwise be suffering -- no, it won't stop you from receiving e-spam, but it will send all snail mail spam and now phone spam to those guys instead. They're in the position to change things, so let them see the folly of their ways!

you can't yell don't call me

[MemeRot]

You have to say 'put me on your do not call list' in those words.

Don't blame the FCC

[Nintendork]

Blame the US Court of Appeals. They're the ones that instructed the FCC to use an opt-out method.

Taken from Chairman Powell's public statement:
"But we conclude, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that under the court's constitutional analysis, companies may satisfy the somewhat less stringent requirement of giving consumers the chance to "opt-out" of intracompany communications-related use of CPNI.(1)

(1) The court instructed the Commission to consider an opt-out strategy, which the court concluded was "an obvious and substantially less restrictive alternative" to opt-in. U.S. West v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1238 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 530 U.S. 1213 (2000)"

Contact the Court of Appeals and complain. Also, contact your local representative.

-Lucas

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[MagnaMark]

Thanks for pointing this out. All the posters who are blaming the FCC are missing the point. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is to blame for this.

In 1999, This court vacated the FCC's previous opt-in only policy in this ruling. This means that the FCC used to have an opt-in only policy but the court forced the FCC to change it in favor of commercial interests.

I confess that my first reaction was to get pissed at the FCC, but it ain't that simple.

A couple of interesting facts about the 10th circuit appeals case:

Lawrence Tribe, the Harvard Professor of Bush v. Gore 2000 election fame, was the lead attorney for the Telecoms against the FCC.

The Supreme Court failed to grant this case cert., meaning that they refused to consider the appeal to this ruling. It'll be interesting to see what happens if this new FCC ruling gets challenged in court and then whether the Supreme Court will take on the CPNI privacy issue then. That's when the final interpretation will be determined.

In the meantime, I too encourage everyone who wants the opt-in policy back to contact your Senators and Representatives.

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[Peyna]

Phone books have been opt-out for as long as I can remember, and anyone has access to a phone book. In most cases you have to pay to opt-out as well.

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[Nintendork]

This is another good example of the bells' corruption . I work for the IPTA. We recently had a meeting where we discussed all these types of charges. There's a fedral charge that appears on your phone bill. Usually $4 - $5. None of thet money goes to the government. The bells just worked the legal system so they could identify it as federal.

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[Peyna]

Since I assume many people on /. might not have a phone bill they pay (or maybe they only have a cellular phone), here are the assorted "charges" listed on my phone bill that make no sense to me.

Federal Access Charge 5.52
Number Portability Surcharge .28
Federal Universal Service Fee .42
Telecommunications Relay System .07

And then there's this crap that was just on my bill:
Effective Jul 2, 2002, your Bill reflects a decrease of $.01 in your Monthly Service charges.
Effective Jul 2, 2002, your Bill reflects an increase of $.52 in your Monthly Service charges.

So, my bill went down one cent and up fifty two? And why did it do this?

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[Peyna]

Not to mention the $60 they charge you when you move to setup service. Even though I stayed within the same area, whenever you move Ameritech charges you $60 to probably do $1 worth of labour.

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[nostrodecus]

i could explain these charges to you (i work for a phone company - not a bell tho) but you woudn't believe me and it would make your head hurt.

sorri,
-dec

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[rnturn]

Try me. I'm willing to listen.

And I just took a couple of Excedrins so I dare say that your explanations couldn't possibly make my head feel any worse. :-)

Re:Don't blame the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a new moderation option:
-1 this nut case is actually serious

His link is to http://www.natvan.com/. Natvan stands for National Vanguard. Gotta love the link at the bottom for Ethnic Cleansing: The Game "No, you can't shoot those pesky sub-humans in real life -- but you can in Ethnic Cleansing: The Game!". Published by "National Vanguard Books: A Valuable Resource for Aryans".

It would be amusing satire, except they are serious.

Embrace the telemarketers... and waste their time.

[Tenebrious1]

Every call they make to me is money they waste. Every second I stay on the line and let them talk is money they waste. The more telemarketers that call me, the more money they are collectively wasting.

Bring it on! I'm sitting at the computer desk playing quake, no reason I can't take calls and say "uh-huh" and "can you explain that again?" a few times.

As for my privacy... well, I think I'll start wardialing telemarketers in the evenings. That should really screw up my calling profile, and entice more telemarketers to call and waste even more time and money on me. Ah, feel the power!

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[gosand]

Screw it, if any one needs to reach me, send me a damn letter...

You mean like:
- You may have already won $10,000 !!!
- You have been Pre-Approved for a credit card
- You have won a small island in the South Pacific, call 900-SUCKERZ to claim your prize. Hurry!
- Here is a book of coupons for shit you will never buy.
- Please donate to some organization you have never heard of before.
- Get 500 CDs for the price of 1 (plus shipping, handling, and handing over your soul)
- Dear (last person who lived at this address) you have been Pre-approved for a credit card!
- Are the bills getting you down? Debt consolidation can help.
- A special offer just for you Homer J Simpsoy.
- Limited Time Offer!
- We can beat your insurance rates, and save you money $$$$.
- Dated material, open immediately!
- Postal Carrier, do not forward. This is a fantastic prize intended only for the recipient shown below.
- Here is a check for $5000. By endorsing it you agree to open an account with us for that amount, with 27% interest. (this is a real one I got)
- Dell Catalogs
- Victoria's Secret catalogs (OK, I don't mind those)

Prepaid service

[ubeans]

If you really care about your privacy, switch to
a prepaid wireless phone. Of course its usage is
more expensive than a traditional land line phone,
but you never have to tell your name or address.

Also, since in the U.S. an invidual under 18 cannot
be legally bound to a contract, the prepaid service
is the only one available for teenagers, short of
having their parents sign up for a postpaid service
on their behalf.

Re:Prepaid service

[anthony_dipierro]

Of course its usage is more expensive than a traditional land line phone, but you never have to tell your name or address.

I thought that all changed after 9/11, when it was discovered that some of the hijackers were using these phones to avoid being tracked.

Hello this is your boss the drugloard...

[The Creator]

...We've noticed that you spend alot of time talking to the FBI. We are now going to kill you.

Re:Hello this is your boss the drugloard...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been happening in Colombia. A drug cartel penetrated the phone company and obtained calling records. They killed people who were calling a drug tip hotline.

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[Anonymous Coward]

No they most certainly do not ignore it, a few fly by night companies might try it, but since people on the list are unlikely to buy anything anyways, and since they get less calls, it doesn't take too long of calling that list before you get nailed, and that nailing can wipe out a day.

Re:Opt out... Completely

[Deagol]

Ditto. Since we don't use the phone much, we have a pre-pay phone from ECallPlus. I like it most because: 1) You pay for what you use. If I only call 10 minutes this month, I only get "billed" for 10 minutes; and 2) I don't have a contract tying me down. I can drop the service whenever I wish.

You do need to add to the account every 90 days (minimum card is $20 -- that's only $7/month) and you must make a call once a month for the phone to remain active.

The largest card is $100 -- 400 minutes, or $0.25/minute. Yeah it may sound high, but that includes long distance (ever overseas to many countries) and taxes/fees. I love it.

For the price of a bare-bones landline and a minimal cell phone, we come out ahead with the prepay.

FFC Complaint line: 888-225-5322

[timeril]

Callers, are you there?

Local Telco Competition

[mitchkeller]

If you don't have competition for your local telco, you must be living in the wrong state. Here in North Dakota the state allows local telcos (mostly rural telephone coops that are expanding into other services) to compete with the bells in offering local telephone service. I guess I'm only reall familiar with Dickinson, where Consolidated Telcom competes with the former monopolizer. (I believe it's Qwest.) However, they met with great success simply because they're a local company where you can actually go in and talk to a real live person if you have problems. Anyway, it's not the feds fault if you don't have a choice for local service, it's your state. Go hound your version of what we call the Public Services Commission.

Re:Local Telco Competition

[dachshund]

A suprisingly large segment of the population doesn't have competition, or any meaningful competition. Even here in my Manhattan neighborhhod, there are only a couple of choices. My parents, who live in rural New England, have exactly one.

Anyway, it's not the feds fault if you don't have a choice for local service, it's your state. Go hound your version of what we call the Public Services Commission.

As far as I know, the Bill of Rights sees government as monolithic. For instance, if a hired agent of your home state illegally searched your house, the results wouldn't be allowable as evidence in a Federal trial.

If you could convince a court that the local phone company was the creation of any government, you would have a shot at getting your phone records declared inadmissable in a court. Or, at least that's the theory. Chances are you couldn't convince any judge to do that, though the argument's not without merit.

Another link and story excerpts

[MacRonin]

"InfoWorld" - FCC sets rules for how carriers share customer data.

The U.S. "Federal Communications Commission" (FCC) set forth new rules this week on how telecommunications carriers can share certain customer information, giving telecom-related service providers a faster track to consumer data.

Carriers can share caller information with affiliates or third-party agents that provide communications-related services using an "opt-out" approach, the FCC said. The policy means that consumers' information will be shared unless they opt-out when receiving a notice of the carrier's intent to share their information.

However, when a carrier wishes to share customer information with an unrelated third party or affiliate that does not provide telecommunication-related services, the carrier must adopt an "opt-in" approach, which requires consumers to provide their consent, the FCC said.

The rules govern what the FCC calls "customer proprietary network information" (CPNI), which includes information on what services consumers subscribe to and to whom and where they call.

Up until 1999, the FCC held an opt-in policy for the sharing of all CPNI by carriers. However, these rules were vacated when a Tenth Circuit appeals court ruled in favor of U.S. West, which had filed suit claiming a "First Amendment" right to share the information under an opt-out approach.

Since then, the rules have been in a "state of play," an FCC spokesman said, with all information being shared under an opt-out approach.

Privacy advocates are taking a wait-and-see approach to the new guidelines, saying will lie in how carriers go about informing consumers of their sharing practices.

"The test is going to be whether the opt-out option is easily available and exercised," said Paula Bruening, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology ("CDT").

Technology News Headlines from Reuters UK - FCC OKs Sharing of Phone Company Customer Data.

Telephone companies will be allowed to share, without consent, private customer data with affiliates that offer communications-related services, under rules adopted by the "Federal Communications Commission" on Tuesday.

Consumers will have to opt out of having their information used for marketing purposes, including where, when and to whom they place calls, as well as the types of services subscribers use and how frequently they use them.

The FCC left the door open for companies to use an opt-in approach if they so choose, but the agency refused to mandate that method.

However, the agency said consumers must approve when a telephone company wants to share their private information with unrelated third parties or affiliated companies that do not provide communications-related services.

The decision drew a sharp rebuke from the lone Democrat on the panel, who argued that companies would be allowed to sell information without customer consent to the highest bidder who has just the faintest association with providing telecommunications services.

PCWorld.com - Telco Customer Data Goes Up for Grabs.

"FCC"'s contentious ruling gives 'affiliated' parties default access to customer data, requires opt-in for others.

Phone companies now can share a consumer's private information with certain affiliates without first getting that customer's consent, a new Federal Communications Commission ruling says.

Details of who customers call, when they call, and how long they talk may be shared with communications-related corporate affiliates, the ruling says. Customers can choose to keep such information private, but must initiate the request. The carrier does not have to ask permission.

When it comes to sharing customer data with unaffiliated third parties, the default is reversed under the FCC's new rule. Telecom companies must get the consumers' express consent to "opt in," the FCC says.Advertisement

The decision, announced Tuesday by a somewhat divided FCC, has roiled privacy advocates who say data could be used for consumer profiling by companies with only weak links to the phone carriers.

"Everyone should understand that this decision is neither narrow or pro-privacy," says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who dissented in part with the decision over privacy concerns.

The unclear definition of "corporate affiliates" that can access customer data invites abuse, Copps says. Consumers might find their phone companies "selling to the highest bidder personal and detailed information...as long as these companies use it for some 'communications-related' purpose and have some undefined murky affiliation," he says.

Privacy advocates expressed similar concerns.

"Corporate families are pretty big. I don't know [that] customers feel as familial about the relationship as corporations," says Mikal Condon, staff counsel at the "Electronic Privacy Information Center".

[ ... ]

However, Condon says the court ruling will likely be used as precedent in the states, discouraging any change from the FCC's new rule. States are "pretty much guaranteed litigation" if they require consumer consent, she says.

Legislation introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) would require consumer consent in all cases. However, the measure, Senate Bill 1928, but it does appear to have enough support to pass, Condon says.

This is the scariest part of all!

[djrogers]

The rules adopted on Tuesday will replace regulations that were struck down in 1999 by a federal appeals court that found they ran afoul of free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Those rules required carriers to first get consent from customers before using or disclosing their data.

What frickin' court decided that a corporation was more entitled to free speach than I am to privacy?

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[whovian]

What's the point of having a telephone, if I am going to be getting the ringing equivalent of pop-up windows? It's bad enough with telemarketers.

Exactly. So perhaps you get a cell phone instead. But guess what -- once that market is past its growth phase, you can be sure there will be mass marketing there too. To wit, the idea is out there to have targeted advertising on graphics capable cell phones (e.g., You are only 0.2 miles from McDonald's - come try our chicken sandwich at the cell phone special of $1.99).

I say, in a way, all the better. It will help people like us to toughen up against all this marketing crapola.

Opt OUT clearing house?

[3seas]

I recall many many years ago that there was one place that you could opt out of receiving junk mail, Direct Marketing Association??,
and this made it easy to save alot of companies the expense of sending out junk mail thru the USPS to those who would simply throw
it away.

Due to the internet, I'm finding I'm have to "Opt OUT" more and more for each company, and quite frankly, it's becomming a Fu&in
hassle and expence that I'm not getting re-embursed for.

Soooo, is there a single source that I can simply OPT OUT, one time? And if not, Why not?

Anyone got a URL or should we send our OPT OUTS to the the law makers?

Got a URL for them?

I suspect they may yell "SPAM" But I still want the URLs!!!

And I actually hope they do complain!

Re:Opt OUT clearing house?

[3seas]

Since this is telephone spam that the article is probably pointing to,
here's a trick a neighbor told me about.

There are these devices you can hook up to your phone line that zap your number
off telemarketers auto-calling systems, but here's how to do it without buying
such a system/box.

Find a number that has been disconnected and record the tone sequence you get
in response to calling that number, to the beginning of your outgoing answering
machine message with a message after it that lets real people know that tone is
is directed at telemarketer machines.

It's this tone sequence that the telemarketer machines recognize and then remove
the number from the list.

Re:Opt OUT clearing house?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.junkbusters.com Gives you many options to Opt-out of junk mail and many other things, including CPNI for some phone companies.

Re:Opt OUT clearing house?

[Phroggy]

The beeps are SIT tones, and you can download a wav file from this page and elsewhere.

Pen and paper

[WinkyN]

I'm going to the store so I can buy a nice pad of paper and a few pens. Why? Because writing letters might be the only way to communicate with others (aside from face-to-face) without having to endure marketing.

About 90 percent of the phone calls I receive at my home are telemarketers, so I rarely answer the phone any more.

Want to communicate via e-mail? Sure, I'll get back to you as soon as I delete these 300 spams.

Even my cell phone is getting hit by marketing. It *really* sucks I have to use my air time to retrieve voice mails from my provider for the sole reason to tell me about great new rates on expanded voice mail services.

If anyone needs me I'll be ignoring my phone.

Verizon

[bugpit]

I contacted Verizon and was told that the standard do-not-call request needs to be amended to include affiliates. This reportedly takes 30-60 days to process (they do the work, I just had to make the request).

Emails

[borgasm]

To Those It May Concern,
I was reading the news this morning and came across a particularly disturbing article from Reuters News. It had to do with telephone companies sharing customer information with "affiliates" and requiring no consumer consent. I find this a RIDICULOUS breach of my privacy. Although I can "opt-out", I SHOULD NOT (let me reiterate, SHOULD NOT) have to take extra measures to ensure that who I call, and when I do so does not become a commodity item.

Chairman Powell, I hope that this quote is terribly out of context, but it reads:

"consumers have a reduced expectation of privacy" regarding that data when their carriers use it "to market services customarily offered by telephone companies, such as voicemail and Internet access."

I find this statement both criminal and unconstitutional.

America is built on the premise that personal privacy is an unalienable right.

I DO NOT want any of my information sold or transferred to other parties to use for their own gain.

However, because of this ruling, I must contact my telephone company, and opt-out of marketing schemes. This will in turn WASTE MY VALUABLE TIME.

I urge all of you to rethink this ruling about sharing personal identifiable data. Privacy is the most important right we have.

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[bbc22405]

I have to agree with idfrsr on this one. If you think it's important, send me a letter. Here are three reasons why:

Sending mail compells you to at least pay for the written material, and the postage to get it to me. Perhaps this will encourage you to target me somewhat more precisely than the Penis Enlargers, Make Money Fasters, and Debt Consolidators do via email.

The arrival of unwanted USPS mail does not interrupt my day. It arrives only once, at the same time as everything else. At the time of my choosing, I put on my "is this garbage?" hat, and sift through the pile rapidly.

At the instant that I decide that your message is spam, it goes into the trash. I do not have to listen to you prattle on ignoring my attempts to shut you up and make you never call me again. (Is there an equivalent "do not mail me" list, like the "do not call" list? It would be soooo cool if bulk mailers were required to include/attach a postage-paid reply postcard that would take you off their mailing list.)

OT, But we need to instruct the young

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I'm reminded of that classic SNL sketch "We're the PHONE company, we don't have to care."

OK, young'un. That was Ernestine the Operator from "Laugh-In", not SNL.

Not FCC's fault

[Kaa]

Before screaming loudly at FCC, read the ruling. Specifically the part which says

Today's FCC action is consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 1999, which vacated the FCC's the opt-in approach for a carrier to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI.

In other words, FCC said it must be opt-in, and the appeals court said NO.

So bitch at the Tenth Circuit judges, not at FCC.

IP Phones++

[shlomo]

So It seems there is another incentive to roll out the IP phones. especially with the advent of more high speed lines.

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[Anonymous Coward]

Indiana has one of these "no call" lists -- unfortunately, most charities, insurance companies, banks, utilities (including the telephone company and its affiliates) are exempt...

call this number to opt-out of Verizon

[fist_187]

call 1-866-483-3385

the recording goes through the legal details of it, but basically all you need is your account number (upper right of your phone bill) to opt out. and (if for some reason you want to), you have the choice of opting back in.

enjoy.

Re:call this number to opt-out of Verizon

[ptbarnett]

I get "call cannot be completed as dialed".

Beat the Bells at their own Game...

[toupsie]

The solution to this problem is to call your local telephone company once an hour and tie up their employees by asking why they are violating your privacy. When you don't get a satisfactory answer (because there isn't one), ask to speak to someone higher in the corporate food chain. Climb as high as you can go before you are thrown into voice mail hell.

Write down the names of people you speak with (first and last names) and share them with your friends or post them in your "Blog" with the encouragement to do as you have. Since they are working for a public company and answering the phones as a representative of a public company, they should have no expectation of privacy (snicker, snicker). Check your state laws on one party telephone recording laws and if legal, start recording your calls and post them on the web. And always remember, nothing pisses someone off more than someone else calming asking a question, over and over and over. You will get a few zingers from the "Bell" employee after a while. Great stuff for the web!

This method would be effective because, 1) you will cause the "Bell" to waste "human resources" with people calling about the same problem that cannot be satisfied by any answer besides "We are ending this practise", 2) publicly announcing the names of people that are a part of practise will bring about public scorn and 3) if you start bothering the higher level supervisors with your complaints, it will begin to interrupt their time at work doing "important work" such as surfing pr0n, playing solitaire, etc. In my experience with corporations, once you start disrupting the ability of high level management to waste time, things change.

Re:Beat the Bells at their own Game...

[symbolic]

Something else - some of the bigger companies offer lots of service options. If you have some of them (some you can do without), cancel them. They get real defensive when you cancel services, especially since it affects their bottom line. Or call about subscribing to some of them, but mention that you're not sure you want to because of their privacy policy.

Capitalism...

[dpilot]

>I used to really believe in total free-market capitalism

I suspect you and a lot of others are missing the point here, though you've eventually come to the right conclusion.

People are not capitalists, the collective is. Capitalism is not based on people believing in it, it's based on people being greedy. Government oversight is *necessary at the theoretical level* for capitalism because the participants need not believe in it, and the most successful participants generally don't. Pretty much every successful business' goal is to corner the market and sit back collecting money. No business has as its long-term goal to engage in continuous cutthroat competition with its peers. No business has as its long-term goal to reduce prices and improve value for the customers. Those are not long-term goals, those are necessary means to the real long-term goal - making money.

Nothing wrong with this. Capitalism simply recognizes that greed is an effective motivator. But it requires recognition that an outside regulating force is necessary in order to prevent the end Marx predicted.

Unfortunately in the past decade or so, people have come to worship the free market without realizing its inherent instability, and have worked to remove the external corrective forces.

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[Croaker]

I would hate to think of the that anytime you purchase a good or service, that your personal information will be sold to spam houses.

Basically, that's the case for anythin these days. I subscribed to the Consumer Reports website a few months ago. I actualyl bothered to check the privacy policy, and they stated they wouldn;t reveal any personal information. While subscribing they said "Hey, special offer, get our magazine at a reduced rate." I figured, which not, and checked that off as well.

Well, it turns out that Consumer Reports decided, privacy policy or no privacy policy, that subscribing to their print magazine meant I had opted in to getting all sorts of junk mail. I know it's from them, since I always use a different middle initial when subscribing to anything, to track who is selling what. Just a few weeks after signing up, the junk mail started flowing in. I called them on the fact that they are violating their own prvacy policy by handing out information I gave to their web site to third parties. They haven't bothered getting back to me on it.

If the supposedly pro-consumer Consumer Reports can't be trusted with personal data these days, who can? I don't subscribe to any magazines now, since they'll sell your name off in a split second. My college is selling my name to every educational insitution under the sun (even beauty schools for christ's sake!). My long distance company has sold my name to a bunch of other organizations. I just hand out the bare minimum of information these days, and lie when I feel they do not have the right to demand certain information. Up until recently, I've managed to avoid most junk mail and telemarketer lists, but I have a sinking feeling that once information leaks out, it's just going to spread like oil on water.

I'm tired of being marketed to. I'm not a good little consumer. I'm not a demographic. Leave me the fuck alone.

Re:Opt out... Completely

[anthony_dipierro]

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

How do I opt-out?

[dpilot]

Doesn't say in the article, haven't had time to wade through the PDF. Other comments have mentioned opt-out, but nothing concrete on how to do so.

Simple question, whoever gives a good, simple reply deserves to be mod'ed up.

Re:How do I opt-out?

[Nintendork]

To opt out, wait until a notice is sent from your local carrier. It will probably be sent with a bill (Look through the crap that comes with your bill). That notice will give instructions. There's no national 800 number or anything like that. If you're lucky, your carrier will decide to not use the opt-out method and you won't have to do a thing. As an example, someone previously posted a URL to Qwest, showing that they're not going to do the opt-out method.

Not Surprised

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Why is anybody surprised? This is all part of eliminating the over-regulation of business the Republicans have been talking about. Here are a couple of quotes from Texas GOP:

â¦high taxes, runaway government spending, and over-regulation of business and farming punish initiative and stifle economic growth.

FCC is only following the court's decision

[MagPulse]

The FCC fought hard against US West to keep them from giving out CPNI (individually identifiable call information). It first issued an order saying CPNI is the consumer's property, and should not be given away without consent.

US West then appealed to the 10th circuit court of appeals, where it overturned the FCC's order. The reason? The FCC didn't consider US West's right to "corporate speech".

US West argues the first amendment on two points. First, that it prevents it from speaking to its own customers:

US West contends the CPNI Order "violates the First Amendment by requiring that carriers secure prior affirmative consents from customers before using individually-identifiable customer information to speak with their customers on an individualized basis about services beyond the 'categories' of telecommunications services to which they currently subscribe." US West's Opening Brief at 22. In other words, US West suggests the CPNI Order unduly limits its ability to engage in commercial speech with its existing customers regarding new products and services it may offer.

and then more seriously, from the ability to "share and use CPNI internally". I'm pretty sure sharing here means with other companies...

US West also claims the CPNI Order "restricts the ability of carriers to share and use CPNI internally to have different divisions, affiliates, and personnel within the same carrier communicate information to each other (i.e., to speak to each other), absent a prior affirmative consent from the customer."

since a few paragraphs up, it is mentioned in an example clarifying the Telcom Act of 1996:

For example, petitioner could use CPNI obtained through the provision of local service to market other local service products, but not cellular services. Moreover, if the customer subscribes to both local and long-distance services, petitioner could use the CPNI to market either service and could exchange the CPNI between affiliates that provide such services, but petitioner could still not use the CPNI to market cellular services.

And the court agrees:

We vacate the FCC's CPNI Order, concluding that the FCC failed to adequately consider the constitutional ramifications of the regulations interpreting 222 and that the regulations violate the First Amendment.

Re:FCC is only following the court's decision

[Devistater]

All very good points. However, the FCC has the stuff for VERY easy access on thier webpage (2nd item down on main page), and its an easy place to go to. Plus the the press release makes it clear exactly what will happen (phone companies marketing your information to 3rd party agent who are "communications related"). I think more people will be able to identify with a FCC ruling than a court decision. When I submitted the story I thought the FCC was at fault, but after reading the press release better and seeing the section about the court decision, I realize its not thier fault. Still though, its good place to get info. And contacting the court isn't going to do anything unless tons of people contact them. Otherwise the only thing left is to contact senators and congressmen and have THEM do something about it.

Re:Hello Mr Smith (ot)

[two-bookoo!]

You married her- YOU decided to propose, went through with it, now you live with her (I am assuming).

If you are not happy, it is YOUR responsibility to get out, NOT to cheet, and be an a-hole.

If I were her, I would leave you for that comment-obviously you've never met my wife.

Move to Colorado

[Anonymous Coward]

A law was passed outlawing calls from telemarketers other than those that you already have a business relation with.

Hit 'em where it hurts

[climber]

Aside from complaining to the FCC (kudos to sub4hleet for this,) you should write your congressional reps. Here's how to find them:

US House of Representatives

US Senate

Here's some free (as in freedom) sample text for a letter:

Dear Hon. [Senator or Rep Name],

I'm writing in regards to a recent FCC ruling concerning the privacy of your telephone conversations, as well as those of your staff and your constituents. The ruling is profiled in an article in PCWorld Magazine, which is available at this Web site:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,102743,0 0.asp

The key points of the ruling are summarized in the opening paragraphs of the article:

"Phone companies now can share a consumer's private information with certain affiliates without first getting that customer's consent, a new Federal Communications Commission ruling says. Details of who customers call, when they call, and how long they talk may be shared with communications-related corporate affiliates, the ruling says. Customers can choose to keep such information private, but must initiate the request. The carrier does not have to ask permission."

I believe this ruling represents an egregious threat to my privacy, as well as the privacy of all Americans. As such, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to use the powers of your office promptly and vigorously to persuade the FCC to reverse this ruling, or (at a minimum) alter it such that it is an "Opt In" style program (in which consumers must explicitly give permission to the phone company to share this data.)

Thank you for your attention. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of you and your staff on behalf of all [Your State] - Keep up the great work!

Your Sincere Constituent,

[Your name AND address - Include your four-digit zip code extension!]

Note that you'll have to use Web-based forms to contact these folks - They like to make sure you're one of their constituents before they read your mail.

AT&T (long distance)

[bugpit]

AT&T rpts that their "do not call" list already includes their affiliates. They also have a "do not send" (snail mail) list, I was warned that if I chose that I would not recieve info on new offerings from AT&T (oh no!). They currently cannot opt you out for affliates only; it takes 7 to 10 days to process the request.

Also, getting past the automated attendants to a person that can help you with your request isn't straight-forward. I called the Consumer Service number (800) 222-0300 and had to select 2 for Sales Assistance to get to a human (who then transferred me to the right place).

--------

Just buy an answering machine

[gelfling]

Or buy voicemail from the telco and let them store spam for you.

Frankly I don't care about spam that much. What worries me is that now COMPANIES HAVE MORE FREEDOM TO KNOW ABOUT ME THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES. They need a warrant but a company needs is a check.

Extortion

[anthony_dipierro]

Extortion is already illegal. I thought we wanted to ban the act, and not the tool.

FCC contact no. (202)418-1580 (Morissey Greene)

[GringoGoiano]

I just got a contact/complaint number for this issue at the FCC -- haven't tried it yet, but try it (202)418-1580 (Mr./Ms.(?) Morissey Greene).

Re:FCC contact no. (202)418-1580 (Morissey Greene)

[Devistater]

Its at the bottom of the press release, check the link to it on the story :) "Wireline Competition Bureau Staff Contact:Marcy Greene"

Re:Opt out... Completely

[Hoi Polloi]

Wait until they add gps to cell phones.

Government a problem? Try the private sector!

[philologist]

<rant>

A lot of the posts here express worry about the government using this information. This is probably typical American distrust of the government, a point of view that is revindicated every few months. What Americans should really be worrying about is this information in the hands of the private sector, where corporate loopholes and further lobbying by the telecommunications industry will certainly allow this information to be distributed even farther.

In the US, the people are supposed to control the government. If we don't like someone, we can vote them out of office. A corporation, however, exists as long as it is profitable--sometimes even longer. Imagine the profit to be gained first from selling information about our telephone communcations, then from compiling, classifying, and organizing that information in ways that allow you to track individual customers' behavior.

Private corporations have no responsibility to the public apart from the regulations imposed on them by the government. This fact underscores the vacuousness of arguments stating that if you want change in how corporations work, you need to do that inside a corporation. All the talk about ``corporate citizenship'' and ``corporate responsiblity'' disguises the fact that a corporation is an amoral entity; it will do whatever is necessary to make a profit.

Telephone communications corporations stand to profit from the sale of personal and private information, other corporations such as telemarketers and perhaps new industries will profit from its compilation, classification, organization, and distribution. There is now little to stop a telephone company from creating an affiliate for exactly this purpose.

The government is supposed to protect us from corporate misconduct, but our federal government is being run by people who owe their political existence to corporate America. The people still have the ability to empower themselves, but it takes so much time to make your voice heard through all the layers of government between us and them that many people's outrage will just turn into passive dissatisfaction. This growing sense of weakness in the face of the overpowering force of special (corporate) interests is the root cause of voter apathy in the US. We know there are problems, but we feel powerless to change anything.

</rant>

Even the dead can't escape it

[Hoi Polloi]

If you think that is bad check this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/computergames/story/0, 11 500,667942,00.html

Re:Hello Mr Smith (ot)

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Oblivious

Re:Opt out... Completely

[anthony_dipierro]

Huh? How does that make a difference?

Michael Powell's Phone Number

[lupine]

202-418-1000

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[idfrsr]

Oh, I just realized that I didn't leave you my forwarding address.

Please send all that mail to:

Mr. I.M. Asucker c\o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

Companies as individuals

[Hoi Polloi]

I wish they'd overthrow the 1800's Supreme Court ruling that said that corporations had "rights" as if they were real people. They aren't people they are entities.

Opting out from your phone company will not work

[Marrow]

You also have to get everyone who calls you
to Opt-out as well. Obviously you can't.

What you can do is tell your cell phone
company that you do not want your information
sold and do not want SPAM to come to you
over their network. I dont think cell phone
companies have to obey public access rules.
They are private companies that can choose
the traffic they want to carry. Let them
know that you will stay with them if they
keep your information private and the spammers
out.

Qwest tried this last year in Arizona...

[Newer Guy]

They have this tiny 'newsletter' (4 pages printed on 1/2 sheet of 8x11 paper) they send with the phone bill. Most people just throw it away. One month it mentioned that they were planning to market data to 'affiliates'...and how to call an 800 number to opt out. To make a long story short, the TV stations and Newspapers got hold of it and the next thing you know Qwest is delaying its implementation and putting out BIG ads on how to opt out. They even allowed you to opt out via the web, because the 800 number was being overloaded with too many calls. I actually got through on the 800 number and the woman there tried to talk me out of opting out! So many people opted out that Qwest gave up the whole plan. Problem is is that the opt out is only good for a year so next year...... well you get the picture.

Ameritech telephone subscribers

[Anonymous Coward]

According to their privacy statement, "Customers can call 800-303-7260 at any time if they chose[sic] to restrict their account information."

Re: Sort of correct.....

[King_TJ]

I'm not disagreeing with you that the "free market" doesn't exist in the United States (or anyplace else on earth at this time).

I do, however, think your conclusions are incorrect. The idea that "the market naturally trends towards consolidation" is really only an untested theory, and I suspect it's not true.

We have no way of knowing if the market will really trend towards consolidation if you take away all the governmnet interference that's currently worked into the system.

I believe much consolidation we see today is motivated primarily by the corrupt political system we've got in place. (EG. A corporate giant can finally achieve "critical mass" to escape high taxes. Look at Microsoft or Cisco, both of whom didn't pay a dime in federal taxes a year or two ago. They were able to generate enough tax breaks and write-offs to pull it off. This just doesn't happen with smaller businesses.)

In a truly "free market economy", I don't think companies would generally see an advantage to large mergers. It causes far too many complications. (You take on a whole slew of employees that largely duplicate the tasks performed by your original staff. You suddenly obtain a product line that you may or may not really know what to do with. You gain all of the property and inherent costs of it, yet it's likely more square footage than you need after you eliminate duplicate jobs and products.)

One solution to excessive advertising

[Hoi Polloi]

Put a tax on the methods of delivery. Advertising is covered by the 1st admendment (too a point) but the Constitution doesn't say it can't be taxed. Tax the tv ads, the posters, the billboards, etc. If that is impractical then eliminate the cost of advertising as a business expense that can be claimed.

You can protect the little guy with a cut off for advertising costs that isn't taxed.

Re:One solution to excessive advertising

[ejasons]

Well, as the Supreme Court judged soon after our country was founded ("US vs. the state of Maryland", if I recall correctly), "the power to tax is the power to destroy".

Imagine that the government imposed a tax (outrageous or not) on every news story that was published. This would be rightly ruled as a violation of the First Amendment (though with this court, who knows if they would make the same judgement...).

Re:One solution to excessive advertising

[sbeitzel]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -- John Marshall

In the U.S., we have a long legal precedent that if something is protected under the Constitution, then it's not taxable. This is why churches aren't taxable.

Dear fellow Canadian

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish that I could share your (implied) optimism on this subject, but I do not. While our government is generally a little behind the curve on adopting policies that are in big business' interests rather than those of the citizens, they have shown time and again that they will and do cave to business.

One needs look no farther than our own CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) to see that this is the case. The CRTC, a taxpayer funded sham, was originally set up to ostensibly monitor and regulate Canadian broadcasters, telcos, cable co's etc. in the interests of the people (and our 'culture'), but is in practice yet another shill of the same big business interests. Thus, for example, we have an effective cable tri-opoly. Basically, three cable co's have divided our geography and agreed not to step on each other's toes. Those cable co's merely need to 'apply' to the CRTC for rubber stamping of rate increases and other plots designed to relieve the consumers of their money. Nine times out of ten, they will be approved.

By the way, you should be aware that Rogers, the biggest Canadian cable co and also an ISP and also a telco and also a media conglomerate and also... (the epitome of a big business Borg in Canada), has applied under some obscure section of the cable regulations to be relieved of the CRTC's weak overseeing of its cable business and rates.

Look at the evils of NAFTA and the follow-up FTA, which were designed under the direction of big business to give (often foreign) business more power in our courts than our citizens and government. The damage was done in NAFTA by the insertion of the phrase "tantamount to expropriation". This was inserted intentionally as trump card for business. It is thanks to those 3 words, for example that Canadian gasoline includes the chemical additive MMT (an "insidious neurotoxin") which is not used in the US and banned by state law in California. Yet due to NAFTA, we absorb this stuff every day. When our own government passed legislation to ban MMT in the interests of Canadian health, the American firm Ethyl Corporation sued (under the aforementioned clause) for enormous damages. The Canadian government capitulated by repealing the ban. There are numerous examples of the evils of NAFTA and those 3 words. Not all are cases of Canadians being victimized by American big business (Mexico has also been similarly harmed by American business). The foregoing should not be construed as an anti-American rant, for it is not. They are also cases of Americans being harmed (although mostly financially, rather than in terms of health) by Canadian business exercising the same clause. This demonstrates that our rights have been and will continue to be subjugated to the interests of big business. For his advocacy and non-stop pushing of NAFTA alone, (ex Prime Minister) Brian Mulroney must be vilified as the worst thing that ever happened to Canada.

I, too, am "proud to be Canadian", but find little solace resting on the phrase when it comes to protection of the Canadian public's interests. In Canada, as elsewhere, big business has proven time and again that money, power, influence and lobbying will win the day. Please be vigilant and do not simply assume that government acts in your interest . Canadian rights to privacy and other protections have also been and continue to be eroded significantly.

Re:Not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

No; France would just surrender.

Qwest customers: You're already opted-OUT

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

If your local telco is Qwest communications (the baby bell formerly known as U S WEST) then you are already opted-out, at least for now. Quoting from their site at: http://www.qwest.com/cpni/

Qwest has withdrawn the plans it announced in the December, 2001 bill insert to share private customer account information among its different businesses. This information is referred to by federal statute as Customer Proprietary Network Information or CPNI. Qwest will not sell or disclose CPNI, except as required by law, to people authorized to offer or help customers get Qwest services, to prevent the unlawful use of services, or if the company sells that part of its business. No further action is required on your part. Thank you.

For what it's worth, I don't work for Qwest, I don't particularly like nor trust Qwest, but that URL was where they used to accept opt-out requests. I just found that notice today when I started to compose this posting.

It's not about spam calls, it's about your future

[Reziac]

The people who are whining about how this will increase junk phone calls just don't get it. WHO you call can impact your life a helluva lot worse than that.

Let's say you call the local AIDS hotline to ask 'em a few questions. You become interested in the topic and call back several times.

Fast-forward a few months or years...

Your health insurance company buys a phonecall database. Lo and behold, there's your calls to the local AIDS hotline. Your health insurance company cancels your coverage (and blacklists you so you can't get health insurance anywhere) because it's obvious to them that you must have AIDS (why else would you call an AIDS hotline?) therefore you are a bad insurance risk.

Or...

Let's say you're an MD. You occasionally call a friend who works as a receptionist at the local abortion clinic, just to chat.

Months later...

A radical anti-abortion group buys a 3rdhand phonecall database. Egads, here's a doctor who dares to be in contact with an abortion clinic! Shortly thereafter, you are shot and killed as you leave your home to drive to work.

Actually you are wrong also

[Anonymous Coward]

The police do NOT need a warrant to look at your phone records after the fact. If they want to see who you are calling in real time or listen to the call they do however.

and this is news?

[abolith]

everyone knows that big companies own the FCC, FTC, SEC, US gov, and all the other xxC's. it 's just a matter of time before everyone on labed a "consummer"or a "taxpayer" and not a citizen...wait a second......Damnit!

Correction to my post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please allow me to correct a typo in my post, lest it be mis-construed as flamebait.

When I wrote "They are also cases of Americans being harmed" I meant to write "There are also cases of Americans being harmed"

Sorry! Please put down your torches.

Opt-out is possible, but a pain

[Animats]

Call your telco and tell them that you want to opt-out of all CPNI information distribution. They hate that, but they have to do it.

You probably missed the obscure small print in your phone bill a few months ago telling you how to do this.

Anonymous Redialer?

[TheCrayfish]

So now it sounds like we need a network of anonymous redialers that make phone calls over (or at least involving) the Internet, so I can dial into the redialer network, enter the actual phone number I want to call, and get connected in a manner which is impossible or difficult to trace. Phone company records sold to third parties would simply show that I called the redialer network a number of times. Independent records not associated with me would show that the redialer network called my mother or my friends several times.

Opt out number for SBC Ameritech.

[Jesse Becker]

SBC Ameritech has an automated system for opting out: 800-303-7260.

I found this from Ameritech's page titled "SBC Ameritech Cares About Its Customers' Privacy" . The link is here: http://www.ameritech.com/content/0,3086,23,00.html

Thats why we have a NO Call list here

[nurb432]

Sort of a global opt-out list.

At least till its struck down as violating
'free speech' of those damned telemarketing compaines...

At least that's their excuse for suing to get it declared unconstitutional...

You realize...

[MemeRot]

That I'm talking about events like when GM knew beforehand that a car of theirs was very vulnerable to fiery explosion, and yet calculated that it would be cheaper to settle the lawsuits than the fix the problem in the design, and went ahead and callously killed many people. When I kill that many people, I'm labelled a serial killer and locked in jail for life. When a corporation does that.... nothing happens: nobody goes to jail and the corporation continues on its merry way. That's wrong. When you indicate by your actions that you cannot be trusted to live in society, society has a right and an obligation to make sure you can't hurt anybody else. Currently corporations do the shit they do because they have nothing to fear in reprisals. Arthur Andersen deserves to be abolished as a company and have it's executives tried in court - and those who lose their jobs will maybe be more forceful at their next job insisting that the company obey the law.

Re:You realize...

[NDPTAL85]

Yeah right. Individual employees who need jobs to feed themselves and their families will walk into interviews DEMANDING that their prospective employers obey the law.

"Oh and by the way. Even though I'm one month away from having the bank forclose on my house and having my entire family thrown into poverty, I'm not going to take this job unless you provide me with evidence this corporation is complying with all local, state and international laws and treaties."

"HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. I'm sorrry, I did not mean to laugh in your face but you said you WANTED this job, not that you want us to throw you out on your ass. Oh this was a good interview. I'm glad I taped it. Now go before I have security try out their tazers on you!"

OR waste your RBOCs time...

[hope1ess]

I intend to spend atleast 10 minutes a day for the next couple of weeks, calling up Qwest's customer service lines, wasting some expensive operator time. And opting-out. Ideal would be for someone to come up with the telephone equivalent of a spider-trap, wherein a group of well meaning phreakers buys a block of phone numbers, sets up an automated voice-recognition system, and some eliza programs on the other end, and let the telemarketers spend hours trying to sell stuff to non-existant people.

Kevin Bacon

[MemeRot]

I always knew he was an enemy of the people :)

Re:Hello Mr Smith (ot)

[Anonymous Coward]

You're either a woman, or overly sensative with a milder (there's a better word, can't think right now) sense of humour. Or you completely missed the fact it was a joke.

I'm one to talk about sense of humour though... I make dead baby and pedophile jokes all the time.

Bzzt, wrong. Thank you for playing.

[Sean Clifford]

Bzzt, wrong. Thank you for playing.

Companies (or individuals) cannot fly in the face of my (or your) Constitutional rights. A company can't restrict my speech or search me without my consent. Yes, you can be limited to what you can and cannot do at work on company premises with company equipment. Yes, you can sign your rights away under certain conditions.

However, just because I work for Acme or am a customer of Acme doesn't mean that Acme can come rifle through my home or share my phone records without my consent.

Constitutional rights are protected regardless of whether the party is governmental or civilian. Companies and people can be (and are) busted for civil rights violations.

Against the Law

[Ashcrow]

It's against the law on some states. Florida, for instance, has a list that the state government has which states everyone who can not be bothered by telemarketing, sales calls, surveys, etc ...

While that might not apply to this type of data selling, don't forget that some states are 'Opt-In' states which force companies to have to get you to opt in.

STOP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Put down that phone. Don't contact anyone. Now think logically about this for a moment. Our representatives are people too. They fully understand that corps selling our private information by opt-in would be "an obvious and substantially less restrictive alternative" to opt-out. They just choose not to acknowledge our rights, our privacy or our freedom. Don't waste your time contacting your reps. Let them sells your private info. Let them sell anything that will make them and their business partners rich. In 5 or 10 years of this, if we let them get away with everything they want, they'll take measure to destroy what every American used to value. Our constitutional protection. Then it will be time to act. Acting now only slows down the inevitable. Besides you're the only one who cares about this anyway, just ask your parents. ;)

BULLSHIT!

[Max Threshold]

You can CHOOSE not to use it.

BULLSHIT. Consumers hardly have any choice anymore. Honesty doesn't pay, and the minute you find someone honest to deal with they get bought out by the big guys.

I stopped paying my phone bill two months ago, and BellSouth isn't seeing a penny of it, ever. How's that for a choice?

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[rnturn]

``They haven't bothered getting back to me on it.''

Heck, like that's a surprise.

``I'm tired of being marketed to. I'm not a good little consumer. I'm not a demographic. Leave me the fuck alone.''

I'd say that everyone agrees with you on these. Except that the DMA believes that you are a demographic and that what you think about isn't important.

Everyone raise your hands if you'd like to see these clowns from the DMA actually produce a roomful of people who will swear under oath that they want telemarketers calling them. I keep hearing these guys say that these people exist. It's time to start proving it. But, what I expect we'll hear is that those people have a right to privacy.

And thanks for the tip on Consumer Reports. Guess I'll still be making the trip to the public library to do my product research.

Re: Sort of correct.....

[MrResistor]

Any market affected by capitalism will tend toward consolidation, for the simple reason that competition is not profitable. The goal of capitalism is to amass capital, and the amount of capital that can be amassed is largely limited by ones competition. Thus, eliminating ones competition, even through a merger, will ultimately by more profitable than than to maintain a competitive market.

To put it bluntly: the goal of capitalism is monopoly.

I don't think capitalism is evil, but it's important to realize that capitalism and the free market (and democracy, but that's not our topic)are almost completely seperate concepts, a fact which has been sadly obfuscated by political and corporate rhetoric since the industrial revolution, and will only become more so as media continues to consolidate under a few big corporations.

correction!!!

[fist_187]

1-866-483-3885

For NYS Residents there is this option

[fogbreath]

https://www.nynocall.com/index.html And register with the nocalls list and the CPB

I don't like it either, BUT...

[waylander]

Keep the facts straight.

Maybe I'm off my rocker, but the OPT-OUT rule is for affiliates, which would seem to me to be companies under the same umbrella. (ie, ameritech phone CAN sell info to ameritech dsl or to ameritech business or ameritech voicemail or ameritech widgetwaggers)

OPT-IN covers sharing your data with other 3rd party companies. They can't sell your info to other companies without your express permission.

I don't like it either, myself. But joe schmoe (or the law enforcement, or any other group) cannot obtain your records by just "buying" them.

I guess a lot depends on the definition of "affiliate".

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to the Republican party for getting the government out of our lives so the corps can have a chance at us.

Ever feel as if you've been had?

Additional information and research

[Devistater]

I just wanted to post some further information about this, after I submitted the story to slashdot, I wanted to do some more research.

First, some quotes from the press release from FCC (I'm going to try and look up the full detail of the ruling, so far I'm having trouble finding it. I called FCC and asked about the ruling, and they can't find FCC-02-214 document thats mentioned at the bottom of the press release, strange, they claim it hasn't been uploaded to thier document managing system yet). Gonna stop in at the library and see if I can find it in the federal register.

"Opt-Out- Use of CPNI by carriers or disclosure to their affiliated entities providing communications-related services, as well as third-party agents and joint venture partners provided providing communications-related services, requires a customers' knowing consent in the form of notice and opt-out approval. Carriers have the choice to use either opt-in or opt-out in this context."

Emphasis added
Out of all the "big news" web sites, the only one that even has a small story is msnbc.

Re:Additional information and research

[Devistater]

Oh also, when I called up FCC I asked them what "communications-related" meant. At first she said something about cell phone companies, wireless, etc. Then I asked her how about radio shack, they sell phones. She said yeah, that could be one. Does this mean if I buy a used phone at a garage sale and offer it for sale on ebay, that I'm now in a communications related business? Heck, anyone could be "communications" related. Isn't TV a communications medium? How about people who advertise on it? Are they "communications" related?

This number works....

[PrimeNumber]

I spoke with his high Chairman himself.

I politely let him know that I considered this a bad policy.

After briefly speaking, he politely informed me he was transfering my call to the FCC public comment line. Oh well.

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[Devistater]

There is a federal law about this. If you log the information about who they are and what company and the time they called, etc, you can get them for up to $500 paid to YOU for each time they call you after you say put me on your do not call list. They are allowed one or two "mistake" calls though. There's a neat little program that allows you to keep a log of this stuff and at the same time shows the appropriate laws to quote to demand the information from the caller like who he's calling from. I haven't used it very much yet, since I dont get many telemarketers calling but I plan to, if I'm near a computer when they call that is :)

The land of the fucked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we continue to elect the scum that allows this to happen? Do we have no choice? If we don't have a choice, we have an obligation to beat these bastards into the ground by whatever means necessary.

At least that's what they tought us in grade school civics. No taxation without representation. One dissenting voice on this issue just doesn't cut it.

I'm an American, Senior Presidente, what are you?

Heard of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

[Jon Howard]

It basically does the same thing for "financial institutions" - eveything from your bank to your insurance company. At some stretch, Safeway could even count.

Here's a bit of background to start your research with.

I wish this kind of thing was more publically known.

Replace "have" with "had" for future use...

[Jon Howard]

;)

Who's surprised?

[Devil]

Chairman of the FCC Mike Powell has said in interviews that he'll let companies do just about whatever they want. I think we need to start a grassroots campaign to get him ousted from his position, since he obviously cares neither about consumers nor their privacy. As far as Mr Powell is concerned, anything and everything is up for sale.

Hey, I know what we should do! When the phone usage goes up for sale, let's all chip in and buy his phone usage stats and publish them on the Web!

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[rnturn]

``the registry is published and all non-exempt telemarketers must *not* call you if you appear in the registry under penalty of law''

But there are problems. First is getting them to listen to you at all. On many occasion, once I begin asking them to not call me any more and to place my number on the do not call list, they hang up. Second, how do I know who it is that's violating the do-not-call listing anyway? I now have to have to buy caller-id service in order to identify telemarketers who are in violation of the laws.

We currently pay a fee to have an unpublished number and it has helped enormously in cutting down the telemarketer calls. I suspect that this ruling will make that protection less effective. Even now we still get a call or two a month (heck, before we got the unpublished number we sometimes got a half dozen between 6:00 and 9:00).

Move to Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not like companies taking your private information and using/giving it to whomever they like? Move to Canada where we pass laws against things like that.

PIPEDA

A few things Canadians are protected from

• Phone companies(or any corporation as of Jan 1 2004) are not be able to give any information, let alone on who you call, to affililiates with out your explicit and informed consent.
• They are restricted from utilizing your information (beyond that which you would find on a business card) for any purpose internally for which they do not have express written consent from you.
• If they provide information to a third party then they are legally liable (criminal and unspecified civil damages) if that company misuses your information.
• You may request at any time, and they have 30 days, to provide you with all of the information that they have about you.
• If the reason they have your information every ends (ie you leave them as a cusomter) they must destroy or anonymize that information.
• To prevent a company wiggling out of this by claiming you have to give up said information rights to get said service, well that is explicitly prohibited.

Companies who do not comply with PIPEDA face stiff criminal and civil consequences, and the privacy commisioner, at his discretion, may publish any and all information about a companies internal privacy policies. This last part is in fact designed to embarass a company publicly, something corporations definitely do not want.

Bascially to fail to live up to your obligations under the legislation you will be charged, humiliates and potentially loose a ton of money

Case in point, already a bank had to pay $1000 to a woman because they mistakenly printed the word "bankrupt" in her address field on her bank statement. Imagine if they had done that to 10,000 customers by mistake? Also keep in mind that was a mistake, imagine what will happen if they do something on purpose?

So if you are concerned about your privacy you can do one of two things.

1. Move to Canada
2. Lobby your government to take the power over your information out of the hands of greedy self-serving corporations and put it where it belongs, in your hands

Lowered expectations of privacy, eh?

[juju2112]

Or even, better, give him a ring at:

U S Government Of, Federal Communications Commission
Michael K Powell
(202) 418-2200

Re:Lowered expectations of privacy, eh?

[juju2112]

Fax: 202-418-2812

If you're in the neighborhood, feel free to drop by:

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, S.W., Room 8-B115H

Washington, DC 20554

Cross Marketing

[Herkum01]

About 6 years ago, banks wanted to get into the unsurance business, insurance wanted to get into banking, Credit Card companies wanted to do everything too. Everyone wanted to share your information with each other hoping that there was some magical gold mine that someone else missed or forgot.

Now that they bottom dropped out of the market, and everyone lost money it only proves that

1. That those who specialize in an industry with competition knew what they were doing. Banks that would somehow know more about insurance than insurance companies in a highly competitive industry were just foolish.
2. More information does not make for a more informed decision. Companies are still selling themselves on the concept of data mining, that they hidden nugget is just under a layer of dirt.

The market will always go up. I think that the market has changed that theory.

Companies can scale easily. How many large companies have been able to continue growing wildly and improve profit margins? The answer is very few. The ones that continue to grow are the ones that invested in themselves, instead of buying another company.

Ok, back to my point, the phone companies want to sell this information hoping that it will be that hidden gold nugget. This is after slamming, hiding over charges, and generally trying to screw the customer. These are companies that are struggling to survive, they need to learn to focus on the fundementals instead of trying these quick buck scams.,/p>

Re:Bzzt, wrong. Thank you for playing.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Uh... name one.

If employees of Acme came into your house and went through your shazz, those employees would go to prison for breaking and entering. Not for violations of the constitution. You are exactly wrong. Name a single occurence where a completely private entity was limited in it's behavior by the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments. You can't think of one because it's never happened.

There are laws required by other portions of the constitution, for example, the illegalization of slavery. If you tried to hold a slave, the reason you would go to prison would be a state law passed by your local legislature regarding unlawful detainment, or the feds regarding kidnapping. The constitution would not be directly involved in your trial.

There are occurences of semi-private entities being limited, I know, but that's only when they're taking federal/state dollars. Man, if you were trolling, you got me hook, line, and sinker.

Just once..

[Inoshiro]

I'd like to see a story where the government serves people, rather than failing to serve as a proper mediator and regulator of business.

However, like man bites dog, I doubt I'll see it often or at all.

Send Mail to Commisioner Powell

[L0neW0lf]

Here's a link to send mail to the FCC Commissioner, and (politely) tell him what you think of this ruling. http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_email. html Also inform him that you shall be contacting elected officials regarding the matter.

Re:Just make it illegal for the "affiliates" to ca

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a state-published registry. *Every* business who calls anyone is obliged to reference this list, unless they know that they are among the exempt parties. This is not the same as adding yourself to a specific callers rather ineffective 'Do Not Call' list.

Basically, if they call you, you gather as much information as you can from them, including the company they are calling for (which they *must* tell you at the beginning of the conversation), fill out a complaint form and they get fined $2000 if they were in violation.

Getting on the NYS list is free, and from what I've heard, as well as from my own experience, it is very effective. Getting registered just involves punching your number into the state run website.

-Andrew

Related info for those in Missouri

[bay43270]

If you are on the no call list in missouri, companies can be fined for calling you (there are a couple of exceptions). You can sign up here: http://www.ago.state.mo.us/nocalllaw.htm

I've been pretty happy with it (although, I wish they would include charities).

Re: Those Damn Mortgage Companies!

[Guru2Newbie]

You're right. Two years ago we had a mortgage company who sold our address and phone number to every phone-spammer in North America, then three months later, sold our mortgage to another company. That was two years ago. We still get phone calls and junk mail referencing the original a**hole mortgage company (mortgage has been sold 6-8 times since then).

I'd give them a piece of my mind, but I don't think I can spare it.

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[Guru2Newbie]

I want an active, learning firewall for my phone!!! Oh, and if it could send a mega-shock to phone-spammers, even better.

Opt Out/USA (Direct Marketing Ass'n Phone Prefs)

[Guru2Newbie]

How to get your name off telemarketing lists "The Telephone Preference Service (TPS), a do-not-call service, is a service to assist those consumers in decreasing the number of national commercial calls received at home."

You can do it online or by mail. Sending it through the mail is mostly free (except for the paper, envelope, and stamp). Note that they charge $5 for the convenience of registering for the Telephone Preference Service online. Can you believe that??

Yeah, right--I don't want you jackasses to call me, but here's my credit card number and $5 so you don't do it again!

PrivateTime phone stops all telemarketing calls

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a new phone called PrivateTime http://www.command-comm.com/pt1000_brochure.html
That allows you to set a code from 1 to 4 digits before anyone can get through to actually make your phone ring. Anyone who doesn't know the code can get through, but only to leave messages on the answering machine which is included with the phone(16 minutes total time). You can also change the phone back to normal operation(no code to get through) with the push of a button. I'm going to buy one of these, then make up a 4 digit code and give it to all of the people that I want to be able to reach me. Anyone who doesn't have the code or is too lazy to remember it, can leave me a message.

That's it. I'll never get another telemarketing call or a wrong number again. At least I won't get one that makes my phone ring, they will be able to leave a message, but that's it.

I'm also going to put a message on the answering machine which says something like "Attention telemarketers this is your legal notice to place this number on your do not call list and hang up now. Any telemarketers who leave a message in violation of this notice will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law". It is already illegal for telemarketers to use machines to leave messages on your phone. The notice will just be for any live telemarketers who call me.

Did anyone read the actual FCC doc?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DOC-224366A1.pdf

It says pretty clearly:
---quote---
Opt-Out - Use of CPNI by carriers or disclosure
to their affiliated entities providing communications-related services, as well as third-party agents and joint venture partners providing communications-related services, requires a customers' knowing consent in the form of notice and opt-out approval. Carriers have the choice to use either opt-in or opt-out in this context.

Opt-In - Disclosure of CPNI to unrelated third parties or to carrier affiliates that do not provide communications-related services requires express customer consent, or opt-in approval.
---/quote---

An affiliated entity is one of their operating companies, not just anyone. For example, I live in BellSouth territory. Their affiliated companies are BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Tellecommunication, BellSouth Long Distance, etc. You have to Opt-In to have your info sold to a third-party, or ANY non-telecommunication firm. In other words, BellSouth still can't "sell" you information to it's affiliate, BellSouth Entertainment, since it doesn't supply communications-related services.

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[jafac]

Here is a check for $5000. By endorsing it you agree to open an account with us for that amount, with 27% interest. (this is a real one I got)

Those are illegal.

I recently collected a whopping $3.47 from a class-action suit against MBNA for sending out these checks. I remember getting one and tossing it in the shredder. But since I was on their list, I automagically qualified as a class member. God Bless class-action suits! It's not about the money. I can probably dig $3.47 out of my couch for spare change. It's about good and evil, right and wrong. (to quote Bush Sr. ;)

Re:I hope this doesn't become a precedent

[jafac]

What I don't get is, when I applied for a mortgage for my house, I suddenly started getting spam from people wanting me to refinance - not the company that gave me the mortgage in the first place. Why in fuck would the company who's got my business sell my info to a competitor? Just boggles my mind how mindlessly they do this stuff.

Re:WinWin-Win for the Bells

[len_harms]

if it rings during dinner do not answer it...

Bzzt! You're right and I'm *wrong*, wrong, wrong.

[Sean Clifford]

Elwood, I did a lot of searching, sure that I was right and...I'm wrong, dead wrong. The following excerpt is from a review of Constitutional Law from LexisNexis(TM), specifically the section on Due Process:

1. Protected against the government: First, practically all of the individual rights conferred by the Constitution upon individuals protect only against government action. They do not protect a person against acts by other private individuals. (Example: Suppose P is a woman who's two months pregnant, and none of the private hospitals in her state will perform an abortion. P's substantive due process right to an abortion has not been violated, because the government has not interfered with that right.)

There is a single exception, having to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which in the 1960's was siezed upon as the sole exception and - with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - forms the basis for civil rights lawsuits against private individuals and corporations.

However, I do believe that telcos that sell or otherwise share calling information does violate privacy and that we'll soon see this FCC ruling quashed. I certainly hope so anyway.

I wasn't trolling, I'm just your average opinionated jackass. :)

Re:Bzzt! You're right and I'm *wrong*, wrong, wron

[Elwood P Dowd]

Hehe... um, I'm glad you weren't trolling, but I think you're still a little wrong. The civil rights act is what allows civil rights lawsuits, and not any right prescribed by the constitution. The reason it's a constitutional issue is that the limitations placed on corporations and individuals by the civil rights act could be considered to violate the right of free association, etc. (That is, some people don't want to associate with members of certain races or religions.)

If I'm not mistaken, the way that the feds make the civil rights act constitutional is by calling it the regulation of interstate trade. My favorite thing about this little stretch is how angry it makes educated racists.

Re: Sort of correct.....

[King_TJ]

Your statement is often repeated, but I'm still not sure I agree with it.

I understand, of course, that the objective of capitalism is amassing capital - but competitors can be rendered irrelevant in many ways. It's not like merging with them through expensive corporate buy-outs is the only (or even most-efficient) way of dealing with them.

As I said before, I think mergers are attractive in the current economy, largely because government's taxes and interference tilts the balance in favor of it.

On a truly level playing field, I think you'd see some buyouts/mergers - but you'd also see spin-offs of new, smaller competitors. (To some extent, you see this now. Intel's CPU making competitor, AMD, seems to have been born from disgruntled Intel employees.)

A given company C.E.O. might always strive to become a monopoly - but it doesn't mean the market will naturally end up this way. Almost all successful monopolies we have today are preserved by government regulation. The ones that aren't don't seem to remain "on the top of the heap" for very long.

The old addage about "the bigger you are, the harder you fall" seems to hold true. At some point, you grow to a size where you can no longer effectively manage everything your corporation is doing. Sure, you try to spread things out - appointing more and more management to oversee small parts of the whole. But the initial vision of the founder gets lost in the murk - and sooner or later, someone comes along who can topple the "empire" with superior customer service/products/value.

So if you're a hit man, now you can call up the ..

[Anonymous Coward]

... 'phone company's data mining subsidiary and
buy the 'phone records of all the relatives of
that snitch witness, and your job just got
a lot easier.

Or if you are just out of jail with a little
savings, you can invest it in finding your ex,
so you can finish the beating that got you in
jail? Just buy her mother's 'phone records,
right? Moved, changed names, unlisted number?
Poof, cuts right through that stuff.

Privacy can be a matter of life and death. Ask
Jews about privacy in Germany in the late '30's.

A few sleazy bucks is not worth the compromise,
and politicos that allow this are sleaze balls.

Make telemarketers pay 900-charge credits to you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Set your rate. Announce it right away, and give them 10 seconds to agree or hang up. Get your congress persons to mandate this or else outlaw telemarketing.

That's my solution for telemarketing. Make them pay the costs at whatever rate you decide. Let them decide whether to buy.

But private info should not be for sale, period. There are too many sleazy tricks with small print opting you in as part of a totally unrelated deal. Like congressional bill riders. "If you continue to use your credit card after the first of next month, you are agreeing to ..."

And the notice is on a little slip in the middle of a bunch of useless coupons and a credit card protection offer which amounts to term insurance at double or triple market rate and guaranteed priority of payment to guess who. What a crock.

There used to be a thing called "good will" which was part of the value of a company. It represented an expectation of customer loyalty. Big business seems to think of it as mere icing on their short-term M&A plans these days. I think there's a huge undercurrent building of customer antipathy which will eventually be tapped by a savvy populist politician. It's only a matter of time.

So what is the FCC of HMOs and medical insurers?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the telcos get this license to rape our privacy, why won't the keepers of our medical records be right in line behind them? They don't know how to be satisfied with an honest buck either.

so what are you saying?

[MemeRot]

if your employer asks you to smuggle drugs or do a hit on a rival corporation exec, that you would just do it? maybe ask for a bonus?

Re:so what are you saying?

[NDPTAL85]

I would consider it an honor and a privelige should such a request be made to me.

you also realize....

[MemeRot]

That corporations, like everyone else, are required to obey the law. It's not an option. This is surely not enforced by police officers, so it can only be enforced by employees. I find your attitude that you think employees should aid and abet the criminal acts of their corporations to be morally repulsive. Companies can make money hand over fist while obeying the law. Our legal and commercial environment is tilted very heavily in favor of companies already. And when they break the law (Enron, WorldCom, Merck) they have an unfortunate tendency to go bankrupt (meaning the employees are tossed on their ass anyway) and also screw the shareholders who actually own the company. The execs running the company don't own the company any more than the manager of a Gap store owns that Gap store, and execs lying about corporate profits to drive up their stock options is no better than the Gap store manager just pocketing money from every other transaction - both are theft, and both ultimately fuck the company.

Haha

[amemily]

damn it's nice living with a cop. My number is unlisted because of that and if anyone gives it out without explicit permission faces the wrath of the State of Washington (yes they take those kind of things seriously).

No telemarketers calling, no military recruiters calling, nothing, nada, zip.

Who Owns Me?

[braingrease]

I'm going to copyright my identity. I'll own myself and all associated aspects of the Me. I will own my name as it relates to my SSN or other unique identification number, thus distinguishing Me from someone Like Me in name. Copyright protection of Me will include but is not limited to: contact information, purchasing history, telephone records, Internet habits, hobbies/special interests, shoe size and favorite shampoo and leave-in conditioner. Without limitation, I may not be used as a profit center other than that agreed to, whether express or implied, in the exchange of specific products and/or services with the providing merchant. I will not be used as a trademark or service mark, or to defame or defraud any person, or to violate any other Person's right of privacy or publicity, or to infringe upon any copyright, trade name, trademark, or service mark of any Person. Unauthorized use of Me constitutes copyright infringement and shall entitle Me to exercise all rights and remedies under applicable copyright law, including an injunction preventing further use and monetary damages against all users and beneficiaries of the use of Me. The foregoing is not a limiting statement of My rights or remedies in connection with any unauthorized use. And why not? We are now living in the Corporate Republic of America. The Government Corporation is chipping away at our liberty, our privacy, our very right to do and say and buy what we want without generating a report for someone's lateral file, all for the sake of increased revenue. I'm already paying for whatever product or service a vendor provides. But they get to profit from me AGAIN when they sell Me (my behavior or information) to the highest bidder. If this were real Capitalism, I'd be entitled to all profits from that sale. The sale of Me. Where will it stop?

rock on

[MemeRot]

that's pretty bad ass

an experiment: I tried try to opt out

[brre]

A simple experiment: I called PacBell (SBC) and ATT, my carriers, and tried to opt out. SBC: voice machines offered me more than a dozen choices of things to do, over the course of 4 minutes, none of which was "to opt out" or anything close to it. Eventually a human came on the line, who couldn't perform the service either and didn't know anyone who could. ATT: same outcome. ATT did claim they don't make calling data available to anyone -- but since now of course it's now legal for them to change their policy any time, I still wanted to opt out. They were unable to do this. I also tried their websites. SBC: search for "opt out" returns no hits. ATT: same outcome. So, I wonder how many telco lobbyists told how many regulators how many times: oh, but the customer can opt out any time if they don't like it.

"affiliates" so pretty, but an accurate term is...

[brre]

The art of coining and using terms to frame an issue in a way convenient to a particular interest is well known.

"Business affiliates" falls gently upon the ear. It's nice and vague, it suggests legitimate players of some sort, and it even carries a connotation of a longstanding, trusted relationship ("we're affiliated with the NASD"). It's not of course the most accurate term. The parties that this decision lets your phone company sell your calling data to could be just about anybody.

So what's a more accurate term?

A few possibilities:

other businesses

other companies

subcontractors

contractors

customers

henchmen

ilk

anyone

other pieces of the company

Any other suggestions?

-- Jon